Conservative calls for dictatorship

[USincognito]

What is a thought leader, conservative or otherwise.

I was being sarcastic when I used that term.

Thought leader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Who on earth is Jesse Kelly?

Ah yes. The old "I've never heard of him, so clearly he's a nobody" shtick. He took over the nationally syndicated show from the guy who took over Rush's timeslot. He's got a Wikipedia page and 640,000 followers on Twitter. Just because you're unfamiliar with him doesn't make him a nobody.

 

[Hazelelponi]

See I'm super confused because I've never heard of either of these names and your talking books, TV shows etc etc.

So I decided to look, and a quick look at Joe Walsh's Twitter shows me that him and those he would enjoy reading enough to quote are "never Trumpers" and appear to truly dislike conservative voters like myself (he actually talks about how much he dislikes "maga republicans")

So, we can call them a lot of things, but I don't think conservative would be it. These aren't conservative thought leaders, unless you're talking about RINO'S - but these people hate conservatives so much they aren't even that because Joe Walsh describes himself as being a former Republican..

Seemingly too disgusted with conservatives to stay in the republican party.

So... Conservative thought leaders these guys are not.

I was being sarcastic when I used that term.

Thought leader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah yes. The old "I've never heard of him, so clearly he's a nobody" shtick. He took over the nationally syndicated show from the guy who took over Rush's timeslot. He's got a Wikipedia page and 640,000 followers on Twitter. Just because you're unfamiliar with him doesn't make him a nobody.

So basically he's the replacement of a replacement for someone with a recognisable name...

That's super influential... To nobody... Lol.

Look, so far in this thread you've taken one sentence that someone no one has heard of said, who later clarified said sentence to mean something other than it's being represented in this thread to mean, which was then repeated by someone who hates conservatives and is looking for a way to negate our voting habits - and call this the voice of conservatives...? Really?

This is more like democrat central to me...

All to completely misrepresent conservatives. Typical typical typical nonsense. I don't know why I keep expecting better...

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's a lovely sentiment, but it seems that what passes for conservatism today, and I would say for at least a decade, is an embrace of authoritarianism and a desire to have a strong man who will "take back" America and restore things to how they used to be (where certain types of people knew their place).

Was it conservative authoritarianism that called for the covid mandates and restroom merging and "manmade global warming" mitigations (and it goes on and on) at the loss of personal freedoms?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was being sarcastic when I used that term.

Thought leader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah yes. The old "I've never heard of him, so clearly he's a nobody" shtick. He took over the nationally syndicated show from the guy who took over Rush's timeslot. He's got a Wikipedia page and 640,000 followers on Twitter. Just because you're unfamiliar with him doesn't make him a nobody.

I listened to Rush as often as reasonably possible. I've honestly never heard of Jesse Kelly. Unless he's the Jesse that had (has?) a show on Fox.

 

[Mark Quayle]

See I'm super confused because I've never heard of either of these names and your talking books, TV shows etc etc.

So I decided to look, and a quick look at Joe Walsh's Twitter shows me that him and those he would enjoy reading enough to quote are "never Trumpers" and appear to truly dislike conservative voters like myself (he actually talks about how much he dislikes "maga republicans")

So, we can call them a lot of things, but I don't think conservative would be it. These aren't conservative thought leaders, unless you're talking about RINO'S - but these people hate conservatives so much they aren't even that because Joe Walsh describes himself as being a former Republican..

Seemingly too disgusted with conservatives to stay in the republican party.

So... Conservative thought leaders these guys are not. Joe Walsh makes a typical dem happy with all his vehement hatred of conservatives though. He might want to get rid of us via a dictatorship, much like the democrat party.

Is this Joe Walsh the same guy that did Rocky Mountain Way, and Life's Been Good?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was being sarcastic when I used that term.

Thought leader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah yes. The old "I've never heard of him, so clearly he's a nobody" shtick. He took over the nationally syndicated show from the guy who took over Rush's timeslot. He's got a Wikipedia page and 640,000 followers on Twitter. Just because you're unfamiliar with him doesn't make him a nobody.

I have a niece with over two million YouTube subscribers. So what? (But then, I don't even know what 'subscribers' means in that context.)

Rush had over 15 million weekly radio show listeners. What are 640,000 followers on Twitter? Sounds sort of like a nobody to me.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I have a niece with over two million YouTube subscribers. So what? (But then, I don't even know what 'subscribers' means in that context.)

Rush had over 15 million weekly radio show listeners. What are 640,000 followers on Twitter? Sounds sort of like a nobody to me.

If you subscribe to someone's YouTube channel it just means you get alerts whenever they put a new video up.

It doesn't cost money to subscribe, but when you have as many followers as your niece it just means she can monetize her channel - aka, get a kickback for the advertising people have to sit through when they watch YouTube...

It can be really good money for her, but it means constantly creating new content (aka videos) to stay relevant enough to keep people watching her videos.

In the end, it's a job that lasts a couple years tops, unless she can manage to turn it into something else...

 

[Hazelelponi]

I listened to Rush as often as reasonably possible. I've honestly never heard of Jesse Kelly. Unless he's the Jesse that had (has?) a show on Fox.

No that's Jesse Watters (I like him, he's funny).. Different last name.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I was being sarcastic when I used that term.

Thought leader - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah yes. The old "I've never heard of him, so clearly he's a nobody" shtick. He took over the nationally syndicated show from the guy who took over Rush's timeslot. He's got a Wikipedia page and 640,000 followers on Twitter. Just because you're unfamiliar with him doesn't make him a nobody.

My friend, if it was not for your following all these conservatives, they would be largely unknown. They owe you a debt of thanks for free advertising.

Oh, I never said he was a nobody, only that I have never heard of him. I am not anywhere near as familiar with the conservative talking heads as you are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who on earth is Jesse Kelly?

"Jesse Kelly is the host of ‘The Jesse Kelly Show’ on 950 KPRC in Houston, TX and ‘I’m Right’ on The First TV, a bold, new news and talk channel on Pluto TV."

He's conservative talk show host with a daily radio show available nationwide on line (can't quite tell how many stations it airs on as well) and a digital TV show.

 

[Hans Blaster]

See I'm super confused because I've never heard of either of these names and your talking books, TV shows etc etc.

So I decided to look, and a quick look at Joe Walsh's Twitter shows me that him and those he would enjoy reading enough to quote are "never Trumpers" and appear to truly dislike conservative voters like myself (he actually talks about how much he dislikes "maga republicans")

Joe Walsh is a former "Tea Party" GOP Congressman from Illinois. I'm not sure when he turned against the GOP, but he definitely doesn't like the "MAGA" movement. Is he a "Never Trumper", I don't know. To qualify he'd need to be actively in GOP/conservative politics before the 2016 primaries (check) and opposed the nomination of Trump (not sure) and continued to oppose Trump (the person) after the nomination (check). "Never Trumpers" are a group, not an ideology or alliance, specifically of politically active conservatives who opposed, and remained opposed to Trump as President.

So, we can call them a lot of things, but I don't think conservative would be it. These aren't conservative thought leaders, unless you're talking about RINO'S - but these people hate conservatives so much they aren't even that because Joe Walsh describes himself as being a former Republican..

Conservative has been in an increasingly non-descriptive (and confusing) label for some time. The biggest problem with the "conservative" label is that self-identified "conservatives" rarely want to conserve anything the way it is now, but are more interested in reverting things to some alleged past state. If you define Conservative or Republican as only the populist right and/or evangelical culture war wings of the old movement, then many "never Trumpers" and other "former conservative" no longer fit within that definition (regardless of their self identification). When the "nat sec" and "fiscal restraint" conservatives decide to abandon the GOP/conservative movement because they just aren't as into Jesus as the rest of you, then it will enter that "permanent minority" status politically.

Seemingly too disgusted with conservatives to stay in the republican party.

So... Conservative thought leaders these guys are not. Joe Walsh makes a typical dem happy with all his vehement hatred of conservatives though. He might want to get rid of us via a dictatorship, much like the democrat party.

Pass. I'm not going to respond. I'm not going to respond. I'm not...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Joe Walsh is a former "Tea Party" GOP Congressman from Illinois.

I don't know how much you remember about the Tea Party but originally it was a grassroots organization (that I was part of when it first started) whos intent was to make for ourselves a party for conservatives after being abandoned by the republican party which had become peopled with a number of neocons (opinion).

That is the important part of the tea party. The republican party stopped being actually conservative, and became a smoke and mirrors extension of the democratic party.

But the Tea Party was showing positive signs of success, which became dangerous for the republican party - they weren't willing to loose voters or were otherwise afraid we'd actually achieve what we set out to achieve.

At that point those who, at that time, were termed either "NeoCons" (neoconservatives) or "Rhino's" walked in and tried completely taking over the Tea Party by flooding it with their own people. They were successful at that and so conservatives abandoned the Tea Party the same way they abandoned the republican party, and the republican party was back to what had become the new status quo.

Everyone except actual conservatives were quite happy with that.

Well, two can play that game and with Trump all the actual conservatives came back - there was finally a candidate with a platform that we could get behinds - and we did.

2016 was the first election in decades there was anything close to an actual unified Republican party.... and even then it showed just how fractured we are.

The goals of neocons and conservatives are simply too opposed to one another to keep trying to be in the same party. Yet here we are, in the same party... Still.

Many formerly never Trumpers within the party decided to stop fighting and put up with the conservatives pick for a term, it was better than Hillary Clinton for some I suppose - but they never agreed with much when it comes to governance. They are just good at being politicians and being non committal whenever questioned directly.

So, in short, being former Tea Party won't tell you much other than how badly someone either hates conservatives, or wants a divorce from the Republican NeoCons.

This guy shows every single sign of being a neoconservative - someone so vehemently opposed to conservatives they destroyed a great thing we created. I may have left the Tea Party before I heard this guy's name or he just wasn't saying anything of value.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know how much you remember about the Tea Party but originally it was a grassroots organization (that I was part of when it first started) whos intent was to make for ourselves a party for conservatives after being abandoned by the republican party which had become peopled with a number of neocons (opinion).

It was "grassroots" (if it ever really was) for a very short period of time and astroturfed quickly by the Koch-group libertarian anti-tax types.

As for Neo-cons, again they are a very specific group (and not really that large) of "liberal hawks" that got fed up with the 'New Left' and bailed on the Dems.

That is the important part of the tea party. The republican party stopped being actually conservative, and became a smoke and mirrors extension of the democratic party.

Do not inhale the smoke of burning astroturf.

But the Tea Party was showing positive signs of success, which became dangerous for the republican party - they weren't willing to loose voters or were otherwise afraid we'd actually achieve what we set out to achieve.

And what, prey tell, was that?

At that point those who, at that time, were termed either "NeoCons" (neoconservatives) or "Rhino's" walked in and tried completely taking over the Tea Party by flooding it with their own people. They were successful at that and so conservatives abandoned the Tea Party the same way they abandoned the republican party, and the republican party was back to what had become the new status quo.

Everyone except actual conservatives were quite happy with that.

What defines an "actual conservative"?

Well, two can play that game and with Trump all the actual conservatives came back - there was finally a candidate with a platform that we could get behinds - and we did.

What defined the "conservatism" of the conservatives Trump brought back to the GOP?

2016 was the first election in decades there was anything close to an actual unified Republican party.... and even then it showed just how fractured we are.

The goals of neocons and conservatives are simply too opposed to one another to keep trying to be in the same party. Yet here we are, in the same party... Still.

Many formerly never Trumpers within the party decided to stop fighting and put up with the conservatives pick for a term, it was better than Hillary Clinton for some I suppose - but they never agreed with much when it comes to governance. They are just good at being politicians and being non committal whenever questioned directly.

When you back Trump eventually the "never" part becomes false and the card is withdrawn.

So, in short, being former Tea Party won't tell you much other than how badly someone either hates conservatives, or wants a divorce from the Republican NeoCons.

I'm not sure if he's "former Tea Party" or not. What I do know is that he is a "former Congressman" and during that time he was "Tea Party" hence he is a former "Tea Party Congressman". Other than rejecting Trump and his authoritarian populism, I have no idea what Joe Walsh's political positions.

This guy shows every single sign of being a neoconservative - someone so vehemently opposed to conservatives they destroyed a great thing we created. I may have left the Tea Party before I heard this guy's name or he just wasn't saying anything of value.

Does he fit this definition of neoconservative? Or is "neocon" just a term of derision for those who aren't true believers in the current thing?

 

[durangodawood]

....Explaining why a person who wrote a book on anti communist manifesto would do a complete 180 and support a dictatorship.

Theres other kinds of dictatorships besides communist.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Conservative has been in an increasingly non-descriptive (and confusing) label for some time

Yes, because two opposing ideals are at play, both using the same descriptions of themselves... that of conservative, and that of being Christian..

Let me help you sort it out some, it might help it make a little more sense.

Myself being a self proclaimed conservative my conservative-ness is mainly FISCAL.

I didn't used to be socially conservative, socially I've always been libertarian with the only caveat being do no harm (yes, that means pro-life) At least until recently. Now I must admit that those who were social conservatives might not have been wrong in some of their assessments, and I think I'd be much more willing to listen to them now more than ever before, we can probably get together now, whereas before probably not.

I'm going to say I'm not alone in the above paragraph.There are likely at least a few socially liberal minded people who are willing to take it back now and work with the zealots for more common ground. We are all Christian after all..

(As a besides it might help you to know my Christianity is anything but liberal - I won't attend churches that ordain women or that marry homosexuals. I'm just a Calvinist, which lends itself to being more socially libertarian politically than other Christian faith groups).

I didn't vote for McCain because of the government bailout proposal, I was just that opposed to bailing out failed businesses and don't believe anything is "too big to fail". When a company fails because of bad management, new and better companies always step in and fill any void. It's called progress and is the way of life.

i don't like McCain types within the Republican Party, I've never voted for the type, and literally never will.

I'm also against throwing money at people (Like COVID payments etc).. I believe in staying within our means as a nation. I said from the beginning of COVID that the shutdowns the way they were done were wrong. We should have put our most at risk on lockdown and let everyone else live life as normal. It would have cost less money and cost fewer lives .. but I digress. I was against Trump and others on that point...

But that's my fiscal conservativism... And I know I won't always be happy either. Lol.

Im also a nationalist. It's not that I believe in a white nation or any of that, but I heartily believe in the nation state model of government, versus the European Union style where a handful of people make life altering decisions for countries they don't live in, or have any real connections to.

The people I would term as neocons, are globalists. They would happily put us in sweeping trade agreements where we'd end up in European Union style arrangements that would open us up to being in a European Union style of government, where a small body of people could decide how many immigrants we have to take in a year etc etc.

I've nothing against trade, but I don't believe in handing over our national sovereignty to get it. If you recall the TPP and the other agreement that was going to follow it would have put us squarely in the middle of one...

for me, any republican who even once said they supported those agreements are non starters. I won't vote for anyone who supported that nonsense.

So, globalists verses nationalists are another BIG difference.

These are main differences. Fiscal, and globalism versus nationalists.

These are my non starters as a conservative. I won't even consider people who won't help get spending under control, or who would put us in a position to loose our national sovereignty over important issues like gun control and immigration.

My main support for Trump was over the TPP and the other one, so long as he got us out of that I would have been happy... But he did a lot more that I really really liked such as the new immigration policy, the conservative appointments to SCOTUS and more, so he got my support for the second run.

However, when I look at the differences between neocons and conservatives, conservatives are nationalists who are also fiscal conservatives. Whether or not they are socially conservative are often differences I believe we can work through amicably and find middle ground in.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Koch-group

I did forget about them... Sorry, I'm taking a lot of pain meds today so I'm just doing my best. I can talk, just not as sharp as all that today.

 

[wing2000]

Was it conservative authoritarianism that called for the covid mandates and restroom merging and "manmade global warming" mitigations (and it goes on and on) at the loss of personal freedoms?

Historically, conservatives understood when a strong federal response is required...namely to defend the country from threats to the American people.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Theres other kinds of dictatorships besides communist.

What type is he 'calling' for? and please link proof.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, because two opposing ideals are at play, both using the same descriptions of themselves... that of conservative, and that of being Christian..

Let me help you sort it out some, it might help it make a little more sense.

Myself being a self proclaimed conservative my conservative-ness is mainly FISCAL.

I didn't used to be socially conservative, socially I've always been libertarian with the only caveat being do no harm (yes, that means pro-life) At least until recently. Now I must admit that those who were social conservatives might not have been wrong in some of their assessments, and I think I'd be much more willing to listen to them now more than ever before, we can probably get together now, whereas before probably not.

I'm going to say I'm not alone in the above paragraph.There are likely at least a few socially liberal minded people who are willing to take it back now and work with the zealots for more common ground. We are all Christian after all..

(As a besides it might help you to know my Christianity is anything but liberal - I won't attend churches that ordain women or that marry homosexuals. I'm just a Calvinist, which lends itself to being more socially libertarian politically than other Christian faith groups).

I didn't vote for McCain because of the government bailout proposal, I was just that opposed to bailing out failed businesses and don't believe anything is "too big to fail". When a company fails because of bad management, new and better companies always step in and fill any void. It's called progress and is the way of life.

i don't like McCain types within the Republican Party, I've never voted for the type, and literally never will.

I'm also against throwing money at people (Like COVID payments etc).. I believe in staying within our means as a nation. I said from the beginning of COVID that the shutdowns the way they were done were wrong. We should have put our most at risk on lockdown and let everyone else live life as normal. It would have cost less money and cost fewer lives .. but I digress. I was against Trump and others on that point...

But that's my fiscal conservativism... And I know I won't always be happy either. Lol.

Im also a nationalist. It's not that I believe in a white nation or any of that, but I heartily believe in the nation state model of government, versus the European Union style where a handful of people make life altering decisions for countries they don't live in, or have any real connections to.

The people I would term as neocons, are globalists. They would happily put us in sweeping trade agreements where we'd end up in European Union style arrangements that would open us up to being in a European Union style of government, where a small body of people could decide how many immigrants we have to take in a year etc etc.

I've nothing against trade, but I don't believe in handing over our national sovereignty to get it. If you recall the TPP and the other agreement that was going to follow it would have put us squarely in the middle of one...

for me, any republican who even once said they supported those agreements are non starters. I won't vote for anyone who supported that nonsense.

So, globalists verses nationalists are another BIG difference.

These are main differences. Fiscal, and globalism versus nationalists.

These are my non starters as a conservative. I won't even consider people who won't help get spending under control, or who would put us in a position to loose our national sovereignty over important issues like gun control and immigration.

My main support for Trump was over the TPP and the other one, so long as he got us out of that I would have been happy... But he did a lot more that I really really liked such as the new immigration policy, the conservative appointments to SCOTUS and more, so he got my support for the second run.

However, when I look at the differences between neocons and conservatives, conservatives are nationalists who are also fiscal conservatives. Whether or not they are socially conservative are often differences I believe we can work through amicably and find middle ground in.

So you're a fiscal conservative, protectionist, nativist, and nationalist who doesn't care for "McCain" types for some reason (because he didn't let the banking system collapse, I guess) who cares not to be particularly into the social issue conservatism because of some theology something or other I don't care about.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What type is he 'calling' for? and please link proof.

The "type" and related proof would be in the post where Mr. Kelly says the US needs a dictator and then a review of what his politics are. (The subject of the thread and something you can gather by following up on it.) Does he want Trump or someone like that? Don't know, he didn't specify.

Don't you find it disturbing that anyone of social or political influence is calling for a dictatorship? Regardless of their political or social views.