Kaveman Crazies: The Bush Era, the 00s.

KulturedKaveman

KulturedKaveman

Orthodox
Heritage
So I’ve been saying this in posts on this forum. I legitimately believe the 2020s Democratic Party is the 00s Republican Party. They are nearly identical in intention. The only difference - “if we make it gay we’re cool now?” Also 00s libertarianism to 2020s is “if we make it christian and straight we’re conservatives right?” Seems to be a thing. I want to have a thread to discuss what caused this flip? If I’m just a schizoid and there’s no flip, what might have caused this illusion of a flip? In leftist circles I hear about a conservative liberal flip in the 60s. “The southern strategy” is what they call it. Are we living through something similar?
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
There is no flip. Republicans are just Democrats in slow-motion. There was no flip in the 60s either. That is Democrat propaganda to suppress their KKK origin. Blacks voted for Republicans since the Civil War. That changed in the 60s when Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for President, voted against the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
So there WAS a flip. You said it yourself. Can you elaborate on Goldwater?
 
KulturedKaveman said:
So there WAS a flip. You said it yourself. Can you elaborate on Goldwater?
Click to expand...
There was no ideological flip. The way the Democrats say it, they make it sound like all the Republicans decided to become conservatives and the Democrats decided to become liberals out of the blue. That's not what happened. The Democrats were the same racists they always were. "Southern Strategy" is no different than "Russian Collusion." It's Democrat propaganda. Goldwater supported civil rights. He voted against the Civil Rights Act because he saw that it was a cheap power grab on the part of the Fed. Democrats spun it as him dunking on black people to appeal to white southerners, which was successful. Goldwater was considered too far-right even for most Republicans, hence his famous quote:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

He would've made for a great president. Would've been far better than LBJ, that's for sure.
 
Lbj gave us the Vietnam war to kill the youth, the great society to break up families and create future generations of children with no father,

Goldwater is a footnote. He is known for being pro gay and having gays in the military “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”

And probably would have fit right in with globo homo.

We were hosed , basically under control by (((the military arms industrial complex , ))) as warned by Eisenhower
 
eradicator said:
Goldwater is a footnote. He is known for being pro gay and having gays in the military “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”

And probably would have fit right in with globo homo.
Click to expand...
Sending gays to the front lines pretty much solves the LGBT issue.

Goldwater was a true libertarian. He was probably the last chance for small government in America. Funny how "extremism" in the 60's meant small government, anti-commie big government. He eventually took socially liberal stances because he wanted be consistent in limiting the power of the government. He believed that the politician was meant to be a civil servant, not the other way around. I don't think it's fair to lump him in with globohomo. His policy stances were antithetical to what globohomo is propping up today.

Compare that to globohomo, which takes up socially liberal stances to give themselves an excuse to keep expanding their power through the size of the government. That is the exactly what they did when they voted in the Civil Rights Act and LBJ.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Sending gays to the front lines pretty much solves the LGBT issue.

Goldwater was a true libertarian. He was probably the last chance for small government in America. Funny how "extremism" in the 60's meant small government, anti-commie big government. He eventually took socially liberal stances because he wanted be consistent in limiting the power of the government. He believed that the politician was meant to be a civil servant, not the other way around. I don't think it's fair to lump him in with globohomo. His policy stances were antithetical to what globohomo is propping up today.

Compare that to globohomo, which takes up socially liberal stances to give themselves an excuse to keep expanding their power through the size of the government. That is the exactly what they did when they voted in the Civil Rights Act and LBJ.
Click to expand...
“Globohomo - the practice of taking up socially liberal stances to give themselves an excuse to keep expanding centralized bureaucratic power.” Thanks for that Godfather.

I started this thread because I noticed before the ‘08 crash when I was a teen, they tried to do the same thing with “‘dem turrurists.” Just a bureaucracy looking for excuses to centralize and expand its power.
 
KulturedKaveman said:
“Globohomo - the practice of taking up socially liberal stances to give themselves an excuse to keep expanding centralized bureaucratic power.” Thanks for that Godfather.

I started this thread because I noticed before the ‘08 crash when I was a teen, they tried to do the same thing with “‘dem turrurists.” Just a bureaucracy looking for excuses to centralize and expand its power.
Click to expand...
Called it. Basically what happened is Dick Cheney and Dubya neocons moved over to the DNC because they were always interested in corporatism, military industrial complex, and Jews. They were only socially conservative because the majority of Americans weren’t ok with it. They weren’t true believers like religious people. It was a cynical façade to whine about abortion.

Now that cultural mores have changed in the last 10 years more than anything anyone on the forum can recall - they just simply jettison the social conservatism and sign on with Harris because “muh democracy”

Sad reality check - this is the problem with democracy. The goal is to win elections. We never know if their beliefs aren’t really what they believe. A less democratic system leaves room for some authenticity. I’m a big believer in the “formal republic” a system with limited sufferage based on how much one contributes to society. This will ironically protect our rights more than a democratic system.

Aristocracy is bad because if you have an overachiever in the serf class, you have an overachieving serf. There should be social mobility. However, if you go full on democracy nobody lays their beliefs and values on the table. You’ll get a Bush era that panders to social conservatism but they’ll turn around and endorse Harris when it becomes passé. In a non democratic system they’re less concerned about votes and more interested in policy. This is why China ate our lunch until they stubbed their economic toes.

Basically 1960s your George Wallace types migrated over to the Republicans because “states rights lets me be racists.” Now in the 2020s your military industrial complex neocons are migrating over to the democrats because “let’s solve everything with war” and “I hate free speech” can be purchased if they give up their social conservatism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top