Also, stop being mean to poor people. Aka drop the fiscal conservative agenda too. Then we'll consider too. Thank!

-Gayden, Ayden, and Aiden

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414377)

Uh I think I know how to spell my own name, thank

-Ayedin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414413)

no offense but you sound like a retard who reads buzzfeed articles about how "different" and "revolutionary" millennials are and believes them. people aren't revolutionary. every person ever wants stability and money. the 60s were revolutionary until they got older and weren't. that's the cycle of life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28409801)

The current iteration of the GOP has the same tactics as the Dems, just different (and worse) priorities and dumber politicians/voters. Significantly dumber.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28410017)

-Substantially increase the earned income tax credit, but pay for it with cuts from other programs for the poor that give in-kind benefits

-Make birth control free (IUDs, etc.), but feel free to keep on trying to overturn Roe v. Wade

-Go back to the foreign policy of the first Bush administration

-Be nice to the gays

-Crack down on cops as much as you crack down on teachers and other government employees

-Tax carbon and cut the income tax (note that this would basically just replace the income tax with a consumption tax)

-Have an open borders policy for smart people in other countries

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28412892)

For the rest, the GOP needs to become more pro-business secular (while still respecting religion), but otherwise being the same. Pander to moderates and libertarians and not the evangelicals.

GOP voters won't tolerate the establishment GOP position on immigration any longer. GOP regained the Congress on the issue and has done nothing.

In any event, the GOP needs to propose something like your last point: easy immigration for the highly educated and people with huge $$$ who start businesses and guarantee to hire several employees (similar to Canadian rules).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413660)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html?WT.mc_id=2015-JULY-FB-WCA-UPSHOT_AUD_DEV-0701-0731&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28412974)

/endthread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413005)

Gas yourself you queers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413046)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413665)

except these cuckfaggot boomers will continue to drone on and on about personal responsibility and BOOTSTRAPS!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413094)

We're only going to have two parties in this country, so it's time to reform the right. The left is more and more deranged by the month.

We need a Goldwater-type revolution, only populist. Trump might be able to do it if he doesn't implode.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413681)

done. now you've got 2/3rds of the under-40 vote.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28413676)

If they think illegal immigration is the biggest issue facing the US, they need to say why instead of saying "they're rapists" like The Donald.

Stop focusing on social conservatism.

Stop focusing on portraying Democrats as enemies of America. Most millennials don't buy that shit. Old white people do, but millennials know better. Show policy differences in a respectful fashion.

And for fuck's sake do not put people like Cruz and Trump out there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414345)

ljl @ this horseshit

This generation's ability to think rationally has led to the popularization of gender politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414756)

Delicious irony

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414840)

The problem is that anything like this is completely unrealistic. If GOP actually did this, they would lose enough of the religious and big business votes to make them unelectable. So, instead they plan to get their foot in the door and then do the best they can. All that's left is cutting welfare and bashing women and gays.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414395)

Alternatiely, look at any economic regulation. Any increased regulation from the status quo will always be objected to on the ground that it is too expensive. And that may be true at the time. But eventually, it won't be true.

Cons fought putting seatbelts in every car. They lost, as was inevitable. They are now fighting energy efficient cars. They will lose, as is inevitable, because the price eventually will come down to the point where it is affordable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414534)

You sound like a scholar, so please explain Roe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414569)

I was specifically asking why public opinion re abortion rights (and Roe) has not significantly shifted in the last 40 years, unlike the other examples you gave where SCOTUS has intervened and tried to push society "forward" (i.e., gay rights, minority rights, etc.)

You seem a little slow so I'll bottom line it for you: You are making broad universal claims about general trends that are best discussed on an issue-by-issue basis, because contrary to your apparent thesis, history does not always march forward towards "progressivism" and the "inevitable expansion" of "rights" on every single issue, even on a long time scale.

See also, e.g., gun control.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414614)

"Conservatism" as you're using that term here is a meaningless because the concept is always inherently society specific. You first need to establish what values and traditions a specific population is trying to conserve before you can have a meaningful discussion about the dynamics of conservatism vs. liberalism in that population.

But putting that aside, I'm pretty sure it's a strong argument against this self-serving universalist "historical destiny is liberalism shitlibs are the good guys preordained to win by the force of time" horseshit narrative/thesis this idiot is pushing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414981)

"There is no country or population that is more conservative now than it was 1000 years ago."

Uh... huge portions of the Middle East?

But putting that aside, when you start using millenia as the time scale you start to lose perspective on what is actually driving change (and thus in what direction it is likely being driven). No shit, 1000 years ago slavery and serfdom was widely accepted because it was an economic imperative in a pre-industrial age. Technological advances in the form of mechanized labor played a tremendous role in facilitating the shift in public attitudes on that front. Is that "social progress"? Sure, maybe in that case. But as technology continues to move forward, is there a guarantee that further changes stemming from technology will constitute "social progress"? You haven't even come close to proving that thesis. But for the Nazis, I think there's a fair chance that we would live in a much more eugenics-friendly world today. Does that sound "progressive" to you? Is a world where the government can track every move you make and record every conversation you have "liberal," or "conservative"? How about a world where there is a genetically divided upperclass and underclass as a result of gene therapy? Would you bet all of your assets and future earnings on the proposition that in 1,000 years, America (or whatever successor state exists) will be universally more "liberal" on all issues than 2015 America is today? I sure wouldn't, and that's partly because I'm not even sure what "liberalism" would mean as a functional matter in ten centuries. Their world will be so far removed from ours on so many levels that some policies they have adopted might well seem horribly cruel and barbaric to our sensibilities--like a regression into the past.

And taking this conversation down to a more concrete level (and a more reasonable long-term timescale), is Russia more, or less, 'conservative' than it was 75 years ago?

"The gun rights are a blip [and a]bortion will be slower [but is going to come around]."

Just do "explain every counterexample that violates my extremely broad [and inherently self-vindicating] universalist thesis as a 'blip,' and make the functionally non-falsifiable claim that it's destined to shift in my favor eventually," bro

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414678)

America has become RIDICULOUSLY more liberal today than it was 25-50-100 years ago.

He can make up all the ridiculous analogies to future Eugenics Wars, but it doesn't change the fact that his long-winded screed couldn't point out a position in American society that has gone from liberal to MOAR CONSERVATIVE as a result of Reptile push-back.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28415853)

Look back at the Clinton-Bush-Perot debates, they were talking about "fixing Social Security" almost 30 years ago. Private sector unions and pensions have become SPS because we don't have the money to fund them.

Now that Boomers are getting ready to retire, we're DEFINITELY gonna see how fuckt we are when we have to pay for more people than those in the work force.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28415897)

I was trying to make a grander point, but if you want me to get down in the mud and wrestle with the pigs:

-By almost every metric, America is currently much tougher on crime now than it has been historically. That still remains true even when you account for the recent push to decriminalize drug offenses.

-In many ways, the social ideal of "freedom of speech" is experiencing a contraction right now. This is true on both the right and the left.

-Speaking of the left, the new vanguard of shitliberalism is becoming downright conservative when it comes to many facets of sex. Everything they don't like is "rape," a real movement that is pushing for what basically amount to morality codes on college campuses, a push for much more stringent language in statutes definine legal consent at the local and state level, etc. And of course with this push we're seeing an even more stark regression of due process rights of the accused when it comes to individuals (read: men) accused of sexual assault charges.

I could provide more examples, but I think you get the idea. I note that not all of these are a result of "Reptile push back," of course, but I'm not arguing that conservatives are "winning" the culture wars in America. I'm suggesting that this overly simplistic notion that progression of time = inevitable march towards great rights and liberties for great numbers of people is laughably misguided and reductionist (and, coming from a shitlib, immensely self-serving). If you're looking for an issue where the country has become measurably more conservative as a direct result of Reptilian efforts in the face of a liberal assault, however, look no further than gun control. This country is more gun crazy now than it has been at any point in American history, and especially with the recent Constitutionalization of the issue (a successful Reptile effort) there are no indications that this will be changing any time soon. "Out of my cold dead hands," etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28415919)

Frankly, the GOP has absolutely nothing to offer a vast majority of millennials and won't anytime in the near future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414495)

This is a fair criticism, and the Republicans bear the brunt of the blame for this deterioration, but some of it is also a natural reaction to the fact that Democrats are now refusing to actually engage in legitimate civil discouse. Shouting down your opponent, loudly denouncing him as a racist/bigot for disagreeing with you, and then making snarky Jon Leibovitz-style remarks about his idiocy becuase he's "too dumb to really engage with" isn't promiting serious policy discussion. It might be a highly effective populist strategy, but that sounds like more or less the same thing that you're bashing Republicans for.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414642)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A

OK

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414698)

GOP is getting pwned on that double edged sword of race. For years they were able to use it to pwn democrats, Willie Horton style. Now dems have finally figured out how to do the same to republicans by mobilizing minorities around the various issues that affect them the most. I hate to say it but the GOP made this about race LONG LONG before the present day, and I honestly don't think they ever considered the possibility that 1) demographics would change like they have and 2) democrats can use the same political trick to whip people into a frenzy as well. This just gets to my point about the GOP being a fundamentally irresponsible and reactionary party. They use political tactics that work in the short term but in the long run absolutely will always blow up in their face.

GOP is a reactionary party that has favored gaining political relevance through racist and xenophobic political tricks, instead of sound policy that will appeal to a majority of the country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414706)

That's starting to turn a lot of Hollywood more conservative, and with that a lot more young people will turn too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28414680)

Be the party that actually respects science and reason. Call out libs on their ill-thought policy proposals, and respond with something reasonable instead of with vague platitudes or similarly-pandering and unworkable bullshit. Force them to have actual policy debates or look like children who can't meaningfully analyze an issue without getting caught up in identity politics.

Take the low hanging fruit: legalize pot.

Offer carrots instead of sticks. Instead of shit like forcing TANF/SNAP recipients to pass drug tests, give them a little extra to opt in to a monthly piss test or daily breathalyzer.

Stop being retards about shit that only retards could want, like abstinence-only sex ed. It's little shit like this that adds up and makes people think the right is full of mouth breathing backwoods assholes who want to base policy on their retarded Bible study group.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416053)

It's all criticizing straw men while proposing weak shit that is easily straw manned if not objectively retarded.

Both sides appear to be convinced that they'll do better by making the other side look bad than by putting forth anything worthwhile.

So, we get shitty milquetoast policy that's usually neutered by compromise and we almost never get to test out potential policies regionally except in rare instances where States basically go rogue, legalize pot and let their citizens risk getting pwned by the feds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416132)

"Offer carrots instead of sticks. Instead of shit like forcing TANF/SNAP recipients to pass drug tests, give them a little extra to opt in to a monthly piss test or daily breathalyzer."

The vast majority would pass that test and the feds and states would have to pay more for those programs. Not too many conservatives would go for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416264)

I do think we over regulate some industries, although I'm inclined to suggest reasonable and effective regulations than GOP generally is.

I agree we should solve problems of poverty and income/wealth disparity more by promoting personal responsibility and good choices rather than giving people welfare or whatever. But I suggest offering carrots that will actually work rather than bullshit like forcing the recipients to take drug tests (which are expensive and usually the program is run by the governor's brother) for money many of them legitimately need in order to not be an even bigger burden on society.

I'm not sure how expensive it is to give someone a breathalyzer and have them send in the results in order to get a 10% bonus. It's probably minimal and insofar as it gives the money to the more responsible recipients and encourages some of them to stop drinking, that's probably worth the cost. Anyway, it's one example. I just think incentives tied to good behavior are underutilized, and the fight seems to be between dumping money on the poor vs dumping less money on the poor, with no regard to trying to change their behavior that keeps them poor. I'm open to suggestions you think conservatives would go for.

I think the GOP has some good ideas about restructuring the tax code, but again, the party is incoherent.

I agree immigration is a problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416388)

there's a strong reactionary undercurrent particularly among white male millennials. so, build off of that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416079)

For white liberal male millennials, just give them a "justice is the advantage of the stronger/weaker" argument in the spirit of Thrasymachus or Callicles. Tell them that moral relativism necessarily implies moral subjectivism, which in turns implies that moral principles are nothing more than expressions of self-interest. In that case, there's no reason for them to side with liberal principles since liberal principles only benefit minorities and women, and are actually a huge detriment to white males.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2945669&forum_id=2#28416482)