A conservative view on conservatism, a liberal's view on conservatism.

We are really not going to have much choice. We're thinking and acting as if we are the same hyperpower we were in 1993, but t's 2023 and we're vastly weakened in almost every measure you can think of. There is no way we can support a military of the size we had in 1993 without conscription, and we can't possibly fulfill all of the international commitments we've made without it. We've just come off a decades long war in which we were defeated, badly, by savages.

In my view it would be better to recognize that we're a declining power now rather than stumble into some foreign misadventure and get kicked in the face; hard to make that point.

 

Speaking is not voting. We still have a 'one person, one vote' system.

 

Terribly said, Mr Will is wrong

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...on-conservatism.614113/page-2#post-1074475052

 

Trump is no liberal. If he were, he wouldn't have bowed out of the Paris accords, or canceled the Trans-pacific partnership, and his redoing of NAFTA wasn't liberal at all, it was NAFTA 2.0 , he wouldn't have sought to build a a a wall across the southern border, (adding some here and there in places is okay) he would have never said something moronic like 'Mexico is going to pay for it' or 'they are sending us their rapists, and a few isuppose are good people'. Liberals might express some gaffs, but nothing as egregious as that.

But, his support of Medicare is good, his CARES act was good, but not on the TAX Cut for the super rich, no progressive liberal I know would have ever done that AND a CARES act.

His Muslim ban was not liberal at all.

No liberal would have posed with KJU or declared 'they were in love' or passed over his intel staff and praised Putin, or asked Russia to commit cyberespionage on his opponent, or publicly announce he was going to sick the DOJ on his opponent during a debate, nor, when everyone was shouting 'lock her up' a liberal would have stepped in and stopped it. Or, a moderate republican would have (as McCain did when a woman jumped up and said Obama was a Muslim, McCain shut her up, as he should have).

But, it's all moot because he says so many stupid things, and has committed so many crimes, he's not fit for the office.

In fact, is, Trump say whatever is necessary to his base to get himself elected.

 

So you support setting a cross on fire on a black Baptist's lawn?

Your logic wanes.

Issues are more complex than aphorisms can address.

 

That's an attack? That might be an attack to someone with skin thinner than Trump's. Is that you? Say it isn't so.

No, it does appear you are unable to discern the difference, which comports to the comment.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

I hope you are right. I not confident that they are.

I question the merit of that survey, it doesn't jive with what I know about both parties. Pew research does a better job,. in my view, as the statistics you provided do not exactly match the most recent data I found. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, about 61% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

When we look at the data by political party:

• 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
• 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Do you agree that a courthouse shouldn't display the 10 commandments?

Ok

The minute China believes we won't come to Taiwan's defense, that minute they will invade.
So, I'll support the administration's policy on this.

We'll just agree to disagree on this point.

What we should do is allow one senator for 3 million people. Or something similar.

I support doing away with winner take all on principle, no candidate should claim an unearned elector, period.
It's anti-democratic.

This from a BING AI search:

In California, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC) is responsible for drawing the district maps for the House of Representatives, as well as the State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization 12. This independent commission uses census data to redraw these boundaries based on population changes1. The CCRC certified the final district maps and delivered them to the Secretary of State on December 27th, 20211 2.

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is composed of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members who are not affiliated with either of the two major parties 1234.


We can't help it if there are more democrats in CA than republicans, and republicans do have a number of districts. Just because one party is bigger doesn't prove gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering would be, say, we cracked up the red districts in Orange country and made them the smaller part of Dem districts. I don't think the commission is gerrymandering at all.

 

Dunno what ur talken about, but it sounds like you support cutting military spending?

 

You're interjecting yourself in a conversation I was having with Wild Bill. Your response is non sequitur to my rebuttal to his comment. Follow the conversation, if you want to comment.

 

It depends on what we, as a people, determine our military mission to be. Currently "we" seem to want an unlimited military mission, and that requires a massive military budget. The question isn't what you want the military budget to be, it's what you want the military mission to be, and then you budget from there.

 

Wait! You didn't like my post. Oh crap, now I'm gonna cry.

 

Setting a cross on fire on anyone's lawn is a crime.
Bad faith posting is unpersuasive.
And no, free speech is a bracingly simple issue.

 

How about when you arnt playing hive mind?
As a voter, you would support a candidate that ran on....?

 

...reducing our military commitments to match our capabilities. And you would not I assume?

 

I would see that position laughably ripped to shreds. This is America, military and guns first.

 

OK, as articulate as always I see.

 

The Inconvenient Truth: Trump has always been a liberal progressive - often farther Left than Bernie Sanders.

“Trump has about as much chance of winning the progressive vote as Michael Moore does of winning the next CPAC straw poll. But over the course of his decades-long involvement in American political life, Trump has taken positions on liberal priorities that would put him firmly in the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party.”
MSNBC, Donald Trump: Progressive champion?, You wouldn't know it from his campaign announcent, but in the past, Donald Trump has taken positions to the left of Bernie Sanders., June 16, 2015, 8:59 PM EDT / Updated June 17, 2015, 7:58 AM EDT.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-progressive-champion-msna619741

This now rather obvious truth has clearly become very inconvenient for both of our major political parties.

 

That right there is also a personal jab.

You just cant fathom the idea of being able to discuss issues and defend your positions without these snide little attacks.

Unlike the true thin skinned people here, i dont report it because i think it showcases the caliber of ability to debate, or lack there of.

Prove you wrong that you do EXACTLY what you accuse other of doing?

You actually admit it yourself:

What I meant was there is a difference between a sweeping generalizations rife with loaded terms and politically charged rhetoric, and well thought out reasoning, and especially if said reasoning is sourced.

Because YOU belive your opinions, and because you sourced some bias data or information. That YOU believe validates your opinion, usually cherry picked, usually from some commentator, and usually connecting dots that don't exist.

You've convinced yourself that your opinions are superior, are factual, and anybody that doesn't agree must simply be wrong. And that's fine, you can believe them to be wrong, but what you don't get to do is put tour opinions on some pedestal believing they are more valid.

The superiority complex you have for opinions is over the top.

 

Reread what i wrote, please. You are non sequitur.

(if you do not know what non sequitur means, look it up, because your response does, indeed, suggest you do not ).

 

Your pontificating about 'free speech' misses the point, entirely, which is that not all speech is protected by the first Amendment.

Where I disagree with the SCOTUS is on the point of allowing unlimited aggregate donations (under the first amendment banner) to benefit one party by one individual or group.

That shouldn't be protected speech as it has a corrupting influence on democracy, and note that not all speech is protected.

Your aphorism doesn't actually rebut my argument. Corruption involves speech, but speech involved in corruption isn't protected speech, so why should unlimited aggregate donations to a super pac be protected speech given that that state of affairs has a corrupting influence? More than speech, writings, songs, other forms of the first amendment, money has the unique quality of being able to purchase things, such as undue access to a legislature. Money has undue influence. Money it great quantities imparts power. You appear to be virtue signaling but there is no virtue there to signal.

That is the salient point which conservatives cannot comprehend. But, given Trump, corruption is the norm, these days.

https://prospect.org/mapping-corruption-interactive

 

yes, there are a few things they agree on, but no where near enough to characterize Trump as a lefty.

Inconvenient fact: Bernie wants MORE socialism. Trump wants less.

I explained to you, already,. why you are inaccurate.

All you are doing is repeating yourself.

Either refute what I wrote, or add something that hasn't been mention.

I will provide you with more detail, with annotations that source/link

The political positions of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are quite different, and it would be inaccurate to claim that Trump is to the left of Sanders. Here’s why:

1. Economic Philosophy: Trump is primarily a quasi-populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist1. His policies have frequently changed1. On the other hand, Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist2. His proposed policies emphasize reducing economic inequality and expanding social programs and workers’ rights2.
   
   
2. Trade and Manufacturing: Trump has taken a hard-line stance on China, coupled with a policy to protect local manufacturers from foreign competition3. Sanders, however, supports workplace democracy in the forms of union democracy and worker cooperatives2.
   
   
3. Healthcare: Trump has been critical of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and has made several attempts to repeal it. Sanders, on the other hand, is a strong advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, often referred to as "Medicare for All"4.
   
   
4. Tax Policy: Trump’s administration passed significant tax cuts that largely benefited corporations and high-income individuals. Sanders advocates for progressive tax reforms that would increase taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs4.
   
   
5. Climate Change: Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and rolled back numerous environmental regulations during his presidency. Sanders, in contrast, is a strong proponent of aggressive action to combat climate change and endorses the Green New Deal
   

 

You can't fathom that your ''you can't fathom' is about on par with what I just wrote. That doesn't bother me, nor should what I wrote bother you,
This kind of thing goes on all day and night on this forum and if it does bother you,. you should get your arse OFF the internet.

get over it, or go cry to the mods.

Feeling a little superior, are we? Hah!

Didn't you just chide me for my 'snide remark' my 'jab' ? And now you are doing it? Physician heal thyself.

At least i take the trouble to source my opinions, by learned people better than myself. Many on this forum do not, or are too lazy,. or there aren't anyone they can find worth a squat too source, you tell me.

And being challenged, well, it's the entire reason I'm here, to gage response, and the possibility someone's view might shed light on something I haven't considered. I will say that it doesn't happen that often,. but it does happen.

Sure, I think I'm right, we all think we are right, but what is the point of being here if we aren't here to allow our views be challenged? In many my OPs,. at the end i write something on the order 'replies welcome', etc.

Methinks your being bothered is, well, 'over the top'.

 

Democrats have benefited more from dark money than have Republicans. I think you are wrong about the First Amendment. I think it protects all political speech except that which fails the "shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" test. And contributions to political speech are political speech.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

Me calling your postings as reeking of superiority complex isn't a slam. You admitted you feel that way, and continue to do so.

If you are here to participate in a debate and possibly consider others opinions and potentially evaluate something you haven't considered... don't you think the snide personal attacks detracts from that objective?

 

In fact, amny liberals support Trumps position on the issues on your list. And the Left has noticed that DJT is often "to the left of Bernie Sanders."

“The sometime reality TV star has taken these positions at disparate moments in his political career, but if we could merge these different candidates into one ultra-liberal "Franken-Trump", he could have Bernie Sanders' guarding his left-flank. Here then, is the policy platform of Donald Trump, progressive champion:

1. Government health care for all

2. Legalize all drugs

3. Tax the wealth of the 1%

4. No more foreign wars

5. Defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership and protect American workers”

MSNBC, Donald Trump: Progressive champion?, You wouldn't know it from his campaign announcent, but in the past, Donald Trump has taken positions to the left of Bernie Sanders., June 16, 2015, 8:59 PM EDT / Updated June 17, 2015, 7:58 AM EDT.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-progressive-champion-msna619741