Obama says no to Bernie

[sk8knight]

I clearly said that most conservatives dont want to go back to slavery, you clearly missed the point. I was asking what you mean by Traditional American Values, because a lot of our traditions and values arent very good. Just saying "Traditional American Values" is nothing but a slogan so if you cant even somewhat define it, and specifically how it separate liberals from conservatives then how am I supposed to know what you mean? (and btw, this is a liberal country and always has been. American conservativism is a part of the liberal make-up of the country, but on a historical and even modern perspective with regards to the world, we are a liberal nation, so this idea that liberalism doesn't work with American values is simply false)

And you are also doing this thing the conservatives do where they make it out like they are the "real Americans". First off, I was born and raised in a small town in the South, what many conservatives think of as "real America", so dont give me this BS that you understand what it is to be an American more than I do, or that being a conservative is the definition of being a real American. You are no more of a real American as I am.

Who is changing the American ideal to something else? Your last post you refered to empowering people. Well, in 2019 I think education is probably the best way to empower people and Democrats are certainly more vested in providing educational opportunities to people than Republicans are. So, is education anti-American? Is wanting people to have access to healthcare anti-American? Is protecting the environment anti- American? What exactly do you think Democrats are trying to change to the country to that is so against the American ideals?

How am I the one buying a bunch of emotional appeals? Your entire argument was based on empty slogans and this rah rah BS that you cant even remotely explain in any depth. Why not just type "U-S-A, U-S-A" next time and pretend you made some sort of point.

Every single person in this country has “access” to healthcare. What you want is to seize the product of one person’s hard earned labor to give it to another and, in doing so, lower the standard of care for those that sacrificed and worked and earned their ability to choose from a wider range of options. This was not lucky or a happy coincidence, this was people going out and pursuing happiness.

Every single American has “access” to enough education and opportunity to be able to be self-sufficient. We already pay the largest amount of money per student in the developed world. We already have people getting college degrees without any practical use and then lamenting that they took out cheap loans to fund an education path that they couldn’t capitalize on. Those were bad decision. Now you want to have the government take on the responsibility for paying for those bad decisions, but what that really means is that you want to force people that make good decisions to pay the cost for people that make bad decisions by taxing producers to pay for it. Far be it in 2019 that someone has to make choices for their own future and pay for their own choices.

What you fail to admit is that most of the people that are failing here in America are creating their own failures by not taking advantage of their own opportunities and leveraging them for success. Then you want to penalize people that sacrifice their entire lives to build up their own security and take those resources by the power of the masses and give it to people who chose to take a different route. That is the opposite of empowering the individual; that is empowering the masses to take from the successful individual.

The country was founded in opposition to a corrupt monarchy that controlled all of the wealth of the country and controlled all of the avenues to success and used the power of the government to distribute that wealth in whichever manner the crown saw fit. The left wants to penalize success and use the power of government to distribute that wealth to whoever they deem to be their “unfortunate” class. You see it in Obama’s “you didn’t build that” and Hillary, Warren, Bernie, et al’s comments that reveal that they think all wealth is American’s wealth and changes in the tax rate are just adjusting how much of it they’re willing to give people that they deem needy.

Those are just a couple of examples of where the left has deviated from what those on the right deem as traditional American values.

 

[Cubs79]

Every single person in this country has “access” to healthcare. What you want is to seize the product of one person’s hard earned labor to give it to another and, in doing so, lower the standard of care for those that sacrificed and worked and earned their ability to choose from a wider range of options. This was not lucky or a happy coincidence, this was people going out and pursuing happiness.

Every single American has “access” to enough education and opportunity to be able to be self-sufficient. We already pay the largest amount of money per student in the developed world. We already have people getting college degrees without any practical use and then lamenting that they took out cheap loans to fund an education path that they couldn’t capitalize on. Those were bad decision. Now you want to have the government take on the responsibility for paying for those bad decisions, but what that really means is that you want to force people that make good decisions to pay the cost for people that make bad decisions by taxing producers to pay for it. Far be it in 2019 that someone has to make choices for their own future and pay for their own choices.

What you fail to admit is that most of the people that are failing here in America are creating their own failures by not taking advantage of their own opportunities and leveraging them for success. Then you want to penalize people that sacrifice their entire lives to build up their own security and take those resources by the power of the masses and give it to people who chose to take a different route. That is the opposite of empowering the individual; that is empowering the masses to take from the successful individual.

The country was founded in opposition to a corrupt monarchy that controlled all of the wealth of the country and controlled all of the avenues to success and used the power of the government to distribute that wealth in whichever manner the crown saw fit. The left wants to penalize success and use the power of government to distribute that wealth to whoever they deem to be their “unfortunate” class. You see it in Obama’s “you didn’t build that” and Hillary, Warren, Bernie, et al’s comments that reveal that they think all wealth is American’s wealth and changes in the tax rate are just adjusting how much of it they’re willing to give people that they deem needy.

Those are just a couple of examples of where the left has deviated from what those on the right deem as traditional American values.

Yeah and every single person has access to private jets too, as long as they can afford it. What I want is for being to be able to take care of themselves, or their children, if they get sick. That is what I want.

The price of college in this country has risen dramatically. There was once a point where many state colleges were tuition free, but I assume those aren't the traditional values you are talking about. You seem to be more of the let rich kids just pay their way into college no matter their qualifications type. And most people in this country are self sufficient, that doesn't mean we still cant improve things and provide even more opportunity to people.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the starting line isn't the same place for all Americans. Not everyone is going to inherit 100s of millions from their dad. Not everyone can donate $2.5 million to Harvard so their unqualified son can attend there. You are under this delusion that having money means working hard and doing it all on your own, when in reality, most wealth and opportunities in this country is generational, not self made. A middle class person, or even poor person, can be just as hard a worker as the son of a billionaire, but 99% of the time wont ever get the same opportunities. But hey, poor kids should have picked their parents and grandparents better right? Stupid kids.

We have essentially replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy. The rich still control this country no matter how much you want to vilify poor people. Just because it isn't a monarchy doesn't mean their isn't a concentration of wealth in the country, and the people at the top, are still the true leaders of the country.

Obama was 100% correct in saying "you didn't build that". We live in a society. If everything you accomplished is just because of you and you didn't benefit from the society you were born into, then answer me this. Could you go to Somalia (or pick a country) and be just as successful as you are in the US? If your answer is no, which it should be, then you must admit the society surrounding you has benefited you, like it has all of us. And I am pretty sure society was up and running before you came into the world.

 

[Crazyhole]

Conservatism defined: belief and adherence to textual interpretation of the bill of rights and belief in free-market capitalism. Things can be added to that that are consistent with those values, like women's suffrage and abolishing slavery. Things that deviate from the basic platform are moves to the left, like infringing on the 2nd amendment or the federal govt usurping power that the 10th amendment limits.

 

[Crazyhole]

But why is anti- abortion such a conservative position to you? I dont understand that. I am not asking for a debate on abortion, I am asking for the ideological reasons why you think it is conservative. Like I said in my last post, I think you can argue pro choice is conservative because it is less intrusive government. You can disagree with that, but it is a valid argument so I am not sure why you are holding abortion up as a tenant of conservatism. And BTW, the first abortion laws werent put in place until around 1900, and these were state laws. So it isnt an issue the country was founded on, so I dont get where the idea comes from that it is a tenant of conservatism.

The pro-life position is consistent with conservatism because it acknowledges the tenets of life and liberty being inherent rights given to every person. If you've ever heard the saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts" this is a good example of that. A womans right to do what she wants with her body ends when it infringes on another person's rights.

 

[Cubs79]

Conservatism defined: belief and adherence to textual interpretation of the bill of rights and belief in free-market capitalism. Things can be added to that that are consistent with those values, like women's suffrage and abolishing slavery. Things that deviate from the basic platform are moves to the left, like infringing on the 2nd amendment or the federal govt usurping power that the 10th amendment limits.

Liberals are also capitalists.

The 2nd amendment clearly has the words "well regulated" in it. There is some room for regulations in the 2nd amendment.

The problem with your 10th amendment argument, is that states can be just as oppressive and violate the constitution as the federal government. So sure, you can argue the Feds go to far on some things, but there are often times it has been to essentially end the oppression of the individual states.

 

[Cubs79]

The pro-life position is consistent with conservatism because it acknowledges the tenets of life and liberty being inherent rights given to every person. If you've ever heard the saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts" this is a good example of that. A womans right to do what she wants with her body ends when it infringes on another person's rights.

Im not getting into abortion, those conversations go no where, but I will just say I don't agree.

 

[sk8knight]

Yeah and every single person has access to private jets too, as long as they can afford it. What I want is for being to be able to take care of themselves, or their children, if they get sick. That is what I want.

The price of college in this country has risen dramatically. There was once a point where many state colleges were tuition free, but I assume those aren't the traditional values you are talking about. You seem to be more of the let rich kids just pay their way into college no matter their qualifications type. And most people in this country are self sufficient, that doesn't mean we still cant improve things and provide even more opportunity to people.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the starting line isn't the same place for all Americans. Not everyone is going to inherit 100s of millions from their dad. Not everyone can donate $2.5 million to Harvard so their unqualified son can attend there. You are under this delusion that having money means working hard and doing it all on your own, when in reality, most wealth and opportunities in this country is generational, not self made. A middle class person, or even poor person, can be just as hard a worker as the son of a billionaire, but 99% of the time wont ever get the same opportunities. But hey, poor kids should have picked their parents and grandparents better right? Stupid kids.

We have essentially replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy. The rich still control this country no matter how much you want to vilify poor people. Just because it isn't a monarchy doesn't mean their isn't a concentration of wealth in the country, and the people at the top, are still the true leaders of the country.

Obama was 100% correct in saying "you didn't build that". We live in a society. If everything you accomplished is just because of you and you didn't benefit from the society you were born into, then answer me this. Could you go to Somalia (or pick a country) and be just as successful as you are in the US? If your answer is no, which it should be, then you must admit the society surrounding you has benefited you, like it has all of us. And I am pretty sure society was up and running before you came into the world.

Yet another set of emotional appeals. First, it’s OMG, the kids are dying. Yet we already have programs in place for that. States have programs in place like Healthy Kids here in Florida to make sure that there is some level of health care for all kids, the federal government has Medicaid, and there are a large number of charity organizations covering critical care for children. It’s not perfect but nothing ever is. If you’re so worried about children’s healthcare, how much of your money goes to charity? Beyond individual action, why do you think that the way to solve the problem is to put it in the hands of the federal government? Why do you think that the only solution is to buck the founders and consolidate power into the one entity they built the Constitution to constrain? Why is every one of your solutions giving it over to the federal government?

Then you go wealth envy. The vast majority of successful people are not trust fund babies. The number of those is so small it’s nearly insignificant. But even if it weren’t, someone in their family, or likely multiple someone’s, sacrificed to build up that wealth for their family. They didn’t just win a lottery. But you want to take away that security they built for their descendants because of your wealth envy. So what your saying is that people shouldn’t scrape and sacrifice to provide a better life for their descendants because that is wrong?

Obama was not 100% right in saying that. Government services are a social contract. Society pays for those services. It’s not public money that comes out of nowhere. It’s hard earned money that is taken from people in order to provide a service. The government works for the people in America, it’s the primary founding principle.

 

[Crazyhole]

Im not getting into abortion, those conversations go no where, but I will just say I don't agree.

You asked why pro-life is conservative, I answered. I understand why many libertarians are pro-choice but that isn't a conservative position and most would admit that.

 

[Crazyhole]

Liberals are also capitalists.

The 2nd amendment clearly has the words "well regulated" in it. There is some room for regulations in the 2nd amendment.

The problem with your 10th amendment argument, is that states can be just as oppressive and violate the constitution as the federal government. So sure, you can argue the Feds go to far on some things, but there are often times it has been to essentially end the oppression of the individual states.

If the states do things that go against how I defined conservatism, then they aren't acting in a conservative manner.

On the 2nd amendment, as I said conservatism is predicated on a textual interpretation. When you begin to infer intent, you begin to deviate from conservatism.

 

[Cubs79]

Yet another set of emotional appeals. First, it’s OMG, the kids are dying. Yet we already have programs in place for that. States have programs in place like Healthy Kids here in Florida to make sure that there is some level of health care for all kids, the federal government has Medicaid, and there are a large number of charity organizations covering critical care for children. It’s not perfect but nothing ever is. If you’re so worried about children’s healthcare, how much of your money goes to charity? Beyond individual action, why do you think that the way to solve the problem is to put it in the hands of the federal government? Why do you think that the only solution is to buck the founders and consolidate power into the one entity they built the Constitution to constrain? Why is every one of your solutions giving it over to the federal government?

Then you go wealth envy. The vast majority of successful people are not trust fund babies. The number of those is so small it’s nearly insignificant. But even if it weren’t, someone in their family, or likely multiple someone’s, sacrificed to build up that wealth for their family. They didn’t just win a lottery. But you want to take away that security they built for their descendants because of your wealth envy. So what your saying is that people shouldn’t scrape and sacrifice to provide a better life for their descendants because that is wrong?

Obama was not 100% right in saying that. Government services are a social contract. Society pays for those services. It’s not public money that comes out of nowhere. It’s hard earned money that is taken from people in order to provide a service. The government works for the people in America, it’s the primary founding principle.

Nothing I said was emotional appeals. You can keep pushing that BS narrative out, but it is still just your BS.

I know we have programs like that, thanks to liberals. Everyone of my solutions isn't based on the government, but I also don't think we need a charity based health care system. Sure, some charities do great work, but it is unfeasible to think that we should only rely on charities alone. If charities were capable of running our healthcare system they would already be doing it.

It has nothing to do with envy, it is called reality. You have all your little simple minded buzzwords down though I see. Yes, someone's family did well at some point, nobody denied that. But if you are going to preach about empowering individuals then you can't then pretend that someone who inherits a ton of money succeeded only because of your individualism. You are trying to have this both ways.

No shit government services are a social contract that we pay for as a collective, which means you personally didn't build it. Hence, Obama was 100% right to anyone who lives in reality. How is this even debatable?

 

[Cubs79]

If the states do things that go against how I defined conservatism, then they aren't acting in a conservative manner.

On the 2nd amendment, as I said conservatism is predicated on a textual interpretation. When you begin to infer intent, you begin to deviate from conservatism.

The constitution was intentionally written in a vague manner. Intent has to be inferred and interpreted throughout much of the constitution.

 

[Crazyhole]

The constitution was intentionally written in a vague manner. Intent has to be inferred and interpreted throughout much of the constitution.

You really need to read up on how the bill of rights was crafted and George Mason in particular. They wanted it to be as clear as possible specifically so that it wouldn't be subject to interpretation and infringement.

 

[Cubs79]

You really need to read up on how the bill of rights was crafted and George Mason in particular. They wanted it to be as clear as possible specifically so that it wouldn't be subject to interpretation and infringement.

That is completely false. Much of it was intentionally written in vague and basic language because the founders knew things would need to be interpreted differently over time. If it was so clear then why in the world do you think it has been debated and interpreted so much by scholars, lawyers, historians, and our courts over time?

https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-the-U-S-Constitution-deliberately-vague
https://www.livescience.com/32590-why-is-the-constitution-so-difficult-to-interpret.html
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-vague-and-ambiguous-us-constitution.154368/

 

[Crazyhole]

That is completely false. Much of it was intentionally written in vague and basic language because the founders knew things would need to be interpreted differently over time. If it was so clear then why in the world do you think it has been debated and interpreted so much by scholars, lawyers, historians, and our courts over time?

https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-the-U-S-Constitution-deliberately-vague
https://www.livescience.com/32590-why-is-the-constitution-so-difficult-to-interpret.html
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-vague-and-ambiguous-us-constitution.154368/

The constitution itself is vague on a lot of things, the bill of rights is not. Many states were reticent to sign the constitution because it was too vague and too much like its precursor, which is why the BOR was crafted.

 

[Cubs79]

The constitution itself is vague on a lot of things, the bill of rights is not. Many states were reticent to sign the constitution because it was too vague and too much like its precursor, which is why the BOR was crafted.

This simply isn't true. It is an outline of our basic rights, but there is still interpretation involved. When it talks about the right to a speedy trial for instance, it doesn't go into detail, it just says "the right to a speedy trial...". If it wasn't vague it would outline what constitutes a speedy trial. "excessive bail" again, no specifics so clearly it is open to interpretation, etc etc. Hell, the 9th amendment is so vague it basically says we have more rights outside of the constitution and that the BOR isn't an exhaustive list, but it doesn't even name what those rights are. I don't see how you can really get more vague than that.

 

[sk8knight]

Nothing I said was emotional appeals. You can keep pushing that BS narrative out, but it is still just your BS.

I know we have programs like that, thanks to liberals. Everyone of my solutions isn't based on the government, but I also don't think we need a charity based health care system. Sure, some charities do great work, but it is unfeasible to think that we should only rely on charities alone. If charities were capable of running our healthcare system they would already be doing it.

It has nothing to do with envy, it is called reality. You have all your little simple minded buzzwords down though I see. Yes, someone's family did well at some point, nobody denied that. But if you are going to preach about empowering individuals then you can't then pretend that someone who inherits a ton of money succeeded only because of your individualism. You are trying to have this both ways.

No shit government services are a social contract that we pay for as a collective, which means you personally didn't build it. Hence, Obama was 100% right to anyone who lives in reality. How is this even debatable?

Emotional Appeal: Feel sorry for the children because they are suffering because of healthcare costs.
Proposed solution: Require the Federal Government to provide healthcare services for all people.

Emotional Appeal: It is unfair that some rich people inherited money from their family while others didn't.
Proposed solution: Empower the federal government to seize assets from the rich people and give them to the poor people.

These are all of your solutions. Healthcare doesn't have to be charity alone, there are plenty of market-based solutions that drive prices down. Your go-to move though is to give it to Government, as if that will all of a sudden be a panacea. It may look like the costs to the individual go down for a bit, but that will be an illusion. The Federal Government will either drive costs even higher or will degrade the standard of care. This is because the Federal Government has no incentive to be efficient or to increase quality. The only incentive the Federal Government has is to keep the people in power where they are. Bureaucrats protect their turf and politicians pander to voters. The very worst place to put something as important as healthcare is with the Federal Government in this country.

As for inherited wealth, you don't make the children pay a penalty because their parents or grandparents sacrificed their lifestyles, their health, took risks, etc. so that they could build the wealth that they have. You want to encourage this behavior so that the families are self-sufficient and then government then doesn't have to take care of them. When you seize that built security for no other reason than fairness, you are discouraging what should be a favorable behavior. Some individuals in that family took responsibility on themselves to provide for their family and ensure that their family will not be a drain on society. You want to then take that money, put those children now at risk of instability, and give it to someone who statistically has not taken their own individual responsibility to use that to build self-sufficiency, largely because you feel bad for that person that you have absolutely no experience with. Your entire ideological system is built on an emotional desire to try to provide everyone with equal outcomes. That will never work and plenty of countries have tried it and failed.

 

[Cubs79]

Emotional Appeal: Feel sorry for the children because they are suffering because of healthcare costs.
Proposed solution: Require the Federal Government to provide healthcare services for all people.

Emotional Appeal: It is unfair that some rich people inherited money from their family while others didn't.
Proposed solution: Empower the federal government to seize assets from the rich people and give them to the poor people.

These are all of your solutions. Healthcare doesn't have to be charity alone, there are plenty of market-based solutions that drive prices down. Your go-to move though is to give it to Government, as if that will all of a sudden be a panacea. It may look like the costs to the individual go down for a bit, but that will be an illusion. The Federal Government will either drive costs even higher or will degrade the standard of care. This is because the Federal Government has no incentive to be efficient or to increase quality. The only incentive the Federal Government has is to keep the people in power where they are. Bureaucrats protect their turf and politicians pander to voters. The very worst place to put something as important as healthcare is with the Federal Government in this country.

As for inherited wealth, you don't make the children pay a penalty because their parents or grandparents sacrificed their lifestyles, their health, took risks, etc. so that they could build the wealth that they have. You want to encourage this behavior so that the families are self-sufficient and then government then doesn't have to take care of them. When you seize that built security for no other reason than fairness, you are discouraging what should be a favorable behavior. Some individuals in that family took responsibility on themselves to provide for their family and ensure that their family will not be a drain on society. You want to then take that money, put those children now at risk of instability, and give it to someone who statistically has not taken their own individual responsibility to use that to build self-sufficiency, largely because you feel bad for that person that you have absolutely no experience with. Your entire ideological system is built on an emotional desire to try to provide everyone with equal outcomes. That will never work and plenty of countries have tried it and failed.

I don't know what you are going on about for a good portion of this post and you are certainly misrepresenting my views quite a bit. So I will just agree with you and leave it at that. We should all be conservatives, nobody should pay taxes, society is meaningless it is only about the individual. Poor people deserve to go hungry and without medicine because of their poor decisions in life, etc etc etc.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I love all of this debate over something that has already been scored as being unaffordable without permanently wrecking the economy.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't know what you are going on about for a good portion of this post and you are certainly misrepresenting my views quite a bit. So I will just agree with you and leave it at that. We should all be conservatives, nobody should pay taxes, society is meaningless it is only about the individual. Poor people deserve to go hungry and without medicine because of their poor decisions in life, etc etc etc.

We can agree to disagree. But I am going to give this final observation that you have this view that conservatives want poor people to suffer and nothing could be further from the truth. You also aren’t getting what I’m saying and it won’t get better here so we’ll just stop now.

 

[Crazyhole]

We can agree to disagree. But I am going to give this final observation that you have this view that conservatives want poor people to suffer and nothing could be further from the truth. You also aren’t getting what I’m saying and it won’t get better here so we’ll just stop now.

You will never come to agreement on anything with Cubs because he always debates the fringes of any topic and makes his points all-encompassing. Any time you make an irrefutable point he diminishes it by using misdirection or makes a point that he thinks will compromise your position. We have a perfect example of it in this thread when he asked what conservatives believe in. I responded by saying that conservatives believe in free-market capitalism, which he attempted to compromise by saying that liberals also believe in capitalism. No evidence that conservatives don't, but it made him uncomfortable so he had to diminish the point by saying that it isn't exclusive to conservatives, thereby taking the point away without discussing the merits of it.

 

[Cubs79]

You will never come to agreement on anything with Cubs because he always debates the fringes of any topic and makes his points all-encompassing. Any time you make an irrefutable point he diminishes it by using misdirection or makes a point that he thinks will compromise your position. We have a perfect example of it in this thread when he asked what conservatives believe in. I responded by saying that conservatives believe in free-market capitalism, which he attempted to compromise by saying that liberals also believe in capitalism. No evidence that conservatives don't, but it made him uncomfortable so he had to diminish the point by saying that it isn't exclusive to conservatives, thereby taking the point away without discussing the merits of it.

Huh? It made me uncomfortable? What are you talking about? My point, was that if it isnt exclusive to conservatives, then how exactly is it a conservative characteristic? What merits do you wish to discuss about believing in capitalism? That is a pretty straightforward concept so I am unsure exactly what you mean we should be discussing the merits of you believing in capitalism. Plus, I also am a capitalist, so does that mean I am a conservative?

Discussions dont have to end in agreement. There are plenty of things I say you dont agree with, but I dont try and frame it in some manner that you are just being difficult. It is ok to disagree on things and I am under no obligation to come to terms of agreement with you on something if I dont agree with you.

 

[Crazyhole]

Had to come back to this. Lolz at Cubs making the case that obama was a moderate. Was it Newsweek or Time that ran a cover with Obama on it that said "we are all socialists now"?

 

[Cubs79]

Had to come back to this. Lolz at Cubs making the case that obama was a moderate. Was it Newsweek or Time that ran a cover with Obama on it that said "we are all socialists now"?

Name his radical policies. You can Lolz all you want but that doesn't say anything, so name his radical policies. And don't say Obamacare, because there was nothing radical about it.

 

[Cubs79]

Had to come back to this. Lolz at Cubs making the case that obama was a moderate. Was it Newsweek or Time that ran a cover with Obama on it that said "we are all socialists now"?

And btw, since you obviously didn't take the time to read the article that you are bringing up to prove some sort of point (don't worry, I will provide your link for you), it blames both sides for the modern "socialist" economy. Maybe read past the headline sometime.
https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-all-socialists-now-82577

 

[UCFKnight85]

Name his radical policies. You can Lolz all you want but that doesn't say anything, so name his radical policies. And don't say Obamacare, because there was nothing radical about it.

Why exactly do you think voters neutered him and flooded Congress with Republicans in 2010?

 

[Cubs79]

Why exactly do you think voters neutered him and flooded Congress with Republicans in 2010?

Huh? Congress and the senate turn over all the time. That doesnt equate to radical policies.

 

[Crazyhole]

Huh? Congress and the senate turn over all the time. That doesnt equate to radical policies.

When it's as massive of a swing as we saw in 2010, it is absolutely because of radical policies. The tea party didn't spring up because obama was too moderate.

 

[Crazyhole]

And btw, since you obviously didn't take the time to read the article that you are bringing up to prove some sort of point (don't worry, I will provide your link for you), it blames both sides for the modern "socialist" economy. Maybe read past the headline sometime.
https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-all-socialists-now-82577

That's the funny thing, you think that its "both sides" as if conservatives are also for big government. Heck, in the first paragraph of that article it says that the Bush administration was "conservative". That's where you are mistaken and the author is misleading. Growing government is anathema to conservatism so by definition, growing government cannot be conservative. Bush 2 was very much a modern progressive liberal.

 

[Cubs79]

When it's as massive of a swing as we saw in 2010, it is absolutely because of radical policies. The tea party didn't spring up because obama was too moderate.

THen what are the policies you are speaking of? And the Tea Party sprung up because of the deficit, but conveniently seem to be ok with the deficit under Trump. And if Obama's policies were so radical, then why the need for all the conspiracy theories surrounding him?

The Democrats just flipped more seats in the House in 2018 since they had done in1974, after Watergate. Is Trump a radical?

 

[Cubs79]

That's the funny thing, you think that its "both sides" as if conservatives are also for big government. Heck, in the first paragraph of that article it says that the Bush administration was "conservative". That's where you are mistaken and the author is misleading. Growing government is anathema to conservatism so by definition, growing government cannot be conservative. Bush 2 was very much a modern progressive liberal.

Bush was certainly not progressive, unless you only define "progressive" as spending. But if that is the case, then Trump is a progressive liberal as well.

 

[Crazyhole]

Bush was certainly not progressive, unless you only define "progressive" as spending. But if that is the case, then Trump is a progressive liberal as well.

Homeland security, QE, growing the budget are all examples of him being a progressive.

 

[Cubs79]

Homeland security, QE, growing the budget are all examples of him being a progressive.

Again, you are only defining progressive by spending. But if Bush was a progressive by your logic, then so is Trump, and that really isn't debatable. Can you give me a modern a politician you actually think is conservative? Because if you think Bush was progressive, then I can't imagine who you would actually define as conservative.

 

[UCFWayne]

THen what are the policies you are speaking of? And the Tea Party sprung up because of the deficit, but conveniently seem to be ok with the deficit under Trump. And if Obama's policies were so radical, then why the need for all the conspiracy theories surrounding him?

The Democrats just flipped more seats in the House in 2018 since they had done in1974, after Watergate. Is Trump a radical?

dems certainly view trump as radical. theyve been trying to remove him from office since before he was even elected.

 

[Crazyhole]

Again, you are only defining progressive by spending. But if Bush was a progressive by your logic, then so is Trump, and that really isn't debatable. Can you give me a modern a politician you actually think is conservative? Because if you think Bush was progressive, then I can't imagine who you would actually define as conservative.

Rand Paul, mike Lee, ben Sasse, Ted Cruz, justin smash, to name a few.

It isn't just about spending, it's about encroaching on liberty, which Bush was fine with as he began the practice of spying on US citizens and collecting metadata.

 

[Cubs79]

Rand Paul, mike Lee, ben Sasse, Ted Cruz, justin smash, to name a few.

It isn't just about spending, it's about encroaching on liberty, which Bush was fine with as he began the practice of spying on US citizens and collecting metadata.

And Ben Sasse still supports Bush's policies, so how does that make him a conservative in your view?
https://journalstar.com/news/state-...cle_2fd2d414-fd2e-512a-9583-485038c33faf.html

Cruz and Lee both support the USA Freedom Act, basically the modern day version of the Patriot Act with a few key changes. But is that conservative? And all three of those guys strongly support Homeland Security, which you just listed as being a reason that you call Bush a progressive. If Homeland Security makes Bush a progressive, then how are supporters of hit conservatives?

Amash and Paul are probably closer, and its funny that you list Amash because he is the one who constantly bashes Trump. But it still seems you just decide people you like are conservative and people you don't like are progressive liberals. But actual policies determine that, not just your fondness of people.

 

[Crazyhole]

And Ben Sasse still supports Bush's policies, so how does that make him a conservative in your view?
https://journalstar.com/news/state-...cle_2fd2d414-fd2e-512a-9583-485038c33faf.html

Cruz and Lee both support the USA Freedom Act, basically the modern day version of the Patriot Act with a few key changes. But is that conservative? And all three of those guys strongly support Homeland Security, which you just listed as being a reason that you call Bush a progressive. If Homeland Security makes Bush a progressive, then how are supporters of hit conservatives?

Amash and Paul are probably closer, and its funny that you list Amash because he is the one who constantly bashes Trump. But it still seems you just decide people you like are conservative and people you don't like are progressive liberals. But actual policies determine that, not just your fondness of people.

The USAfreedom act got votes both for and against from both sides of the aisle. Cruz and Lee voted for it, largely because it ended the collection of metadata, Paul voted against it because he still felt like it was an infringement on the 4th amendment, and Sasse voted against it because he thought it undermined the govts ability to track domestic jihad cells. You can't take a bill that was that controversial and claim that any vote dictates a person's political ideology.

 

[UCFBS]

I think both 'grass roots funded' Obama and 'silent majority loving' Trump proved the financial sustainment of the oligarchy has not been addressed. But I don't see Bernie or Warren offering any solution, and possibly just replacing the oligarchy with a new age politburo.

It won't happen until a Classic Liberal / Libertarian comes in and starts veto'ing everything under the sun to make a point on spending, and continued it for those who 'didn't get it' all 8 years, as Johnson did in New Mexico. Luckily most people 'did get it,' and came around to liking Johnson, even after he canned their funding (but went out and did private fund raisers instead). But the majority in government still 'badmouth him' and went back to spending after he was gone, flipping the budget again. But he remains extremely popular among the citizens.