The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(01-28-2020, 11:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, the American right is indeed "pretty much content with sticking to doing things and succeeding it's own way these days." It loves the neo-liberal, trickle-down economics status quo in which they get big tax breaks and are allowed to screw over their customers and workers, and have their prejudices against immigrants and the poor stroked and their fanatical religious "values" lauded. It's all just fine for them. But the rising younger and more diverse people on the left are not satisfied with an economic system that holds them down for no reason. They don't need to be influenced to know they are being screwed, or to know that climate change and gun violence are real issues that need to be dealt with. They are not brainwashed by the false ideologies of the Christian Right, militarism and neo-liberalism. The Left can see the 40-year trend of America downward toward banana republic status on every measurement you can find. They know that adopting an authoritarian system of government led by an unfit, ego-maniacal demagogue is not what America needs.

Dude, right now the liberal side is the side clinging to neo liberal policies and placing road blocks in the way of pro American policies under the guise of racism and so forth.

There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2020, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: The Gun Guys are a joke, and they proved that on this last trip to Richmond.  Most of their potential physical opposition consisted of a few State Police officers -- many of them women.  They marched around acting tough, and left.  I don't think they'll be back soon.

Man, is that all they had to face, a few state troopers that were mostly women. Why did your liberal governor and liberal media wig out over them coming to town? Where was vicious Antifa? I assume that they prefer to terrorize, threaten and beat up unarmed people? Well, you should shoot send them an email and let them know that Minnesotans have the legal right to carry firearms and the right to  shoot them here too.

Actually, the counter march was scheduled and canceled, at the request of both parties here. No one wanted another Charlottesville and gun-control groups knew that violence would only hurt their cause. Rather mature, I thought.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

[David Horn]

(01-29-2020, 08:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Eventually the conservatives will stop trying and we might see another progressive period.  Judging from Classic, not yet.

This is a bigger point than I think you intended. Much of what we consider the conservative base is conservative in the cultural sense, first and foremost, and politics are secondary when and if they consider them at all. Today's rapidly changing societal structures make old models of belief and behavior seem out of place or even unsuitable. For people wedded to the idea that consistency is a hallmark of good behavior, that's both scary and offensive. Younger, more progressive members of society have similar feelings for the opposite reason: that the old stilted models are too constraining and more like social prison. This is a circle that will be hard to square.

[pbrower2a]

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

People are not going there for the sunshine, mild winters, or the easy language to learn. (It is cold, winter nights are long, and the language has fifteen cases). 

Finland is an easy country to leave. 

Fear of a boss who can fire you without reason isn't freedom. Hunger isn't freedom. Being heavily in debt for a college education that might allow one to remain in the middle class isn't freedom. The risk of going bankrupt and losing everything due to medical costs isn't freedom. 

High taxes, high wages, and good services? That certainly beats the Land of Cotton.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs and the needs of every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.   

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

Still amazed that anyone thinks in terms of voodoo economics.  When the Republicans get the White House, they borrow and spend like crazy.  They stimulate in good times and bad to get into two terms of good times.  Then comes “It’s the economy, stupid”, or the Great Recession, and power is handed back to the responsible people for a while.

How come the Democrats never get caught?  Why is it always the Republicans who get caught up in things like Watergate, Iran-contra, lying about causes of war, the nest of corruption that is Trump?  It is not like either side isn’t ready to pounce these days.  I am willing to believe the Democrats took a lot of elite money back a while, to send the jobs abroad.  I quite believe that the Democrats got pretty corrupt back in the late Progressive Era.  Leave anyone in power too long, and you will get some corruption.

But you have to be pretty blind to see the Democrats as the more corrupt party now.  Establishment Republicans don’t believe in big government.  They believe in exploiting big government.

The Tea Party?  Much less corrupt at a close to the grass roots level.  However, in latching onto Trump, they have latched on to his corruption too.  If they bind onto Trump blindly they will only tick the much less corrupt liberals off.  The middle of the country will be scorned as backing corruption.  The only reason to bind themselves to Trump is the racism and tribal thinking.  Those are anathema to the liberals.

But I too do am not in favor of neoliberalism and shipping jobs abroad.  But I see both as more Establishment Republican pro elite policies far more than liberal.  That is one place where you are so delusional, so ready to believe that the other side is supporting your sides policies, that I lose you entirely.  A extremist will seldom accurately see the other guys policy.  They are so much into demonization that they believe themselves.  They come to see their own version of reality.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

Well, I don't know what's wrong with Brooklyn (the place that the couple gave up on and left) or what the cost of their entitlement package or the overall quality of their healthcare system compared to mine either Also, I don't know why they chose to move to another country vs choosing to move to a more affordable state within the US either. Oh well, to each their own, I wish them well. Dave, I don't care if you and other liberals flock to Scandinavia or some other laid back European country. It's your right to do so and it would be a much faster to get the kind system that you prefer and seem to believe in too.

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 07:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 07:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There are several interpretations of "neo-liberal," but the dominant one is that it is your philosophy of "trickle-down economics" and "none of my tax money for lazy people on welfare" (i.e. the blacks, latinos in urban areas... yadda yadda). Neo-liberalism is Reaganomics and the status quo that you just admitted above that you like.

America is an idea: that the country exists for the benefit of its people, with a government of, by and for the people. You and your Party approve of and vote for an authoritarian dictator who considers himself above the law. You and your Party and your Dictator are ANTI-AMERICAN! Get that. Your president feels entitled to fully and completely obstruct ANY investigation made of him to hold him accountable. He has divided the country between those who respect the congress and the laws, and those who only respect the president.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that Trump is not above the law. However, I think you are blind and must not have been listening to Alan Dershowitz's Constitutional argument that he presented to the Senate the other day. It's been very clear to me for a long time that a segment of the Democratic party views it itself and conducts itself as if  it's some how or another see's itself, believes itself, presents itself, conducts itself as being   above the law and feels free to ignore the law and intentionally break or change the  the law anytime it wants or feels it needs to these days. Hint...that particular bunch of Democrats are directly related to you, your needs  and the needs of  every liberal poster here today. So, how do we bring those liberal politicians of yours down to earth and force them to accept that they are equal in the eyes of the law and teach them a lesson about their use and obvious belief in a system of    double standards and so forth? Well, that's up to the Democrats to work  out themselves and fix themselves before we get really serious  and begin addressing the issue with the Democrats in ways that  further separate them from those who also share traditional American values these days.         

Yes, I'm more in favor of supporting modern day supply side economics than the old Keynesian approach favored by traditional Democrats and those who still be in socialist policies and socialist economics of old. However, I'm not a big fan of neo-liberalism or globalism today, or the liberal policies directly associated with it these days.

Still amazed that anyone thinks in terms of voodoo economics.  When the Republicans get the White House, they borrow and spend like crazy.  They stimulate in good times and bad to get into two terms of good times.  Then comes “It’s the economy, stupid”, or the Great Recession, and power is handed back to the responsible people for a while.

How come the Democrats never get caught?  Why is it always the Republicans who get caught up in things like Watergate, Iran-contra, lying about causes of war, the nest of corruption that is Trump?  It is not like either side isn’t ready to pounce these days.  I am willing to believe the Democrats took a lot of elite money back a while, to send the jobs abroad.  I quite believe that the Democrats got pretty corrupt back in the late Progressive Era.  Leave anyone in power too long, and you will get some corruption.

But you have to be pretty blind to see the Democrats as the more corrupt party now.  Establishment Republicans don’t believe in big government.  They believe in exploiting big government.

The Tea Party?  Much less corrupt at a close to the grass roots level.  However, in latching onto Trump, they have latched on to his corruption too.  If they bind onto Trump blindly they will only tick the much less corrupt liberals off.  The middle of the country will be scorned as backing corruption.  The only reason to bind themselves to Trump is the racism and tribal thinking.  Those are anathema to the liberals.

But I too do am not in favor of neoliberalism and shipping jobs abroad.  But I see both as more Establishment Republican pro elite policies far more than liberal.  That is one place where you are so delusional, so ready to believe that the other side is supporting your sides policies, that I lose you entirely.  A extremist will seldom accurately see the other guys policy.  They are so much into demonization that they believe themselves.  They come to see their own version of reality.

Hint...The last Democrat in office and the Democratic legislative process burrowed and spent and even committed us to funding another long term welfare program while taking massive losses in revenues without seeming to care about any of it one bit. How many years did the nation go with an open budget (without a budget)?  So, why are you mad now because the Republicans are rebuilding gutted/hollowed out economy and a depleted military by borrowing and spending while economies, employment opportunities, revenues are in the process of growing again.

Why are the Republicans the ones who seem to be the only ones caught? I don't know, you going to have to ask the left wing newspapers, left wing investigators and journalists who work for them and the left wing national media/news outlets that always jumps on the left wing bandwagon? I assume there's a liberal bias that has existed in the government and the press for many years and there's a major reward for those turn in or catch Republicans. I don't know, you tell me how a Democratic Senator and his family get away with making millions for themselves off American tax dollars while in office.

I mean, how many years did it take for the Democratic run news outlets of old to admit that the Democratic lead war in Vietnam was no longer winnable? Also, I assume that the Democratic run media doesn't want to know about anything bad that could hurt the party that they favor. I assume the Democratic slant wasn't as obvious back then as it is to most today.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 08:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: At times I have opposed both Eric and Classic.  This time I am more with Eric.  His comment referred to a lot of policies.  Classic had the same problem as he did with our recent existing exchange, posting something simple, not talking about specific policies.

What are his real policies?  What does he mean by ‘pro American’?

Now I lump Neo-liberalism with the elites and the division of wealth.  I tend to lean more on Elites and division of wealth language in my posts as the words are more descriptive and simple.  However, if you insist on using the Neo-liberal language, in spite of its being similar to liberal, I am generally with Neo-liberal bashing.

As I see it, the Republican Party has always been for the elites.  The Tea Party, not so much.  That is one place where the Tea Party compares favorably with the Republican Establishment.  They are trying to get rid of the traditional Republican linkage giving the elites as large a balance of wealth advantage as possible.

I would prefer to think that Classic leans that way too, but will not speak for him.  He supposedly favors the common people living on the streets.

But the liberals with their attempts at campaign finance reform, with their attempts at accepting many smaller contributions from individuals rather than large ones for corporations, are more on the anti establishment and anti division of wealth side.  I would side with Eric in saying that the liberal side is more with the people, the Establishment Republicans more with the elites.

I also have my problem with Classic’s ‘American’ label.  As most would use the word, it would mean ‘from America’ or ‘identifies with an American heritage’.  As Classic uses the word, it seems to mean ‘people like me’,  For example, Latinos have a heritage from Central and South America.  That makes them American.  However, this seems not to fit Classic’s usage of the word.

Me, the phrase “all men are created equal’ seems to preclude the word.  You should not be prejudiced towards a person according to race or place of origin.  And yet, Classic’s use of ‘American’ seems to exclude Latinos, seems to be based on race,  seems to be racist.  I would prefer to think Classic has a way of tiptoeing around it.

There are three problems I have been fixated on with some conservatives: racism, a pro elite bias, and a fixation on certain groups of people such as Evangelicals as privileged.  Get rid of those three elements, and I could welcome a conservative slant on politics as part of the normal healthy discourse.

Of the three, I would hope Classic, Eric, myself and most could agree that we should be opposed the oversized influence of the elites, and of the perils of racism.  The influence of the Evangelicals in imposing their religious values on those who do not share their core ethics is more controversial.  Anyone here at the moment willing to advocate for the Evangelicals?

But given that Classic has a tendency to oversimplify, to deal in sides rather than policies, in his readiness to attribute false motives and policies to sides he is not on, it becomes hard to tell where he really stands.

Which pro elite policies are liberals supposedly backing?  Is his definition of ‘American’ really racist?  Does he oppose the three questionable policies of favoring elites, racism, and privilege?

On the emigration issue, I will throw out another possible position.  If we are to fight a War on Drugs, we should offer asylum to those who fight for us in that war.  On the other hand, we should not offer asylum claimed on the grounds of our economy being healthier than that of countries further south.  The process of looking at asylum should be quicker, more humane, and in particular not separate parents from children.  Opposed?

The global elites are on your side, The bulk of the media elites are on your side. The bulk of the Hollywood elites are on your side. The bulk of the coastal city elites like Bloomberg who have substantial interests in China are on your side. The Koch Brothers are on your side. The modern day robber barons are on your side. The remnants of the old Bush wing elites are on your side. You may as well quit sucking up to me and slip back over with Eric like its always been since I arrived many years ago.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2020, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: The Gun Guys are a joke, and they proved that on this last trip to Richmond.  Most of their potential physical opposition consisted of a few State Police officers -- many of them women.  They marched around acting tough, and left.  I don't think they'll be back soon.

Man, is that all they had to face, a few state troopers that were mostly women. Why did your liberal governor and liberal media wig out over them coming to town? Where was vicious Antifa? I assume that they prefer to terrorize, threaten and beat up unarmed people? Well, you should shoot send them an email and let them know that Minnesotans have the legal right to carry firearms and the right to  shoot them here too.

Actually, the counter march was scheduled and canceled, at the request of both parties here.  No one wanted another Charlottesville and gun-control groups knew that violence would only hurt their cause.  Rather mature, I thought.

So, are the mature going to make the issue caused it go away too? I wonder how many of the mature with guns were members of your law enforcement and state national guard. Like I said, you can't count on the red's/purple's army remaining loyal to the liberal cause these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2020, 01:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The global elites are on your side, The bulk of the media elites are on your side. The bulk of the Hollywood elites are on your side. The bulk of the coastal city elites like Bloomberg who have substantial interests in China are on your side. The Koch Brothers are on your side. The modern day robber barons are on your side. The remnants of the old Bush wing elites are on your side. You may as well quit sucking up to me and slip back over with Eric like its always been since I arrived many years ago.

The way I keep score...

Primarily Establishment Conservative: Global Elites.  Fox News.  Breitbart.  The Elites.  The Koch Brothers.  The Robber Barons.  The Bush era Elite remnants.  The KKK.  The Neo nazis.  Racists.  Evangelicals.

Primarily Liberal: The Bulk of the coastal media.  Hollywood.  The Antifa.

I likely missed a lot of liberal elements, in part because you listed so many conservative elements that things got lopsided.

The conservative elite that you list are very redundant, including multiple labels for the same people...  For example, the Koch brothers are elites.  Most people view that the Koch Brothers are distinctly not liberals, but neither are they people that you would like either.  You are confusing the common view with your own.  To a great extent, like the word 'American', you are redefining many words to meet your own strange perception, thus almost speaking another language.  What you say may be true using your custom language, but most of us speak English and most of what you say comes across as gibberish or nonsense.

Now I believe what you describe fits your personal opinion.  The above is far more for the pro elite Establishment Republicans than the Tea Party or grass roots.  Perhaps there should be three conventional sides?  More?

From my perspective the conservatives who are not racist, pro elite or tribal thinkers should be willing to work with the liberals on many issues, but still honestly disagree on things like voodoo economics and government size.  Then again voodoo economics has got the US in trouble multiple times.  Sending jobs abroad is pro elite profits thus a division of wealth issue and in part racist.  It is putting the corporations above the country and the workers, working against certain races.  The interests in sending jobs abroad is solidly pitting the elites against the American workers.  Thus, few if any are not against the elites, unless they perceive themselves as elites.

I guess that is one of the big places we differ.  You claim to be for jobs staying in the US, but support the party that is most involved in moving jobs abroad.  But you are far closer to Tea Party the Establishment Republican, and thus confuse liberals with people not like yourself.  There are multiple factions not like yourself.  In fact, you are weird.  Most people are not like yourself.  A lot of electrons are wasted on this site trying to straighten out your non-standard perception.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

Somebody is confused.

Is it time for a liberal to try define what a liberal is? We have Classic's demonization of who he thinks liberals are, but his list includes many that liberals would oppose. His demonization sheds light only on Classic.

Anyone?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2020, 03:18 AM). Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

Somebody is confused.

Is it time for a liberal to try define what a liberal is?  We have Classic's demonization of who he thinks liberals are, but his list includes many that liberals would oppose.  His demonization sheds light only on Classic.

Anyone?

Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective. You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already. Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution. They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country. The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.

I am less sure. The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump. With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power? Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House? After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election. Will Pence walk that path? Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed? Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump? If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans. That will be big come November. That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards. Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped. The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is. The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up. Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House. Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas? Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused. Liberals know liberal values more than you. They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

[pbrower2a]

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 03:18 AM). Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 02:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 08:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, you are confused about the term. I use it because it of often used these days. Properly speaking, neo-liberalism is the supply-side economics and opposition to Keynesian economics and falsely labeling it as "socialism" that you favor.

Dershowitz certainly made a fool of himself. He wants a president to get away with misconduct that only a president can do. I don't know how you manage in that mind of yours to attribute what Republicans do to Democrats. The Republicans are anointing a dictator this week. They are certifying that a president can simply ignore subpoenas and obstruct justice. Trump has specifically says that the constitution gives him the right to do anything he wants. He feels entitled to ignore and obstruct any oversight. He feels entitled to use hush money and his own charity's funds to support his political campaigns, and to bribe foreign governments with public money to smear his election opponents.

What you say the Democrats need to do, is exactly what the Republicans need to do.

I wonder what will happen after the election. It does not look good. If Trump wins, he will consolidate power, break the law at will, and assume dictatorial powers with impunity from the political powers of the country. This will arouse mass and possibly violent opposition, and probably constant strikes. If Trump loses, he will resist being deposed, claim the election was rigged, and incite violent rebellion. The planetary aspects for this period from November through February are ominous.

You may be confused by the term since you say that it has so many different meanings these days. So what does neo liberalism really mean/imply? I assume you have access to goggle like everyone else here.  As far as Trump, I don't see him getting impeached and I don't think a petty misconduct charge is an impeachable offense. I also believe the obvious abuse of power that took place in the House was unconstitutional. You don't bypass a constitutional process and impeach. So, how many of you are willing to pay the price for supporting them? Someone on the Democratic side better step up and show us that the Democrats aren't all the same these days. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party of today ain't anything like the old Democratic party. You'll learn.

Somebody is confused.

Is it time for a liberal to try define what a liberal is?  We have Classic's demonization of who he thinks liberals are, but his list includes many that liberals would oppose.  His demonization sheds light only on Classic.

Anyone?

Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days.

 

Go ahead and knock the English heritage, will you? To be sure, much of the Anglo-American heritage, including trial by jury and the oldest heritage of democracy in England is really from the Norse... but you would expect such in a country whose heritage is Celtic, German, and Scandinavian. On the whole the British got the best of the three and did some of their own unique innovations. The English common law (a rational foundation of our precedent-based legal system) is a good start, and if there is one reliable source for much of the combined knowledge of the late-medieval and early-modern world, then it is Shakespeare. Let's start with Macbeth: thuggish government gets horrible results, a lesson shown by people who failed to take heed...  speaking of the Brits, they were the European people most effective in protecting the Jews, to the extent that the European country with the highest percentage of Jews is the UK. The British were successful in protecting the Jews, people for whom I have much respect as a whole, by keeping the Wehrmacht, Gestapo, and SS out of their country. The British also abolished slavery about thirty years before the USA, and under less violent circumstances. If one were to have a leader ideally suited to saving a country with high principles to defend under dire circumstances against a real-life Macbeth... one could hardly find better than Sir Winston Churchill. I am guessing that Adolf Hitler either never learned any lesson from Macbeth  but got to demonstrate the consequences of thug government as clearly as is possible.

(If you have enmity toward Britain for the Irish potato famine or some colonial outrage, then I understand).

The British learned some lessons from the American Revolution and turned their parliamentary system into a genuine democracy by making it representative. That has served as a viable model for democracy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Israel, Botswana and (with some qualifications) India and South Africa. The closest early imitation of the United States for political form was Switzerland... not bad. Of course the Swiss did not have chattel slavery...

The best argument for a Presidential system is a good President -- like Obama. The best argument for a parliamentary system is a bad President -- like the execrable Donald Trump. 
      

Quote:I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

We liberals are as knowledgeable about anti-diarrhea medications as conservatives are. [/snark]

We well know the fundamental traditions that, when the political system adheres to them, assure a representative and responsible government. We know as well as conservatives the need for checks and balances, division of power, and rule of law.  We know our history, and we well know the faults of pathological leaders from Nero to Satan Hussein by way of Commodus, Vlad Tepes (Dracula), Timur Lenk, Ivan the Terrible, George III, Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Mao, Kim il-Sung, Fidel Castro, Idi Amurderin', Haile Mengistu, Jorge Videla, and Agosto Pinochet.  

Donald Trump has so far been the most despotic of American Presidents, holding the fundamental traditions of our system in contempt. I am not going to put him quite in the category of the above serial mass-killers... but at this point I can say that he is too far down the road to fascism to be a conservative. When it comes to respect for benign institutions and heritage... Obama is the conservative and Trump is the dangerous radical.  

Trump has turned one Party into largely a collection of toadies even if those toadies may have won office long before him and could have reasonably expected to outlast him. A legislature submissive to the executive leadership, something that the chief leader demands, implies the death of democracy.  Trump wants Congress to operate much like the Supreme Soviet from Lenin to Chernenko or Hitler's Reichstag... or the Iraqi Parliament under Satan Hussein.

No, it is your politicians who have surrendered their souls and spines. We Democrats have resisted a President who has acted despotically, shown no kindness, issued inflammatory rhetoric, and even sold out national security for some political advantage. The fault isn't liberals this time; the fault is a paucity of genuine conservatives who recognize the ominous nature of any trend toward fascism. Do not be fooled: fascism that drapes itself in the American flag will be no less odious than fascism that draped itself in... let us say, the Japanese flag.

If you want courage -- then look at Senator Doug Jones, D-AL, who prosecuted fascist pigs who bombed a church with the consequent death of four girls. He is standing up to Donald Trump just as he stood up to KKK fascists, in one of the most pro-Trump states in America. He may be defeated in the 2020 election... but there are worse consequences in a political career, like selling out one's country to a despot.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization.

If you place yourself much to the right of the Koch Brothers, you don't think 'extreme' and 'demonization' become accurate descriptions?

[David Horn]

(01-29-2020, 07:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: Pick any Scandinavian country.  Given the lousy weather and limited resources (Norway has oil, but that's about it these days), they all do very well.  Are there discontents?  Of course -- they're everywhere.  The big difference: most of the country is OK with high taxes for great benefits.  I don't see the Norwegians running the social democrats away so they can go hard capitalist.  The same applies in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

I don't see the social Democrats in those countries allowing their people to have the freedom do that either.

Based on what?  What freedoms do they lack?  Here's an article by two Americans who moved to Finland for work and decided to stay.

Well, I don't know what's wrong with Brooklyn (the place that the couple gave up on and left) or what the cost of their entitlement package or the overall quality of their healthcare system compared to mine either Also, I don't know why they chose to move to another country vs choosing to move to a more affordable state within the US either. Oh well, to each their own, I wish them well. Dave, I don't care if you and other liberals   flock to Scandinavia or some other laid back European country. It's your right to do so and it would be a much faster to get the kind system that you prefer and seem to believe in too.

If you actually read the article, they answered many of your questions.  They didn't intend to stay, even though on of them had ancestral ties to Finland.  Once there, and immersed in the country, they found it a wonderful, if cold and often dark, place to live.  It's like having a huge extended family that supports each other.  You get to keep less for yourself at times, but the rest of the family is there to help when you need it.  That's the essence of social democracy.