NationStates

If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the party of social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably form a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

The Marlborough wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Can't say I'm familiar outside of the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese occupation.

Though the Khmer Rouge getting support from the United States was pretty weird, come to think.

The very compact and short version goes like this:
Norodom Sihanouk becomes king. Later he abdicates in favor of his father and basically becomes the prime minister. Then he becomes the dictator. Then he gets coup'd. Then he joins with the Khmer Rouge. Then he sides with the Vietnamese backed CPP against the Khmer Rouge. Then he goes against the Vietnamese backed CPP and Khmer Rouge.

Hun Sen joined with the Khmer Rouge. Then he left the Khmer Rouge and became leader of the CPP.

Then both Hun Sen and Norodom Sihanouk reconciled, with Hun Sen and his old communist party reinstating the monarchy with Norodom Sihanouk as king once more.

Norodom Sihanouk is nazbol gang

Bear Stearns wrote: Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

every day we hope and pray for this

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

ok except in this scenario literally every political group is even more shit than they are currently and i'm not too big on that

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

Yeah that's what's always annoyed me about the contemporary "right", liberal capitalism has proven to be incompatible with nationalism in our current geopolitical environment. We need more people like Tucker Carlson to lead mainstream movement at the very least, ideally we would do away with them entirely.

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

GOP is never going to be competitive in NJ. We don't give a shit about "nativism", much of our economy relies on international trade to major cities

Cekoviu wrote:

Italios wrote:"a man" bruh

"ya jesus was just a regular dude bruv"

this but unironically

The Cazistan wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

Yeah that's what's always annoyed me about the contemporary "right", liberal capitalism has proven to be incompatible with nationalism in our current geopolitical environment. We need more people like Tucker Carlson to lead mainstream movement at the very least, ideally we would do away with them entirely.

trading one multimillionaire for another

hmmm

Cisairse wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

GOP is never going to be competitive in NJ. We don't give a shit about "nativism", much of our economy relies on international trade to major cities

A truly nationalist Republican Party has the potential to bring out the Chris Christie crowd, South Jersey industrial workers, and Tony Soprano-type people. It'll be them vs. minorities and wealthy New York commuters.

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:all western left is poisoned by structuralism of all kinds. marxism no exception. one day on thsi thread we should organise a debate about labour theory of value vs marginal theory of value, I'm sure there would be LOTS of people willing to defend latter.

I really like marx, he had a lot of very interesting things to say and many predictions he made come true, but I can't follow him the way that most socialists do. he's just a guy in history who birthed a movement - there can be a socialism after marxism. i guess i would define my politics as post-marxist non-leftist socialism, personally. I mean, its in the signature L o L

Basically it's one School of Thought and has been, specifically in the last century, an extremly influential one. Basically a universal secular religion with scripture and basic fundamental belief systems, the diamat. It can almost be said that the 20th Century was the century of communism.

Of course there have been, and are, socialisms etc outside of marx but his school of thought is still the major influential ones. Theres many others around, that one is just the most well known and widespread one. And of course it demands and claims to be a rightful and universal truth. Another thing it shares with other religions.

Cisairse wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:"ya jesus was just a regular dude bruv"

this but unironically

go away pls

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the party of social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably form a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

Please, I have already dedicated myself to keeping Koch libertarianism alive at all costs.

Cekoviu wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably former a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

ok except in this scenario literally every political group is even more shit than they are currently and i'm not too big on that

A nationalist Republican Worker's Party is a significant improvement over a neocon/libertarian Republican Party.

Nakena wrote:

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:all western left is poisoned by structuralism of all kinds. marxism no exception. one day on thsi thread we should organise a debate about labour theory of value vs marginal theory of value, I'm sure there would be LOTS of people willing to defend latter.

I really like marx, he had a lot of very interesting things to say and many predictions he made come true, but I can't follow him the way that most socialists do. he's just a guy in history who birthed a movement - there can be a socialism after marxism. i guess i would define my politics as post-marxist non-leftist socialism, personally. I mean, its in the signature L o L

Basically it's one School of Thought and has been, specifically in the last century, an extremly influential one. Basically a universal secular religion with scripture and basic fundamental belief systems, the diamat. It can almost be said that the 20th Century was the century of communism.

Of course there have been, and are, socialisms etc outside of marx but his school of thought is still the major influential ones. Theres many others around, that one is just the most well known and widespread one. And of course it demands and claims to be a rightful and universal truth. Another thing it shares with other religions.

communism is a religion is a cringe narrative bro, youre too smart for this

disagree 20th century was "battle of ideologies," sadly capitalism won

Cisairse wrote:

Sundiata wrote:But she is the most virtuous human being.

It's why all other women pale in comparison as she is perfect, fortunately they can resemble her through virtue and deeds. To tell you the truth, it's why I love her.

Sure but that doesn't mean she's beautiful. I know plenty of beautiful women that aren't virtuous by the most reductive definition of the word but they're still beautiful.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc.etc.

Italios wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Why bother taking likelihood into account? A man returning from the dead after crucifixion is unlikely, yet we still believe it happened.
Indulge us with other examples of immaculate birth if you wish.

"a man" bruh

Yes, Jesus was a man.

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the party of social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably form a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

I believe this was already, sort of, tried by some trumpists early on and failed entirely on the resistance of the GOP establishment. I wouldn count on this shift to happen, altough in the current situation all bets are open.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:ok except in this scenario literally every political group is even more shit than they are currently and i'm not too big on that

A nationalist Republican Worker's Party is a significant improvement over a neocon/libertarian Republican Party.

nationalism is cancerous tho mate

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:

Joohan wrote:
Do you read Carl Jung?

Yes

I could tell

Cekoviu wrote:

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:whats more likely, immaculate birth or mary just lied lmfao "uhhh no we never did anything i swear mum"

immaculate birth isn't even unique, its a normal mythology

unlikely != impossible
jfc this is a stupid argument

Sundiata wrote:She was bright.

you seem to have maybe missed the point
which is that women are humans with human flaws, just as unclean as men, and not magical angels that you need to be constantly simping for

Of course women are flawed, as men are too. However, helping women grow in their faith is not "simping." It's love.

I refer you to the story of the Samaritan woman at the well.

Nakena wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:If Republicans were commit to a full populist/nationalist economic platform (not the half-neocon stuff we're getting with Trump), it might be enough to permanently get the Rust Belt under their control. Places like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are becoming redder as Democrats leave those states for the Sun Belt. If Republicans commit to nationalist economics and drop the libertarian laissez-faire crap, then Pennsylvania becomes solid red, and Minnesota and Maine are now within reach, and Republicans can become somewhat competitive in New Jersey and Delaware. I'll even say that due to shifting demographics, New Hampshire and Vermont are also within the realm of possibility for going Republicans.

Not to mention that a Republican Party going hard populist on economics is going to win over a huge chunk of the white Bernie crowd too. Especially if some nationalist Republican starts floating the idea of taxing the rich at 1950s levels, with the rhetoric that the 0.1% are globalist anti-Americans...

On the flip of this scenario, however, Republicans will probably permanently lose Virginia and Georgia, and will be less competitive in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Basically trading the Sun Belt for the Rust Belt. But I don't see what other choice they have? They are going to lose the Sun Belt anyways, but they can at least lock down the Rust Belt in conciliation. Otherwise if they try to keep the neocon/libertarian thing going post-Trump, they will lose the Rust Belt too and be left with nothing.

Essentially, the Democrats become the party of social liberalism, global capitalism, and an aggressive foreign policy. They'll probably take in a bunch of the Never-Trump Republicans and former neocons. Republicans become the party of work, family, and fatherland with an isolationist foreign policy. AOC-type progressives probably form a swing voting group that hates both sides (Democrats for being global capitalists, Republicans for being nationalists). Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

I believe this was already, sort of, tried by some trumpists early on and failed entirely on the resistance of the GOP establishment. I wouldn count on this shift to happen, altough in the current situation all bets are open.

Yeah, establishment Republicans sabotaged Trump hard.

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote: Koch Brothers-style libertarianism is dead as a political movement.

every day we hope and pray for this

pls have mercy

Bear Stearns wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:ok except in this scenario literally every political group is even more shit than they are currently and i'm not too big on that

A nationalist Republican Worker's Party is a significant improvement over a neocon/libertarian Republican Party.

A libertarian Republican Party can be a credible threat in urban areas. A nationalist GOP is chained to low-population rural America, which despite being a place I love dearly, cannot win elections easily.

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Someone give me a topic to effortpost about.

the most beautiful woman you have ever seen

Red hair, bright blue eyes, freckles, and a sincere smile.

Also a proclivity for honesty.

Cekoviu wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
A nationalist Republican Worker's Party is a significant improvement over a neocon/libertarian Republican Party.

nationalism is cancerous tho mate

Global capitalism is cancerous. I just want a loving stable community where I can be left alone and leave my door unlocked when I go out. I hate urban life and I hate capitalism, I even hate banking. But I do it for the money.

Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

divine intervention in conception and birth is a normal thing in human cultures, it features in a lot of religions and etc.

Yeah, pretty much everyone knows that.

And?