quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: It's nice to see intelligent people on this forum who seem to see how awful Trump is for this country (and the world). I watch the man and I can't understand his support. The alt-right movement has destroyed the Republican Party. It's so sad.
The NYT has clinton winning this election with a 92% likelihood. Seems about right.
I kind of hate that the alt-right movement like the MRA movement is putrid and infected to the core, when on the surface a new conservative movement could be very healthy for our political discourse. Instead it's old garbage in new wrapping.
posted
I've been talking with some people from the old McCain campaign days about pushing what I'm calling "Boy Scout Conservatism". But, honestly, most of us have young kids now and don't have the time or energy for what feels like a hopeless task.
If there's one thing that Republican base has demonstrated since 2000, it's that character, honesty, and responsibility don't matter to them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, "I'll keep you in suspense about whether I'll accept the results of the election." . . . In a way, this shouldn't be a surprise. The Republican party has been pursuing a strategy of petty treason for the entirety of President Obama's administration. And Donald Trump was the most prominent leader of the unconscionable attack on our country's stability that was the insane, racist Birther movement and has been trying to build up this rigged election narrative.
But man, I didn't think even he would go that far. I thought it was him whining so that he and his supporters could make believe that he didn't really lose. If he doesn't walk that back and really freaking soon, the GOP needs to either completely disavow him or they need to be burnt to the ground.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is "Boy Scout Conservatism"? Does it leave out women deliberately?
Beyond all the destruction of democracy in Trump's answer to the results question is the weirdness of the, "I'll keep you in suspense", bit. IT'S NOT A TV SHOW, DONALD!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.
Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.
The Scout Law is: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, Brave, And Reverent
None of the those apply to Donald Trump.
There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not just say "Scout Conservatism" and leave no doubt? Words matter.
Conservation is a conservative principle. It would be nice to see a bit of a realignment of what the Republican party stands for, angling back toward these character traits, but also less of the religious right feel.
The Democrats are likely to have a really hard election in 202, but I wonder if the GOP can reform fast enough to take advantage, or if they'll need more time in the desert.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt it's an attempt exclude women, but I have to wonder who thought that, say, an effort to include more women in the party-such as by supporting women candidates-would be benefited by the unofficial movement name 'Boy Scout Republicans'? I mean as advertising it just sounds silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.
Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.
The Scout Law is: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, Brave, And Reverent
None of the those apply to Donald Trump.
There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.
Could you elaborate? Which of those qualities do you feel are not well represented in contemporary liberalism?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify my earlier point: i don't think it's a deliberate, conscious attempt at exclusion because why would they do that? But I also think it is an exclusion because...Boy Scouts. Boy. It's in the name.
I also think it's an effort to sidestep the problem Republicans have in really saying what is obvious about Trump. If they point out the dishonesty, dishonor, treason, racism by rebranding themselves not those things...why then they have to cop to those things in their support.
Instead, a nice oblique Boy Scout conservatism! They can indirectly market a return to virtue without having to acknowledge all the wickedness and cowardice that makes it necessary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I may get back to this, but I thought it might be a fun, interesting discussion. I'm not really interested in the slog it looks like it would be for me, talking with people who's only interest in what I'm saying is how they can tell me how wrong I am.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well gosh, sorry to have inconvenienced you. Next time you bring up a topic and make a fundmanental statement that seems off, we can just skip over that or something.
The odd thing is that you don't appear to disagree with me at least, since your evaluation of the GOP base is much in line with my own. Or was it Kate's response to a direct statement that was so tiresome?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But anyway, if you want to keep it strictly to a discussion of the Scouts you might have said so. To address that, aside from not thinking the GOP would actually mean it, I don't think that obedience and reverence are good watchwords. Even if they're qualified, and that's a whole other discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The last time we spoke, you said a number of things. I can document them, but for now I'll just reference the highlight where you suggested that my mother was a whore and that it was regrettable my father hadn't shot me to death when I was a child. You also sent a number of unwelcome and insulting emails, and I believe though cannot prove by other activity in my email followed through on a threat to sign me up for various spam.
If you've noticed, I've been happily not talking to you since that point nor did I reply to your emails. So having said all that: don't talk me, for obvious reasons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in agreement that Rakeesh can request you not speak to him, StoneWolf. Please leave him be.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was that a hard question? It wasn't meant to be.
I'm not sure it's a hard question exactly, more, a telling question...I think you, in particular, have strong reactions against any conservative sentiments, or perceived negatives of the left.
Where the tiredness comes in, it's like you are queuing up for a fight...like when you were shooting down (pun) the firearm safety test before purchase as being unreliable and untenable, when it currently exists in reality...and then silence when I point that out.
Or to put it another way...your comment is consistent a previous left fighter behavior, which can cause feelings of frustration and exhaustion w those trying to say/figgure something out.
But maybe it's just lil ol me. Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're proving my point...it's an uphill battle here for conservatives and you are the tip of the spear
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Second, I have EVERY confidence that you would straight up riot if I condescended to you in that manner.
Third, soft ball, hard ball, it matters not, you could fight a conservative about the color of the sky on a clear day and it's wearysome.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize, you should be able to yell at ANYONE for not answering your questions...no matter if you asked them or not...as long as they "complain".
posted
SW, whenever you feel like you're besting someone in rhetoric on this board, please remember that you're almost certainly wrong about that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do...really tom, look at most of our interactions...for literal years...I majoritativly just tell you to bugger off.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.
Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.
The Scout Law is: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, Brave, And Reverent
None of the those apply to Donald Trump.
There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.
I look forward to hearing more about this...sounds like a cross between a grass roots political movement and promise keepers.
I've known some very religious people who where equally dedicated to maintaining the gap between church and state and their religious beliefs.
I must admit only around here am I considered "conservative"...my father & father in law both consider me left of center.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of those, I'd feel comfortable putting all except for "loyal" and "reverent" in the liberal basket, and maybe some liberals would include the whole list. I just tend to lean toward the independent-thinker strain of liberalism -- and it's the implied "to authority" at the end of those that I'd suspect not the idea of being loyal or reverent itself. So if that's the model that conservatives want to use as the base of their value system, that sounds great.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.
Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.
The Scout Law is: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, Brave, And Reverent
None of the those apply to Donald Trump.
There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.
Could you elaborate? Which of those qualities do you feel are not well represented in contemporary liberalism?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That wasn't so much yelling at you as it was mocking you.
So, was this you demonstrating the high quality "Helpfulness, Friendliness, Courteous, and Kindness" that you claim are well represented in contemporary liberalism?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First - you might reread and note that I made no claims at all.
My total exchange with MrSquicky was asking for elaboration - whether they meant to exclude women by calling the movement something gender specific and by asking which characteristics he thought were not well represented from a list in which he said that he thought some were not well represented.
Second - a little friendly mocking (and a mild Star Wars meme) of your overreaction to what should have been pretty straightforward questions is really the kindest and most courteous reaction you deserve and my bothering to answer your questions is pretty darn helpful.
posted
Where did I overreact? Where did I overreact so badly as to (according to you) deserve to be mocked, but you, in an act of friendly kindness, pull the punch.
Keep in mind that your easy question was about someone's private, internal theory, that I LITERALLY could not answer.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
