> Presumably the conservatives still want the US to be a superpower,

I used to think that too, but it seems evident the current crop of conservatives is only interested in hurting people they don’t like and funneling money into the pockets of oligarchs. It’s pretty evident now that none of this is being done out of patriotism or a genuine desire to improve America.

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent [-]

> hurting people they don’t like

> genuine desire to improve America

We think these are related, just like you do. The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.

And that difference results from the fact that you think you can construct a new society without billionaires and industrialists that nonetheless offers the prosperity we have today, and more. By contrast, we think the way to get more prosperity is to do more of the things that made America prosperous in the past.

▲

NewJazz a day ago | parent | next [-]

By contrast, we think the way to get more prosperity is to do more of the things that made America prosperous in the past.

Like not wage foreign wars?

	▲	rayiner a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe. That’s a central fissure between new right conservatives and the neocons that embrace liberal internationalism.

▲

voxl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh you mean like funding science? Dumbass.

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent [-]

This is funding science. Literally just reallocating funding from one part of the pipeline to another.

	▲	DangitBobby a day ago \| parent [-]
		You have to fund both ends of the pipeline or it dries up. You can't just fund the money end and expect money to pour out forever.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

solid_fuel a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> We think these are related, just like you do.

Oh, we're all well aware that you think hurting people is the only way to improve the country.

> The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.

Don't you know that lying is a sin? You can't even define "postmodernist". No. I've heard this screeching noise you're making many times but it always boils down to the same truth: you don't believe in hurting "postmodernist academics", you believe in hurting people who aren't straight, white, christians.

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

solid_fuel a day ago | parent [-]

> How about “people who bring intersectional personal attributes into a discussion of science funding?”

Yeah, that's what I figured - you are in fact completely incapable of defining "postmodernist". I don't think anyone is surprised that you have no idea what you're talking about though, it's pretty obvious that you're just a really emotionally fragile guy who is having some big feelings about minorities existing.

By the way, I know there's no god, because if there was you would have spontaneously imploded from the sheer irony of whining about bringing “intersectional personal attributes into a discussion of science funding” in a post-DOGE world.

▲

TimorousBestie a day ago | parent [-]

“By that definition, DOGE was postmodernist” is sincerely great, good job.

	▲	solid_fuel a day ago \| parent [-]
		0/10 on reading comprehension, repeat 5th grade. I'm sure that's not the first time you've been told that.