Is the GOP dumbing down?

Just shoved it right back in your face. If you call my posts nonsense, I call your posts nonsense.

 

Yeah, they sure ain't dumbing any less or even level....quite sad.

 

Irrelevant, and 30 years ago Maher was a novice, immature as a TV host.

So, BD.

 

I'm game for manchins and sinemas on both sides, and solid dems and repubs on both sides, I'm against the doozies, but they are unavoidable.

However, while I acknowledge the hard left has influenced policy in democrat side (I do not support the hard left's policies on genderism), the right are now controlled by the 'doozies'. aka the hard right.

 

I'm all for Congress and the presidency and anything else to be filled with Manchins, Sinemas, Murkowskis, Romneys, and Collins. Jettison everyone else.

 

You are a centrist? It's unreasonable to want only like minded folks, that's not what democracy is all about. Democracy is the capacity to accept and work with the diversity of opinions.

 

LOL. As the democrats want to cast out Manchin and Sinema.

 

Because they are impeding Biden's agenda and we have a slim majority where they can block Biden's agenda. But for that fact, we wouldn't want them out.

so, it's not because they are not like minded, its because the slim majority is given them unjust power.

 

LOL. You were just telling me about the big tent party. Guess you must have lied. If you aren't part of the collective you get expelled.

 

When the tRumpublicans have a tent they you can criticize. Even before Benedict Donald the GOP has been the power first, USA last party; they vote for their agenda and against anything else. EVEN, if it's would be good for America and AmeriCANs. Getting and maintaining power and control is all tRumpublicans care about. So, stow your feigned criticism, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Joe Biden's only real failing is his belief that you can still reach across the isle to get things done, that's been a fantasy since Gingrich.

 

I just explained to you about Manchin and Sinema

Please pay attention.

 

But the point is YOU don't have a tent. If you don't go along with the collective then you are excumminicated. Differing opinions are not allowed. You only have a big tent as long as everyone thinks the same as you.

 

All you explained was that if people in your tent have differing views then you try beating them into submission until they have your view. If that doesn't work then they are excommunicated.

 

No, (well, technically "I" don't have a tent, had my fill of camping long ago) that was my point about you and tRumpublican's. They have a bunker where free thinking isn't tolerated. Anyone that doesn't go along with Donald Judas' lie of the day incurres the wrath of the collective and gets primaried.

 

LOL

No, (well, technically "I" don't have a tent, had my fill of camping long ago) that was my point about you and lefties. They have a bunker where free thinking isn't tolerated. Anyone that doesn't go along with them incurs the wrath of the collective and gets primaried.

 

You keep repeating my posts and turning them inside out. For an "independent thinker" you don't seem to be able to muster a thought of your own.

 

You tend to strike me as fair-minded, so I'll give you my honest take:

i)All attempts to unjustly institute authoritarianism is evil in our Constitutional Liberal Democracy.
ii) To the extent that "progressivism" attempts to institute authoritarianism it is evil.
iii) It is our self-rule and our status as a truly Free People that is progress, which is why I put "progressivism" in quotes, it's not progress, its regress.
iv) Constitutional Liberalism is the very apex of human development, I'm not surprised that evil progressives have appropriated the term.

 

The principles you enumerate are all well & good, but the judgement of "Progressives'," motivations and actions, is your own, individual opinion, which it is unreasonable to expect others to automatically share. Personally, I think the term "progressive," is a very broad one, at least in common usage, and not a very strictly defined term, either. I think of it as a later iteration of the concept of "liberal," Democrats, as opposed to moderate or conservative ones, which came along because Republicans had succeeded in turning the "liberal" label, into a smear. But, again, I know that different people vary, in their concepts of what is a liberal. For example, I think that Ralph Nader-- who I respect-- sees (or at least, saw, at the time that he said this) "liberals," to be those "bleeding heart" stereotypes, with fixed, and sometimes irrationally contradicting, views, while he thought of Progressives as those forward- thinkers, who came to their opinions on any issue, from reasoned analysis, not from merely the acceptance of any dogma.

So, barring a very clear, & tight definition of "progressive," the essential part, omitted from your argument, was *what ways you are asserting that "progressivism attempts to institute authoritarianism." Here, again-- just to keep ahead of the curve-- I will point out that your own idea of "authoritarianism," might differ from my own, but that it is a term with a much better established, and fixed, meaning. I have heard Republicans, & others on the Right, lodge many complaints of authoritarianism at the Left, though I cannot recall seeing any that were reasonable characterizations (or not very hypocritical assessments, as well). But perhaps you are the exception, who can point out legitimate authoritarianism, among progressives, in general.

 

The Progressive movement began in the 1890's. It's always been self-righteous, authoritarian and hostile to Constitutional Liberalism as our Constitutional privileges and immunities prevent them from imposing their authoritarianism.

Good questions:

• In our system of self-government, all just power is derived from the consent of we the people. There is no other legitimate source of power. We have no Lords or Ladies, we have royalty, we have no titled nobility. No one has a inherent right to exercise authority over another without consent.
• In our system of ordered liberty, our Constitutions and Charters are the rules for government of all forms, and the legitimate purpose of government is to more perfectly secure our rights. Those documents delineate the areas where we consent to have our representative governments, govern us, for that purpose.
• We then live under the rules and regulations of issued by these governing authorities, and if they properly follow process to form these laws and regulations, we obey them because they bind our conscience. In a very real sense its as if they were our own choices.
• In the absence of properly formed rule or regulation we exercise our own choice while respecting the rights of others to exercise theirs.
• There is no provision for the "progressive's" obscene urge to masterplan our society.

 

That is the part you need to be specific about. Having goals, BTW, cannot, in itself, be considered authoritarian, unless those goals include the abnegation of democratic rule. As long as they intend to pursue those goals through the legitimate, democratic process, and to an end that is not intended to compromise the democracy, I don't see how one could correctly call that, "authoritarian (hypothetically speaking)."

 

Perhaps we can't feed them but at least the illegals he is letting in will get free smart phones.

https://bongino.com/psaki-confirms-biden-admin-is-giving-free-smartphones-to-illegals

 

That's a fair point. Even if they long for authoritarian power, so long as they respect the boundaries that prevent it, they are acting lawfully.

 

All I did was correct your posts so that they read correctly.

 

My posts were fine, twisting them turned them into your standard bullshit pablum. Like I said your handle is a misnomer; try incapablethinker; it's closer to the mark.

 

You posted bullshit. I corrected your bullshit.