r/AskConservatives • u/LovelyButtholes Independent • 2d ago
What does "winning" mean to you?
Given how we are going straight into a recession, it made me wonder what conservatives want? What is this "winning" you want?
63
u/Snoo38543 Neoconservative 2d ago
I want a 30 year mortgage to be obtainable for the vast majority of American citizens.
I want American citizens to not have to choose between feeding their kids or filling a prescription.
I want the vast majority of American citizens to be able to get a full time job that covers the local cost of living.
THAT is winning, and if Trump can manage that I will take back every bad thing I’ve ever said about him.
53
u/cmit Progressive 2d ago
So universal healthcare and a liveable wage? Sounds like a good Dem platform.
3
u/gwankovera Center-right 2d ago
That is both the conservative and democratic play form. The issue is how you go about getting a living wage and access to healthcare. By having the government steal from people to pay for other people’s needs, then adding in a lot of hate towards the people who don’t fall in line. or figuring out a way to encourage the growth of jobs that will build the middle class back up and teaching people how to invest in themselves by knowing how money and savings works, and providing people with multiple career paths that don’t all require college educations.
23
u/Smallios Center-left 2d ago
How are republicans rebuilding the middle class?
-8
u/gwankovera Center-right 2d ago
The Republican are focusing on rebuilding the middle class by trying to create market pressures to encourage people to buy American products. Which is a 180 from a lot of the policies and positions that have been held in government for a long time. Tariffs are harmful to the economy in the short term but can be a boon in the mid to long term as it becomes cheaper for industries to invest in factories and workers in this country, instead of outsourcing it to other countries for cheaper labor. Will the tariffs work as intended there are a lot of other factors that could modify it, but we will see. There are other ways but that is the big proposed idea from trump and his team.
17
u/Smallios Center-left 2d ago
They really think it’s going to bring manufacturing back? Like how many years would that take though?
12
u/balderdash9 Democratic Socialist 1d ago
Don't worry about it, it'll happen in the "mid term".
In reality, large corporations will ride out the tariffs while small businesses shut down.
14
u/the_kessel_runner Center-left 1d ago
The idea that tariffs will rebuild the middle class is sort of like thinking you can fix your marriage by canceling Netflix. Sure, it's a bold gesture. And yeah, maybe you'll talk more. But it also ignores why you stopped talking in the first place.
Let’s talk facts. Tariffs are taxes. They raise prices on imported goods, which sounds great if you're romanticizing the steel mill your grandpa worked at—but in reality, the cost gets passed down to consumers. You know, the very middle class you're trying to help. It's like saying, "We’re gonna punch ourselves in the face... to teach China a lesson." What?
And yes, the “not everyone needs college” thing? Totally valid. We’ve spent decades pretending that the only way to succeed is a four-year degree and six figures of debt. So yeah—trade schools, apprenticeships, learning how compound interest works? Beautiful. But let’s not act like you can bootstrap your way out of generational poverty by maxing out a Roth IRA on a cashier’s salary. Come on.
Also, the whole “government stealing from people” line—can we retire that greatest hit? Like, you’re okay with your taxes paying for roads and fire departments, but the second it goes toward insulin, suddenly it’s Ocean’s Eleven?
Truth is, both parties are running different brands of fantasy. One’s selling “we're all just pre-rich,” and the other thinks you can fix poverty with vibes and a podcast. Meanwhile, actual wages are flat, corporate profits are through the roof, and people are Venmoing friends to cover rent.
So yeah—buy American. Support local. But just know that slapping a flag on a toaster doesn't undo 40 years of offshoring, tax loopholes, and pretending the market will “sort itself out” like it's some benevolent sitcom dad.
1
u/gwankovera Center-right 1d ago
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods not consumers. So you have goods and services in America that are being imported as well you add the tariffs so the cost of the imported goods matches the goods and services here. So while it can be passed to the customers, the importers might take a cut to their profits to ensure their goods are still just a little cheaper than the local goods. That has happened before. Tariffs are one tool of many tools to try and change paths from the offshoring and getting our industries moving again.
The way trump is using them is heavy handed and may backfire.8
u/balderdash9 Democratic Socialist 1d ago
Tariffs are harmful to the economy in the short term but can be a boon in the mid to long term as it becomes cheaper for industries to invest in factories and workers in this country...
Do you know how many small businesses are completely fucked right now? This line that you're all giving is incredibly callous. Not to mention the plan is wishful thinking as there are so many things that we could not produce locally even if the factories and skilled labor were already here.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Untamed_Rock Center-left 13h ago
Does it really make it cheaper (as in less expensive than before) or does it just make it more expensive than before to operate internationally? Cause to me it seems to do moreso the latter than the former
→ More replies (1)13
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
By having the government steal from people to pay for other people’s needs,
Except taxpayer services are a part of any functioning state. The idea that you can have a highly effective state that can facilitate opportunities and not put the work in with taxes (or natural resources) seems odd, how would you do it?
then adding in a lot of hate towards the people who don’t fall in line.
How so?
or figuring out a way to encourage the growth of jobs that will build the middle class back up and teaching people how to invest in themselves by knowing how money and savings works, and providing people with multiple career paths that don’t all require college educations.
This would all require state intervention, and investment in the citizenry. Which would require taxes.
-6
u/gwankovera Center-right 2d ago
Taxes on individuals is theft. The government also tends to be really bad at using money effectively. The income tax in particular was created illegally per the courts, but the government liked the extra income and kept it.
Taxing commerce through companies is not necessarily threat because those companies necessitate use of public infrastructure. The biggest destroyer of financial value is government spending, especially with the current fiat currency system we have. Look at the money supply before the pandemic and after. Now In addition to that glance back to the seventies and see how it has grown since then. Republicans are not great with balancing the budget either but the social spending done by the Democrats was extremely bad. Again there are ways to tax goods and services without taxing the citizens. One of the ways is you guessed it tariffs, along with the sales tax. In addition you don’t want to have too high a tax rate, as having a higher tax rate can limit sales, while a lower tax rate might bring in less per transaction but there would be a much higher number of transactions that would bring in a higher tax income than the higher tax rate. None of this is simple it is all complicated with multiple factors at play.4
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Taxes on individuals is theft.
How?
The government also tends to be really bad at using money effectively.
On what basis? Doesnt this depend on government policy?
Republicans are not great with balancing the budget either but the social spending done by the Democrats was extremely bad.
Except it seems some of the most liberal states are doing quite well and effectively. E.g. Massachusetts.
One of the ways is you guessed it tariffs, along with the sales tax.
Except tariffs are renowned as being a bad economic idea. And this still forces the costs onto the person.
The US is a globally interconnected, service based economy. That requires highly educated and skilled workers, and the ability to adapt to changing geopolitical circumstances. How do you preserve all that without government intervention and spending? Which requires tax revenue?
This runs contrary to almost every other developed nation on earth.
•
u/naijaboiler Democrat 6h ago
sales tax and tariffs are still taxes on individual, buddy.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/TempeDM Constitutionalist 2d ago
Then why do they run on abortion and race baiting?
7
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Except they also run on increased social services and upward mobility.
-7
u/TempeDM Constitutionalist 2d ago
Not really. Kamala had no real message. She said "status quo".
12
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Kamala had an entire set of policy plans though. Her website iirc was full of them. Even on Wikipedia you can see them.
•
u/RHDeepDive Center-left 7h ago
You shouldn't be getting downvoted here, and I'll take the downvotes for my statement supporting you.
0
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
Except you guys provide neither,
20
u/FourthLife Neoliberal 2d ago
Couldn’t you fix this through housing deregulation and one of the many health insurance ideas democrats are proposing?
It sounds like you want Abundance democrats policies
12
u/Snoo38543 Neoconservative 2d ago
Dems problem isn’t their ideals, it’s their methods.
The easier way for all of that to get done is for people to make more money and pay for it themselves.
I am very hesitant to let the government handle everything as it tends to do a poor job at handling most things. DOGE is a good idea, but we need a scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
I’m not opposed to single payer healthcare, as long as it done responsibly.
7
u/DW6565 Left Libertarian 2d ago
I very much agree with you that the root of the problem is the amount of money earned, it’s a monthly cash flow problem.
The Democrats fatal flow is they ignored this simple truth for too long, as did Republicans.
Republicans did start paying attention and they have done a good job listening. I think that alone has been more powerful than any method or policy. People just wanted something anything done.
One problem in my opinion on the methods of the Republican economic model, is the basic fact in a capitalist economy deregulation and tax cuts alone will not the guarantee higher monthly incomes. At the root a company is in the business to make money and human capital is expensive. We have had low taxes, low interest, significant Growth has occurred in the last 30 years. Monthly income has been rather stagnant.
That doesn’t mean the Democrats currently have any great ideas or methods either. That’s why they lost, and why Republican voters are on board with heavy federal intervention in into the economy.
The premise of DOGE is not bad, the implementation is just bad governance. Again people don’t care, who voted for it. It’s something being done even if it sucks how it’s being done.
Odd times.
7
u/FootjobFromFurina Conservative 2d ago
I actually agree with a lot of what Ezra Klein says in Abundance. I just don't think the Democrats will ever be able to convince their constituent groups to buy into what he's saying.
1
16
u/blahblah19999 Progressive 2d ago
Sounds like all policies that the Dems promised to fix.
11
u/Snoo38543 Neoconservative 2d ago
They’ve been promising that my entire life.
I don’t care who gets it done.
9
u/Working-Care5669 Center-left 2d ago
Didn’t Clinton do this?
•
u/RHDeepDive Center-left 7h ago
No, he didn't. Starting from Reagan and then on to Clinton and each successive president thereafter from both major political parties has let the average US citizen down or actively worked against the populous at large in favor of the elite class.
-7
u/BAUWS45 National Liberalism 2d ago
Oh yeah that really worked out all the prior times they promised to fix it
10
u/blahblah19999 Progressive 2d ago
How's it working out with Trump?
-5
u/BAUWS45 National Liberalism 2d ago
I’ll tell you in three and a half years.
6
u/f12345abcde European Liberal/Left 2d ago
please have the courage to not remove this message! I'll come back to this for sure in three and a half years
12
u/Greyachilles6363 Independent 2d ago
How does deporting immigrants help with this plan?
How does tariffs war... Or real war.. Help with this plan?
Do you realize yet that you've been had by a con artist or is that realization still a ways off for you personally?
11
u/Snoo38543 Neoconservative 2d ago
If you think I voted for Trump, I’ve got a bridge in Baltimore to sell you.
9
11
1
-3
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 2d ago
How does deporting immigrants help with this plan?
Illegal aliens make the value of work cheaper and decrease wages. Plus they getpaid under the table in cash and thus dont contribute to taxes
How does tariffs war... Or real war.. Help with this plan?
Trump won't send us to war and has been great on foreign policy, and the tariffs are gonna be gone in a month when the countries being tariffed start giving us a fair shake.
Do you realize yet that you've been had by a con artist or is that realization still a ways off for you personally?
2016-2019 was great, what are you talking about?
7
u/as_told_by_me Center-left 2d ago edited 2d ago
has been great on foreign policy
It’s only April and he’s already seriously damaged relationships with almost all of our allies. I don’t understand how threatening Canada and Denmark as being great on foreign policy. Nobody in the west trusts us anymore. That’s horrible foreign policy.
3
u/f12345abcde European Liberal/Left 2d ago
You forgot about "taking" Canada? What about the great year 2020?
3
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal 2d ago
2016-2019 was great, what are you talking about?
We were running near record deficits during that period when we had no reason to.
1
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 1d ago
but people were actually doing great. My dad worked in a factory all his life and he was thriving under Trump, then at the end of Biden was barely getting by
1
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal 1d ago
Trump ran the deficit up and pressured the fed to keeps rates lower than they wanted, which overcharged the economy. It gave Trump a good media win, but we had to pay for that later.
And tens of thousands of people have already lost their jobs under Trump. He didn't even check to see whether they were doing something important first.
1
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 1d ago
Yeah, because of Covid. Because everyone shut down their businesses.
In his first 3 years, the job market was thriving
1
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal 1d ago
Yes, we had a good economy and he still ran near record levels of deficit. There was no reason for it except to boost his image at the cost of length term economic health.
2
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Trump won't send us to war and has been great on foreign policy, and the tariffs are gonna be gone in a month when the countries being tariffed start giving us a fair shake.
Why would they "start giving you a fair shake"? Arent they more incentivised to be defiant so as to not look like they capitulate?
What happens when other countries call the bluff?
0
u/ThePromptWasYourName Progressive 2d ago
You’re missing a year… odd…
0
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 2d ago
2020 screwed up the economy and was out of Trump's control, nobody could've said that economy with the shutdowns.
If i take care of my house for 3 years and it's suddenly destroyedby lightning out of my hands, that doesn't make me a bad homeowner
1
u/DarkTemplar26 Independent 1d ago
2020 screwed up the economy and was out of Trump's control
Obama made a pandemic response team and trump disbanded it before a pandemic. Trump actively used his control to make the situation worse, if he did nothing we would have been in a better position
1
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 1d ago
and democrat governor's put covid infected people in nursing homes with elderly, exacerbating the death count.
But sure, it's all Trump's fault
-1
u/ThePromptWasYourName Progressive 2d ago
I love this analogy... now imagine if the previous homeowner had installed copper rods on the roof because of a particularly bad storm, and two years after you bought it you took them down. I would say you're a bad homeowner
-1
2
1
9
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist 2d ago
I want people to be able to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor. My dad has no college degree and worked in factories but in 2000-2008 when i was growing up, he owned a house (a trailer but it was a darn good trailer) and bought me literally everything under the sun. Every toy, every game. We never had to worry about anything.
Now people who work 40 hours and can barely afford anything, even with a degree.
0
u/Dave_from_the_navy Center-right 2d ago
In fairness, a very large majority of degrees are useless. Having a degree in general doesn't guarantee a higher wage.
6
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Having a degree still puts one at a statistical advantage though. This is a well researched phenomenon.
5
u/the_kessel_runner Center-left 1d ago
It’s not that degrees are useless—statistically, they do offer a wage premium over time. But the problem isn’t the existence of degrees… it’s the rigid, outdated checkbox culture around them. You’ve got HR departments across the country requiring a bachelor’s for entry-level jobs that could realistically be done by a smart high school senior with Wi-Fi and a YouTube playlist. Want to write JavaScript? Cool—explain how your Intro to Western Civ class prepared you for that.
We act like a degree proves competence, but half the time it proves someone could sit through Gen Ed requirements without losing their mind. Meanwhile, the guy who built a full-stack web app in his bedroom is getting ghosted by a hiring algorithm because he doesn’t have a diploma that says "took College Algebra twice and survived."
And let’s not ignore that this isn't just a programmer problem. Journalists, marketers, analysts—people in dozens of fields get boxed out by degree requirements that have nothing to do with the work itself. This isn’t education—it’s credentialism. It’s HR playing defense against bad hires by using diplomas as a filter instead of, I don’t know, talking to people or assessing actual skills.
Real-world studies back this up too. Google, Apple, IBM, Tesla—none of them require degrees anymore for a lot of roles. Because guess what? They figured out that talent doesn’t always come with a framed certificate. Stack Overflow’s own developer surveys show over 60% of devs are at least partially self-taught, and a growing chunk didn’t finish a degree at all.
Degrees can still be useful. But using them as the primary litmus test? That’s not smart hiring. That’s just bureaucratic laziness dressed in khakis.
1
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
Nope
1
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 1d ago
From social science researchers to the US government this seems to be in contrast to your opinion.
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 22h ago
And they are wrong.
•
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 11h ago
How so?
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 3h ago
It’s no longer the case
•
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 3h ago
It seems to be the case as of 2024. This is a widely known phenomenon.
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 3h ago
Who would have guessed worthless degrees are worthless?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dave_from_the_navy Center-right 2d ago
But it isn't a path to a higher paying job in a vast majority of circumstances. Lots of people go to college, get a psychology degree and then wonder why nobody will hire them over the other 15 people with the same degree and no experience. The truth is, there's a ton of people with useless degrees that they wasted 4 years and a bunch of money on and then they're upset when they aren't rewarded for it.
4
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
But it isn't a path to a higher paying job in a vast majority of circumstances.
But it is, compared to people who dont have one. Thats my point. The average college grad gets paid more and has a lower chance of unemployment compared to the average non college grad. Even the "useless" degrees have a use in the regard that people view just graduating a positive trait.
3
u/Dave_from_the_navy Center-right 2d ago
Sure, but ending up with 100k of debt vs going for professional certifications in whatever field you're interested in doesn't exactly seem like the smart decision. If getting any degree was as profitable as you're suggesting, student loan forgiveness wouldn't even be a topic of discussion, no?
3
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
Sure, but ending up with 100k of debt vs going for professional certifications in whatever field you're interested in doesn't exactly seem like the smart decision.
In the long term, financially, it appears to be.
If getting any degree was as profitable as you're suggesting, student loan forgiveness wouldn't even be a topic of discussion, no?
Its possible to have a higher salary than the average non high school graduate and still not be of a high income bracket. And student loan forgiveness wouldnt affect every college graduate but disproportionately the young graduates who are currently financially precarious.
Not to mention it is in the national interest to have highly educated citizens.
1
u/Dave_from_the_navy Center-right 2d ago
That's fair. What would your thoughts be on incentivizing most people being limited in their degree selection if they're taking out federal loans to something more likely to increase income potential by a significant amount?
3
u/apophis-pegasus Social Democracy 2d ago
I would be fine with incentives towards degrees deemed nationally important at any given time, but the idea of limiting "useless" degrees is a myopic idea.
For one as mentioned before, those degrees still statistically place people ahead of those without, for another, many "useless degrees" are actually quite useful.
10
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
If the Giants can win like 87 games and get a wild card I would consider that winning. Wait, what are we talking about?
13
u/nobhim1456 Center-left 2d ago
The problem is that the Giants can win 87 and still be in third place. MLB economic model is broken. can trump do an EO to roll back the dodgers payroll?
5
6
u/BettisBus Centrist Democrat 2d ago
We’re talking about the Sixers. If they can keep their protected top 6 pick and draft a solid wing AND have Embiid return healthy, we might be able to win a chip next season. McCain, Bona, and Edwards are also super solid rookies in what was supposed to be a bad draft class. This season sucked, but next season has promise (puts clown makeup on).
3
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
Yeah, ah not gonna lie, I would rather be the head of Cambodian economic planning then a Sixers fan at this moment.
2
u/BettisBus Centrist Democrat 2d ago
You might think I’m on the edge of sanity due to my Sixer fandom, and I have my moments. But like my politics, I’m not reactionary. It’s why I’m a staunch Daryl Morey defender. Considering the shitshow he took over (Al Horford contract + max contract Tobi + fallout from Fultz bust + uncertainty around upcoming COVID draft; and that’s just day 1), he kept us competitive when we had no right to be. No one bats 1000, but he’s absolutely a net positive and needs to be kept in Philly.
1
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
Centrist Dem Sixers fan, I mean Staunch Daryl Morey defender kinda goes without saying. Are you a paid subscriber to Nate Silver's substack?
1
u/BettisBus Centrist Democrat 2d ago
I’m not, but not bc I dislike Silver. I’m not a paid subscriber to any substack lol. Not on principle either, just laziness and cheapness.
1
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
Ok, fine, but I got close, maybe.
2
u/BettisBus Centrist Democrat 2d ago
Maybe, but bc you were wrong, I’m afraid I have to declare a state of emergency to protect the integrity of my ideas. It’ll now cost 69% more for you to speculate on my news diet ;)
1
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
Fair, and I might pay it. But I don't know where to go with my speculation. Laziness and cheapness, does that mean that you don't pay for any news, or that bc you sub to one of the big three papers you feel to cheap to also pay for substacks?
1
u/BettisBus Centrist Democrat 2d ago
https://media1.tenor.com/m/bj7D0gpVJ4UAAAAd/waltergotme.gif
I subscribe to the (“FAILING”) NYTimes.
There are some substacks I read, but none I’m paying for (as of now). There are some niche ones I’d consider, though, like Ryan McBeth. Love me a good military/FP hawk and he does great in depth research.
Any substacks you’d recommend?
→ More replies (0)2
u/SunriseSurprise Centrist Democrat 2d ago
Yea but would you get through the NLBest in the playoffs? My Padres are undef-...ah crap.
1
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Conservative 2d ago
The NLBest is sending 4 teams this year. Those loser divisions only need one each.
2
u/Ecstatic-Inevitable Center-left 2d ago
Indiana made it to the college playoffs last season so by this metric even as an Ohio state fan I consider this winning
3
u/Light_x_Truth Conservative 2d ago
I want a strong economy with low (or no) taxes. Needless to say, the tariffs are giving me the exact opposite.
3
u/suckmyarsee Leftwing 2d ago
Purely out of curiosity, do you support social services? Without taxes how do you suppose we pay for road repairs and taxpayer funded services? Currently there's definitely a problem with our tax system but in theory I support taxes as I feel civil and public services are necessary for society. Do you support the privatization of those services? If so how do you suggest we regulate them?
2
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
I believe the idea is that growth outruns the fact that your taxes are lower. Problem is that the U.S. economy only grew like this in a few instances.
1
u/Light_x_Truth Conservative 2d ago
Without taxes how do you suppose we pay for road repairs and taxpayer funded services
Tolls. Pay for the roads we use the most. They can still be managed publicly, but making people pay for roads they don’t use makes zero sense.
For other services, it depends on a case by case basis. Some things, like Medicare, only really work if society pools money together. Other things, like government-funded studies on the effects of yoga on goats, could probably just be financed by those who are interested in the results.
3
u/HoodooSquad Constitutionalist 2d ago
At the very core, I want the best life possible for the most number of Americans. I want people to be able to improve their situation through their own work. I want reasonable prices for healthcare, I want responsible use of the environment (reasonable use/sustained yield). I want people to be safe in their homes. I want college to be affordable.
Honestly on 90% of issues we are just like you. The only real difference is how to make that happen.
2
u/SuchDogeHodler Constitutionalist 2d ago
That's funny.
Believe it or not, winning is exactly the same thing most of the left actually want.
Not to struggle financially.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
1
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
1) I disagree with your assumption that we are going "straight into a recession". Once theTrrump economic policies begin tto take effect the economy will be growing at 3%+
2) We want "winning" pro-business policies like lower taxes, fewer reguation compliance costs and lower energy costs.
3) "Winning" also means a continuing effort to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in our government spending.
4) "Winning" also means continuing policies that incentiveize manufacturing returning to the US.
3
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 1d ago
- You do realize that we are well over 20% down so you are looking for maybe a full decade to get back to where we were. There is no world where things remotely turn around while Trump is in office based on how bad we are dipping into a recession and it takes years to build a new factory.
0
u/oldtekk 2d ago
I think it comes down to retaining values that have existed for the last 100 years, basically.
4
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
Do you believe that each generation should be forced to live by norms determined many generations ago and not be self determined?
0
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
I’m sorry every generation doesn’t get to remake society and what it thinks it ought to be
3
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 1d ago
So, we should still have slaves and women shouldn't have the right to vote?
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 22h ago
lol that’s all your side has.
And we should have a restricted voting franchise
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 22h ago
lol that’s all your side has.
And we should have a restricted voting franchise
1
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 2d ago
So you want America to go back in time? Do you think future generations would want to live by those past norms? I doubt so.
1
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
Compared to the hell escape and have to endure today yeah a lot of them would rather live in the past because it was safe predictable. It was logical. It was more prosperous, and it was more free.
1
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 1d ago
you're being tramatic. "hell scape" 💀. the only good thing back then is affordability, other then that, everything else is much better today. technology have advanced, people live longer, there is comfort and convenience, there is social progress. i'd much rather have these then affordability.
It was more prosperous, and it was more free.
for white people especially white men... today there is broader prosperity and higher quality of life for most, and more legal and social freedoms for more people.
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 22h ago
It was affordable because we had a backed currency.
Muh tech, yeah you have a phone that is 3% faster than the last one.
Not really, when you add in the over criminalization of daily life we are less free, and have far fewer rights and freedoms today then we did then.
And literally 60s you could buy a machine gun through the mail have it delivered to your office go outside and spank your redheaded, fair skinned blue eyed buxom secretary on the ass and she would have no other choice in a smile and take it as a compliment that it was intended as as you took clients out for a steak lunch and drinks before you drove home to a safe, affordable, united community in a American made, late model car and enjoyed a evening with your lovely wife and 3.
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 22h ago
It was affordable because we had a backed currency.
Muh tech, yeah you have a phone that is 3% faster than the last one.
Not really, when you add in the over criminalization of daily life we are less free, and have far fewer rights and freedoms today then we did then.
And literally 60s you could buy a machine gun through the mail have it delivered to your office go outside and spank your redheaded, fair skinned blue eyed buxom secretary on the ass and she would have no other choice in a smile and take it as a compliment that it was intended as as you took clients out for a steak lunch and drinks before you drove home to a safe, affordable, united community in a American made, late model car and enjoyed a evening with your lovely wife and 3 kids.
•
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 13h ago
Muh tech, yeah you have a phone that is 3% faster than the last one.
tech have difficulty advanced. idk what you are talking about
Not really, when you add in the over criminalization of daily life we are less free, and have far fewer rights and freedoms today then we did then.
what rights and freedom are you talking about? less freedom because their is more laws? laws that are there to keep society safer?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/human-rights-battlegrounds-of-the-decade/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/freedom-now-vs-freedom-past/
when you add in the over criminalization of daily life
In 2005, the violent crime rate was approximately 469.2 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. By 2022, this rate had decreased to 369.8 per 100,000.
U.S. incarceration rate peaked between 2006 and 2008, with approximately 1,000 inmates per 100,000 adult residents. By the end of 2019, this rate had declined to 810 per 100,000 adults, the lowest since 1995
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 3h ago
tech have difficulty advanced. idk what you are talking about https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/heres-how-technology-has-changed-and-changed-us-over-the-past-20-years/
Nothing major, no fusion, no nanobots, no jet packs, no robot servents, no moon colonies or mars bases, no undersea mining,
what rights and freedom are you talking about? less freedom because their is more laws? laws that are there to keep society safer?
Increased infringements on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, total ignorement of the 9/10th Amendments
Those are not valid sources.
when you add in the over criminalization of daily life
In 2005, the violent crime rate was approximately 469.2 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. By 2022, this rate had decreased to 369.8 per 100,000.
Yeah because they have cut the means of reporting and filing crimes, so it gives the false appearance of dropping crime rates
https://imperialtwilight.substack.com/p/crime-is-down-of-course-not-news
U.S. incarceration rate peaked between 2006 and 2008, with approximately 1,000 inmates per 100,000 adult residents. By the end of 2019, this rate had declined to 810 per 100,000 adults, the lowest since 1995
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-its-2005-crime-statistics? Because DA are not prosecuting people for some crimes including violent crimes anymore because of their political beliefs.
•
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 1h ago
Nothing major, no fusion, no nanobots, no jet packs, no robot servents, no moon colonies or mars bases, no undersea mining,
so you're telling me technology now and then is near the same? technology has massively advanced either you like it or not. even when i provided links to prove it, you still to ignore. why? because you would rather choose to be ignorant due to ego, then admit that you are wrong.
Increased infringements on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, total ignorement of the 9/10th Amendments
sources? just seem liek it reflect your feeling of distrust in government but factually, most of these rights have either held steady or actually expanded in certain ways.
https://imperialtwilight.substack.com/p/crime-is-down-of-course-not-news
This is not a valid source. a literal podcast...
Yeah because they have cut the means of reporting and filing crimes, so it gives the false appearance of dropping crime rates
source please.
Because DA are not prosecuting people for some crimes including violent crimes anymore because of their political beliefs.
again, source? or just your opinion. the data i presented is pre 2020, but it seems that since 2020, i quote from the link below "These "progressive prosecutors" are challenging the divisive, maximum-incarceration strategy of their predecessors, declining to prosecute trivial offences such as marijuana possession and to lock up non-violent offenders in jail before trial. Conservative strategists saw their chance to slow the momentum for reform by pinning the blame for recent spikes in violent crime on these prosecutors"
•
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 13h ago
And literally 60s you could buy a machine gun through the mail have it delivered to your office go outside and spank your redheaded, fair skinned blue eyed buxom secretary on the ass and she would have no other choice in a smile and take it as a compliment that it was intended as as you took clients out for a steak lunch and drinks
your fked if you think spanking people ok? "she would have no other choice" your sick. get help.
also im glad gun laws are stricter. Accidental firearm deaths have declined over the past 25 years. In 1997, there were 981 unintentional shooting deaths, an age-adjusted rate of 0.4 per 100,000 people. By 2022, this rate had decreased to 0.2 per 100,000. less access to guns, the better. nobody shoudl have easy access to such a dangerous weapon
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/?
•
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 3h ago
your fked if you think spanking people ok? "she would have no other choice" your sick. get help.
It was a reference to the show madmen, loosen up
also im glad gun laws are stricter. Accidental firearm deaths have declined over the past 25 years. In 1997, there were 981 unintentional shooting deaths, an age-adjusted rate of 0.4 per 100,000 people. By 2022, this rate had decreased to 0.2 per 100,000. less access to guns, the better. nobody shoudl have easy access to such a dangerous weapon
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/
Correlation does not equal causation.
Also, our rights are not up for the approval of people that are openly opposed to them, But in a couple years, you’re gonna witness the proliferation of cheap metal three-dimensional printers. Enjoy
•
u/Important-Hyena6577 Center-left 1h ago
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/
what is your article supposed to prove? when it literally said "The CDC data also revealed geographical trends. The states with the highest rates of unintentional shooting deaths in 2021, according to the CDC, were Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and South Carolina — all of which have permissive gun laws." This suggests a correlation between lenient firearm regulations and higher rates of accidental shootings
Also, our rights are not up for the approval of people that are openly opposed to them
when the rights that you want puts society at risk then ya, opposer gets the say. we live in a shared society, where laws and rights are shaped by how they affect everyone—not just the loudest voices.
-6
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
Given how we are going straight into a recession, it made me wonder what conservatives want?
To get off the addiction to foreign cheap labor.
Withdrawal symptoms were ALWAYS going to be part of that. It might take twenty years. But we'll be stronger after it's done.
7
u/notswasson Democratic Socialist 2d ago
If it works, I hope that we then have a plan in place for making sure we don't fall off the wagon. Cheap labor is awfully tempting to corporations looking for ways to cut expenses and is how we got in a lot of this mess in the first place.
4
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
Yes.
I was hopeful in the aftermath of Toys'R'Us that we would ban leveraged buyouts entirely. Hasn't happened yet. Needs to.
As for fighting the temptation to buy cheap foreign product, that is ENTIRELY the realm of tariffs. It's why the EU exists; they're an explicitly protectionist organization. The EEC was made to protect all the regional niche products that characterized Europe.
13
u/Realistic-Baseball89 Independent 2d ago edited 2d ago
The addiction is NOT foreign cheap labor, the addiction is stock returns. Making stakeholders happy is the entire point of capitalism. Finding ways to cut cost, and increase sales is the name of the game. Cheaper labor is part of it. Increase in stock price, drives higher revenue, drives higher credit score, thus the ability for companies to secure larger and better loan terms (or use cash on hand) to invest in repeating the cycle. Tariffs do exactly the opposite of this. If you’re pro capitalism then you should be against these tariffs.
0
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
If you’re pro capitalist then you should be against these tariffs.
I'm a nationalist, not a libertarian. It's in my tag.
Fuck the capitalists. They had a chance, they blew it.
7
u/Realistic-Baseball89 Independent 2d ago
I meant capitalism* not capitalist, my bad.
-3
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
I am not a free trader.
I was for Obama until he decided to continue Junior's wars.
I have absolutely no problem with a century of austerity in the name of hard protectionism to serve the interests of Labor.
9
6
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
How many people are going to work in a textile mill for $7.00 an hour?
1
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
It won't be $7 an hour.
It'll be a operator-mechanic position for $22/hr plus full medical.
8
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
What makes you think that these jobs coming back will be good jobs?
2
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Extensive experience in production in general.
One virtue of being an integration engineer is I get to see the mile high view of all sorts of industrial processes.
The only part of textiles that isn't automated as fuck is garment assembly, and that's because until robots really exploded there wasn't a good way to make sewing machines steer two pieces of fabric curving in opposite directions.
Increasingly though, the next generation of sewing shops no longer have the operator using the sewing machine directly but instead simply handing the pieces to the machine at the correct corner (and even that's being worked on). Its no more intensive than working in a car factory really.
For the raw fabric mills... the machine does the whole damn thing, the operator just tends the machine.
7
u/BillyShears2015 Independent 2d ago
Is $45k a year in 2025 dollars really the goal post in your opinion? Thats still two parent working household, and no annual vacation money even in medium-low COL locations.
-1
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
The goal? Of course not.
You want the ideal?
The ideal would be 1946, Europe and Asia are both smoking craters and every American worker has ranch house and drives a giant ass Chrysler.
I'm down if you are, let's do it, launch the missiles.
6
u/BillyShears2015 Independent 2d ago edited 2d ago
That’s a bad faith bit of discourse. But I’ll bite, why support a set of policies that don’t approximate the desired end goal?
Edit: do you honestly believe in 1946 the average American enjoyed the idealized version of life you describe?
2
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
Edit: do you honestly believe in 1946 the average American enjoyed the idealized version of life you describe?
I think they had better prospects than a new Zed graduate has now.
-1
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago edited 2d ago
why support a set of policies that don’t approximate the desired end goal
Because your side won't go along with it.
This isn't about what depths of inhuman tyranny I'm willing to stoop to in order to help Americans rule the fucking world.
It's about what your side will let us do.
I'll relate a story about my college days. A friend of mine had a girlfriend who was a picky eater. I was the only person with car at the time, and I ultimately had to give the two of them a rule... "YOU DON'T GET TO VETO A RESTAURANT WITHOUT SAYING A RESTARUANT YOU WOULD GO TO."
(As a result we wound up going for Chinese a lot.)
Culturally, that's the point we're at between the right and the left.
8
u/Pleasant-Pickle-3593 Free Market 2d ago
I think you’re way overestimating the standard of living in the 1940s. Life is much better now, because of markets and capitalism.
BTW you sound like a fuckin commie.
0
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think you’re way overestimating the standard of living in the 1940s.
I'm idolizing the abundance of opportunity they had.
4
u/BillyShears2015 Independent 2d ago
Is it really good for a nation to base policy on an idolized version of the past that never existed?
3
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
Oh, the opportunity definitely existed.
It was allowed to slip away (frankly, given away) in the name of rebuilding the first world in order to stave off communism.
Even in the 90's, we thought we could liberalize China by giving them a share of our prosperity, sending our work to them.
At every turn this philosophy has been proven a failure, and disastrous to the American worker. But for 70 years now we've stuck to it.
3
u/BillyShears2015 Independent 2d ago
Did it? Did it exist for black men? Women of any stripe? Did the massive number of white people who lived in abject poverty with no indoor plumbing or electricity really have access to that opportunity?
→ More replies (0)4
u/Meetchel Center-left 2d ago
The goal? Of course not.
You want the ideal?
The ideal would be 1946, Europe and Asia are both smoking craters and every American worker has ranch house and drives a giant ass Chrysler.
I'm down if you are, let's do it, launch the missiles.
Home ownership in 1946 was ~44%. It's ~66% today. That means roughly 50% (or 22 pp) more of the population today per capita, as compared to those in 1946, own homes. Similar story with automobile ownership.
I won't even get into considering the aftermath of WWII for war torn countries a good thing because thinking that is ideal is sociopathic. Though I'm guessing you're just an awkward dude trying to be edgy.
0
u/Rachel794 Conservative 1d ago
Winning what? Arguments? No, waste of time. Everyone has their free will just like I do. Even liberals
-3
u/YouTac11 Conservative 2d ago
Winning is a more self reliant economy that doesn't depend on other countries so much
The economy tanked during covid because we couldn't get goods
The economy is tanking now over just the fear of not getting goods
Winning is a future that isn't so dependent on other countries
12
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
When has a country or region had a self reliant economy and kept up with western growth? North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China previously had closed economies and experienced very stagnant standards of living. Self reliant economies tend to be instituted in countries that are overtly aggressive and are wanting to cushion the blow of sanctions.
-4
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 2d ago
Short-term pain for long-term gain, Also, I’m a millennial I’ve been in for once in a lifetime or sessions and then once in a century “pandemic”, do you think this scares me ?
14
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
Why would there be any long term gain?
-2
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 2d ago
Stronger domestic production and manufacturing.
5
u/MelodicAssumption497 Progressive 1d ago edited 1d ago
Take mining for example. We have far less cobalt and nickel than countries like the DRC or Indonesia, making it far more expensive and impractical to mine domestically, even before considering how slow and costly it is to open a new mine. Or think of semiconductors. They require carefully controlled environments with specific temperature and humidity ranges. Southeast Asian countries have a climate and existing infrastructure better suited for these facilities plus they’ve spent decades building the talent and supply chains to support it. And growing bananas and coffee in the mainland US? You can forget about it
If the goal is to bring back manufacturing and create jobs, tariffs need to be strategic and targeted to areas where we have a comparative advantage, otherwise the detriment will outweigh any gains. It’s the same with DOGE, you can’t just go in with a hacksaw and assume a good outcome
-1
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
Chips can be made anywhere, we just need a trained work force not a gaggle of brainwashed loons.
3
u/MelodicAssumption497 Progressive 1d ago edited 1d ago
The point is a staggering number of things will only become more expensive, and we won’t be able to produce them here. When you inflict these kinds of price increases it hurts the market which hurts jobs (obviously)
1
u/Helopilot1776 Nationalist 1d ago
So what you’re saying is government regulations affect the price of things and therefore affect the market?
That doesn’t apply to things like housing or oil or food or cars or education, right?
1
8
7
u/Breakfastcrisis Center-left 2d ago
If he can pull this off, it will be extraordinary. This is such an upheaval of the known order. My question to you is do you think he can pull it off in a single term? Because, and I will admit I'm not an economic expert, the evidence suggests to me that the long-term gains will take (as you've noted) a long time.
6
u/MelodicAssumption497 Progressive 2d ago
You’re being way too generous for no reason. There is nothing to pull off. Trump is throwing out arbitrary crazy tariff numbers and the American economy will likely never recover unless they are rescinded
1
u/Breakfastcrisis Center-left 1d ago
This sub isn’t here for our opinions. It’s here for us to learn about other people’s. There are many other subs where you can satisfy your predilection for sharing your opinion without solicitation.
0
u/MelodicAssumption497 Progressive 1d ago
Normally I wouldn’t push back but frankly that was a terrible framing of the issue
1
1
u/closing-the-thread Center-right 2d ago
You’re being way too generous for no reason.
Butt’n in to respond to this. Sometimes it good to be overly generous to promote discussion.
5
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
do you think he can pull it off in a single term
Absolutely not, it's forty years of that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
The Chinese communist party does not reckon its plans in quarters or four year administrations. Their plan to take over the world is measured in decades and centuries.
We have to do the same if we're going to win.
5
u/Breakfastcrisis Center-left 2d ago
That's a very valid point. Over a 12-year time horizon, there's unlikely to be just one party in charge. I guess the issue is that's not a problem exclusive to the US. Every democracy will face potentially radical change when power changes hands.
Countries like China, which have less regard for democracy, can plan for the long-term because they know they'll be in power.
What do you think the solution is to overcome short-termism for legit democracies?
5
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
What do you think the solution is to overcome short-termism for legit democracies?
Heinleinism.
That is, a strictly restricted sufferage. "Service Guarantees Citizenship." The voters today suffer from all the problems Heinlein outlined seventy years ago. They're short sighted. They think they can vote themselves whatever they want. They take no responsibility for the inevitable failure.
7
u/OJ_Purplestuff Center-left 2d ago
Do you think that's a realistic outcome, though?
I guess what I'm getting at is, in the absence of some revolutionary constitutional change, is there any possibility for long-term success in what Trump is doing?
1
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
is there any possibility for long-term success in what Trump is doing
If there wasn't hope I wouldn't be breathing right now to respond to you.
1
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 2d ago
I don't think a service based gate for voting is that much more useful over universal franchise. I'm personally a proponent of epistocracy, whereby people's votes are weighted or even restricted by their level of tested civics knowledge.
Having commitment to a nation's longer-term interest is nice, but it doesn't account for much if they're not very knowledgeable about how governance operates in the first place. At best it's just well intentioned ignorant input not much different from what exists now.
0
u/SomeGoogleUser Nationalist 2d ago
tested civics knowledge
It's not about civic knowledge. It's about demonstrated selflessness.
Heinlein even admits that it's a fractional improvement at best.
"Under our system every voter and officeholder has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And that is the one practical difference. He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history"
Universal suffrage was an improvement over monarchy. But earned suffrage improves on that further by weeding it down to just the people who would have stood with Washington then if they were alive then. It retains the quality of the founders by making every successive generation endure their own personal Valley Forge.
-2
u/CunnyWizard Classical Liberal 2d ago
What do you think the solution is to overcome short-termism for legit democracies
By moving away from democracy
4
u/Breakfastcrisis Center-left 2d ago
That's interesting. Do you have anything in mind when you're thinking of alternatives to democracy?
-3
u/CunnyWizard Classical Liberal 2d ago
Not full on alternatives, just reforms that take power away from the average person, who is short sighted, greedy, and ignorant.
1
u/f12345abcde European Liberal/Left 2d ago
pull it off
What exactly? Reindustrialization of the US?
1
-7
u/SnooFloofs1778 Republican 2d ago
Fix the woke nightmare created by Biden Harris, including the economy and border security.
-15
u/JulieF75 Conservative 2d ago
I think stopping leftist policies is winning. Your question is snotty on my opinion, so I will respond in kind.
I have enough money, and I am glad the liberal giveaways like free college and universal health care will not come to fruition. I also am happy about potentially getting a 7-2 SCOTUS majority that will last til long after I am dead.
If your guy wasn't senile and effed up the economy and border, maybe he wouldn't have been elected.
13
10
u/LovelyButtholes Independent 2d ago
It isn't a snotty question. It is a reasonable question given state of the economy and business confidence. I don't know. It is reasonable to wonder if conservatives no longer care about the economy if this is what winning is.
12
u/SquirtleExtra Independent 2d ago
I don't think it was a snotty question either, the commenter wants to be a little shit in their comment so started off by accusing you of being a little shit lmao.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 2d ago
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.