Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 19:15:28 GMT -5
there is a huge opening for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. but i am convinced that the GOP is NEVER going to field that candidate for the following reasons: 1) they are wed to the evangelical wing of the party. the tepid, waffling response to Moore puts that in the spotlight. 2) they are wed to the MIC. they are NEVER going to vote for military spending cuts. EVER. 3) they are obsessed with cutting taxes to such a degree that they will NEVER preside over a surplus, again. so, i am done with them. perhaps an independent that runs away from the evangelicals and toward fiscal responsibility will run, and at that point i will be ALL IN, no matter what party he/she is from. I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 25, 2017 19:18:54 GMT -5
I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? No, it doesn't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 19:19:56 GMT -5
You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? No, it doesn't. I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal".
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 25, 2017 19:31:49 GMT -5
I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society? That is ludicrous. There are extremists in any party or movement; simply listing extremes of a movement doesn't define the movement. You may feel socially liberal people agree with all those things, but they don't. And I'm very comfortable going on record supporting a more socially liberal government, which mostly means not imposing religions-based decision making on the entire population.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 19:40:01 GMT -5
You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society? That is ludicrous. There are extremists in any party or movement; simply listing extremes of a movement doesn't define the movement. You may feel socially liberal people agree with all those things, but they don't. And I'm very comfortable going on record supporting a more socially liberal government, which mostly means not imposing religions-based decision making on the entire population. I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 19:56:18 GMT -5
there is a huge opening for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. but i am convinced that the GOP is NEVER going to field that candidate for the following reasons: 1) they are wed to the evangelical wing of the party. the tepid, waffling response to Moore puts that in the spotlight. 2) they are wed to the MIC. they are NEVER going to vote for military spending cuts. EVER. 3) they are obsessed with cutting taxes to such a degree that they will NEVER preside over a surplus, again. so, i am done with them. perhaps an independent that runs away from the evangelicals and toward fiscal responsibility will run, and at that point i will be ALL IN, no matter what party he/she is from. I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. And therein lies the problem... Just like many others, you limit the options to one of two parties. There's already a party of "fiscal conservative, socially liberal" ideologies. Problem is, too many people are stuck on "Oh, there's only two to choose from. It's either got to be a Democrat or a Republican." From the FAQ page of one specific party (no I'm not going to link it... that would defeat the purpose of asking people to guess which party, which I shall do AFTER the snippet)... Anyone care to guess which party that is? So, in short: It's not the two major Parties that need to "come around"... It's the voters that need to "come around" and stop voting for them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 20:52:23 GMT -5
I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. And therein lies the problem... Just like many others, you limit the options to one of two parties. There's already a party of "fiscal conservative, socially liberal" ideologies. Problem is, too many people are stuck on "Oh, there's only two to choose from. It's either got to be a Democrat or a Republican." From the FAQ page of one specific party (no I'm not going to link it... that would defeat the purpose of asking people to guess which party, which I shall do AFTER the snippet)... Anyone care to guess which party that is? So, in short: It's not the two major Parties that need to "come around"... It's the voters that need to "come around" and stop voting for them. The one I voted for and was told I was wasting my vote 🤕. Penn Jillette is their best champion, I wish more would listen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 20:57:34 GMT -5
Locally last election there was 1 Green Party candidate. Only non R or D on the list. I voted for him just to champion variety... and the R won by the margin of votes that went to the G... I’m sorry. In this suck balls system, a non R/D vote is simply a vote for the other R/D...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 25, 2017 21:23:54 GMT -5
I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal". The obvious ones are the so-called social issues. Abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc. I have stated many times that any person in this country should be able to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. In accordance with that, government has no business in most private affairs of its citizens. 1. The case against abortion rests on an assumption that is not presently and may never be provable. It is thus either a personal or a religious belief and not a scientific one. Government should (or preferably must) default to the rights of the individual and allow that individual responsibility for the choice. 2. There is no justification for the legal distinction of rights based on who one chooses to marry. All persons should or must be treated equally under the law. Society should endorse same-sex marriage, or at the very least (for those who have a religious objection to the use of the term "marriage") the establishment of civil unions which expressly guarantee every single right that is currently covered by marriage. My preference would be that the term marriage not appear in law at all and that it refer only to religious union. All legal marriages would be referred to in law as civil unions, but we are way too far down the road for that to be realistic. Either way, it is the equality under the law that is important, not the term used to guarantee it. 3. It is not the business of government to protect us from ourselves. If someone wants to take recreational drugs they should be allowed. That does give rise to the possibility of criminal behavior associated with it, but it is the criminal behavior that should be punished. It would also be legitimate to enforce sanctions on the user to restore a family impoverished by the user's actions since the user would have caused the damage to others. Another issue would be voting rights. Voting rights should be guaranteed to all citizens, and any attempt to abridge those rights in any way should be criminal. Any attempt to favor one religion, or restrict another, should be disallowed. Any attempt to discriminate is a violation of equal protection and the law should enforce equal protection over the (illegitimate) "right" of someone to discriminate. Prostitution should be legal, as long as it is a free choice on both sides. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but generally I consider "socially liberal" to mean promoting the right of the individual to choose (along with the attendant responsibilities of that choice) rather than having or using the power of government or society to restrict choice and either compel or punish behavior. That which does not infringe the rights of another should be permitted, whether I personally agree with it or not. That part is important. Individual liberties should not be at the whim of any individual or group. Social conservatives believe that individual choice and individual liberties should be dictated, by them. It is for that reason they are generally on the wrong side of every social issue. And that is a primary reason why the Republican Party will have to change if they want to remain viable in the coming years. That demographic is shrinking, quickly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 21:45:47 GMT -5
Locally last election there was 1 Green Party candidate. Only non R or D on the list. I voted for him just to champion variety... and the R won by the margin of votes that went to the G... I’m sorry. In this suck balls system, a non R/D vote is simply a vote for the other R/D... the only way to break the two party system is to keep sucking balls until the 3rd party candidate wins. admittedly, it has been a while since that has happened. but with the InTerNetz it is easier than ever to run 3rd party and win. The Donald proved you don't need a huge campaign organization to win. you just need a message that resonates, social media, and the Russians.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 25, 2017 21:48:03 GMT -5
I've been begging for fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates for a couple of decades now. No such luck. Increasingly strong Republican ties to the Christian Evangelicals are frightening to say the least; the only reason I remain registered as one party (instead of Independent) is the ability to vote in our state's primaries. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who is desperately seeking fiscal conservative, socially liberal unicorns. And I don't think we're the only ones looking for this but I also don't know how long it will take either party to come around, if they ever will. You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society? I hate conservatives pretending they know what is socially liberal by picking new things they don't agree with that aren't mainstream. And I don't get why you think carbon credits have anything to do with being 'socially' liberal. One, they have been around for decades, and two what the heck is the social aspect?!
If I played extremist games like some do, I'd say the Republican party of 2017 is pro hitting people on the head with tiki torches, running down demonstrators and killing some with American made vehicles and tweeting nonsense at 3AM.
Is that your version of conservatism you'd like to see in the US and Canada? People who hate other races and women being equal so much they are willing to bash people's heads with tiki torches or run them over? Is it the height of social conservatism to babble on whatever comes to mind early in the morning and tweet it out so everyone can see and read?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 21:53:43 GMT -5
You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society? I hate conservatives pretending they know what is socially liberal by picking new things they don't agree with that aren't mainstream. And I don't get why you think carbon credits have anything to do with being 'socially' liberal. One, they have been around for decades, and two what the heck is the social aspect?!
have you ever seen a monkey slinging shit at the zoo? if so: do you stand close by and watch while he or she does it? that was an analogy, if you are wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 21:55:13 GMT -5
Locally last election there was 1 Green Party candidate. Only non R or D on the list. I voted for him just to champion variety... and the R won by the margin of votes that went to the G... I’m sorry. In this suck balls system, a non R/D vote is simply a vote for the other R/D... Thus proving the point that most voters aren't smart enough that they should even be allowed to vote.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 21:56:59 GMT -5
PS -Tucker Carlson is a complete boob, and should be ignored by anyone with an IQ over 100.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 21:59:24 GMT -5
Locally last election there was 1 Green Party candidate. Only non R or D on the list. I voted for him just to champion variety... and the R won by the margin of votes that went to the G... I’m sorry. In this suck balls system, a non R/D vote is simply a vote for the other R/D... the only way to break the two party system is to keep sucking balls until the 3rd party candidate wins. admittedly, it has been a while since that has happened. but with the InTerNetz it is easier than ever to run 3rd party and win. The Donald proved you don't need a huge campaign organization to win. you just need a message that resonates, social media, and the Russians. Yup... imagine the sorry state we'd be in if the Clintons hadn't been in bed with them (as well as making up shit about them)!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 22:00:33 GMT -5
PS -Tucker Carlson is a complete boob, and should be ignored by anyone with an IQ over 100. No one should ignore complete boobs... because that's when they start making mischief.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 22:04:00 GMT -5
the only way to break the two party system is to keep sucking balls until the 3rd party candidate wins. admittedly, it has been a while since that has happened. but with the InTerNetz it is easier than ever to run 3rd party and win. The Donald proved you don't need a huge campaign organization to win. you just need a message that resonates, social media, and the Russians. Yup... imagine the sorry state we'd be in if the Clintons hadn't been in bed with them (as well as making up shit about them)! you know now to drain the humor out of every joke, don't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 22:04:32 GMT -5
PS -Tucker Carlson is a complete boob, and should be ignored by anyone with an IQ over 100. No one should ignore complete boobs... because that's when they start making mischief. you have mail.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 22:11:43 GMT -5
LOL Xmas political discussions turn hilarious
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2017 22:18:18 GMT -5
I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal". The obvious ones are the so-called social issues. Abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc. I have stated many times that any person in this country should be able to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. In accordance with that, government has no business in most private affairs of its citizens. 1. The case against abortion rests on an assumption that is not presently and may never be provable. It is thus either a personal or a religious belief and not a scientific one. Government should (or preferably must) default to the rights of the individual and allow that individual responsibility for the choice. 2. There is no justification for the legal distinction of rights based on who one chooses to marry. All persons should or must be treated equally under the law. Society should endorse same-sex marriage, or at the very least (for those who have a religious objection to the use of the term "marriage") the establishment of civil unions which expressly guarantee every single right that is currently covered by marriage. My preference would be that the term marriage not appear in law at all and that it refer only to religious union. All legal marriages would be referred to in law as civil unions, but we are way too far down the road for that to be realistic. Either way, it is the equality under the law that is important, not the term used to guarantee it. 3. It is not the business of government to protect us from ourselves. If someone wants to take recreational drugs they should be allowed. That does give rise to the possibility of criminal behavior associated with it, but it is the criminal behavior that should be punished. It would also be legitimate to enforce sanctions on the user to restore a family impoverished by the user's actions since the user would have caused the damage to others. Another issue would be voting rights. Voting rights should be guaranteed to all citizens, and any attempt to abridge those rights in any way should be criminal. Any attempt to favor one religion, or restrict another, should be disallowed. Any attempt to discriminate is a violation of equal protection and the law should enforce equal protection over the (illegitimate) "right" of someone to discriminate. Prostitution should be legal, as long as it is a free choice on both sides. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but generally I consider "socially liberal" to mean promoting the right of the individual to choose (along with the attendant responsibilities of that choice) rather than having or using the power of government or society to restrict choice and either compel or punish behavior. That which does not infringe the rights of another should be permitted, whether I personally agree with it or not. That part is important. Individual liberties should not be at the whim of any individual or group. Social conservatives believe that individual choice and individual liberties should be dictated, by them. It is for that reason they are generally on the wrong side of every social issue. And that is a primary reason why the Republican Party will have to change if they want to remain viable in the coming years. That demographic is shrinking, quickly. it is. soon it will become a minority. but conservatives have nothing to fear when that happens. after all, liberals live to protect minority rights.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 22:37:40 GMT -5
I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal". The obvious ones are the so-called social issues. Abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc. I have stated many times that any person in this country should be able to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. In accordance with that, government has no business in most private affairs of its citizens. 1. The case against abortion rests on an assumption that is not presently and may never be provable. It is thus either a personal or a religious belief and not a scientific one. Government should (or preferably must) default to the rights of the individual and allow that individual responsibility for the choice. 2. There is no justification for the legal distinction of rights based on who one chooses to marry. All persons should or must be treated equally under the law. Society should endorse same-sex marriage, or at the very least (for those who have a religious objection to the use of the term "marriage") the establishment of civil unions which expressly guarantee every single right that is currently covered by marriage. My preference would be that the term marriage not appear in law at all and that it refer only to religious union. All legal marriages would be referred to in law as civil unions, but we are way too far down the road for that to be realistic. Either way, it is the equality under the law that is important, not the term used to guarantee it. 3. It is not the business of government to protect us from ourselves. If someone wants to take recreational drugs they should be allowed. That does give rise to the possibility of criminal behavior associated with it, but it is the criminal behavior that should be punished. It would also be legitimate to enforce sanctions on the user to restore a family impoverished by the user's actions since the user would have caused the damage to others. (4) Another issue would be voting rights. Voting rights should be guaranteed to all citizens, and any attempt to abridge those rights in any way should be criminal. Any attempt to favor one religion, or restrict another, should be disallowed. Any attempt to discriminate is a violation of equal protection and the law should enforce equal protection over the (illegitimate) "right" of someone to discriminate. (5) Prostitution should be legal, as long as it is a free choice on both sides. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but generally I consider "socially liberal" to mean promoting the right of the individual to choose (along with the attendant responsibilities of that choice) rather than having or using the power of government or society to restrict choice and either compel or punish behavior. That which does not infringe the rights of another should be permitted, whether I personally agree with it or not. That part is important. Individual liberties should not be at the whim of any individual or group. Social conservatives believe that individual choice and individual liberties should be dictated, by them. It is for that reason they are generally on the wrong side of every social issue. And that is a primary reason why the Republican Party will have to change if they want to remain viable in the coming years. That demographic is shrinking, quickly. 1. Government already does, and has for more than 30 years now. Do you want it to go further? For example, France has banned literature and websites that decry abortion as immoral. Would you support the same policy in the US? 2. Again you're describing the status quo. There's no policy here. 3. "Legalize all drugs." This is your first policy. 4. This is the status quo. Nor does it reflect a specific policy. 5. "Legalize prostitution." This is your second policy. Regarding your final paragraph, as you know, I find the argument "Liberals know what is truly harmful to others and to society, and we prohibit only these things. Conservatives prohibit things that are not harmful to others." irrational and hypocritical. We've agreed to disagree in prior discussions. More to the point: there's nothing here that qualifies as a specific policy. I'm looking for specific policies precisely because we've been over the basic philosophy many times already. To summarize thus far: In terms of key policies for socially liberal voters, the ideal candidate will legalize all drugs and prostitution. These are the make-or-break practical changes for a social liberal of today, as opposed to the litany of items in my previous post?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 25, 2017 22:47:18 GMT -5
There is also the matter of protecting what has already been decided or enacted. Those are still targets of conservatives, with many if not most dedicated to overturning them. I also said it was not an exhaustive list and, by the way, practically none of your previous items would be considered legitimate by any self-respecting liberal. Your ability to mischaracterize remains nearly unparalleled.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 22:56:11 GMT -5
You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? Are you sure you want to go on record wanting a more socially liberal society? I hate conservatives pretending they know what is socially liberal by picking new things they don't agree with that aren't mainstream. And I don't get why you think carbon credits have anything to do with being 'socially' liberal. One, they have been around for decades, and two what the heck is the social aspect?!
If I played extremist games like some do, I'd say the Republican party of 2017 is pro hitting people on the head with tiki torches, running down demonstrators and killing some with American made vehicles and tweeting nonsense at 3AM.
Is that your version of conservatism you'd like to see in the US and Canada? People who hate other races and women being equal so much they are willing to bash people's heads with tiki torches or run them over? Is it the height of social conservatism to babble on whatever comes to mind early in the morning and tweet it out so everyone can see and read?
Carbon credits/taxes are much more strongly supported by the left than the right, especially politicians. But if you can suggest a (socially liberal) politician you'd vote for who expressly opposes carbon credits/taxes, I'll concede the point. As for the rest, I don't want to be unreasonable. Why don't you give us some examples of specific policies you'd like implemented that you consider "socially liberal". Tall has already mentioned legalizing drugs and prostitution. Is there anything you'd add to these?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 25, 2017 23:00:04 GMT -5
I hate conservatives pretending they know what is socially liberal by picking new things they don't agree with that aren't mainstream. And I don't get why you think carbon credits have anything to do with being 'socially' liberal. One, they have been around for decades, and two what the heck is the social aspect?!
have you ever seen a monkey slinging shit at the zoo? if so: do you stand close by and watch while he or she does it? that was an analogy, if you are wondering. Interesting. We both were struck with analogies that involved animals. Our differences in regional upbringing probably influenced which animal we thought of. I didn't bother to respond to Virgil's question because around here we have a saying about not wresting in the mud with a pig - you only get dirty and the pig likes it. But the monkey thing works, too.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 23:06:25 GMT -5
There is also the matter of protecting what has already been decided or enacted. Those are still targets of conservatives, with many if not most dedicated to overturning them. I also said it was not an exhaustive list and, by the way, practically none of your previous items would be considered legitimate by any self-respecting liberal. Your ability to mischaracterize remains nearly unparalleled. I assure you, tens of millions of self-respecting liberals support some or all of the policies in my list. Very few libertarians would support any of the policies. You might want to update your terminology to "socially libertarian". When you say "protecting what has already been decided or enacted", does it suffice that a politician not actively seek to repeal changes to be "socially liberal"? For example, Pres. Trump hasn't sought to repeal any rulings pertinent to your list. Is this sufficient to make him a social liberal?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 25, 2017 23:13:24 GMT -5
You realize that "socially liberal" circa 2017 means wimp hats, safe spaces, reparations, carbon credits, postgenderism, pro censorship, trigger words, policing of everything from sodas to pronouns, sanctuary cities, no borders, and that absolutely everything is racist? No, it doesn't. That's right...that's just everything they stand for and fight for, but that's not what the word means. I think that's sort of like how Venezuela was an example of a socialist country while it was prosperous but after it fell into quagmire then it wasn't "really" socialism.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 23:15:22 GMT -5
I didn't bother to respond to Virgil's question because around here we have a saying about not wresting in the mud with a pig I asked a simple question that can be trivially answered by anybody who knows what they're talking about. Since you're here making ad hominems, you're obviously not ignoring me or trying to avoid conflict. Which can only mean you don't have an answer to give. Maybe just say so next time. Unless you're dying to unload a few more pig wrestling analogies.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 25, 2017 23:16:56 GMT -5
I think that's sort of like how Venezuela was an example of a socialist country while it was prosperous but after it fell into quagmire then it wasn't "really" socialism. I hadn't heard of that, although it doesn't surprise me. Who's saying it isn't socialism? Anyone specific?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 25, 2017 23:33:33 GMT -5
I think that's sort of like how Venezuela was an example of a socialist country while it was prosperous but after it fell into quagmire then it wasn't "really" socialism. I hadn't heard of that, although it doesn't surprise me. Who's saying it isn't socialism? Anyone specific? Just ask any socialist that was touting Venezuela during the good times. Or you can read it from the horse's mouth, so to speak socialistworker.org/2017/06/07/did-socialism-fail-in-venezuelaNotice that socialists never examined Venezuela's socialist policies, or what "type" of socialism was being used, until after the state failed its "experiment." They were too busy touting how great the socialist policies were working, I guess (until they stopped working)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 25, 2017 23:40:58 GMT -5
There is also the matter of protecting what has already been decided or enacted. Those are still targets of conservatives, with many if not most dedicated to overturning them. I also said it was not an exhaustive list and, by the way, practically none of your previous items would be considered legitimate by any self-respecting liberal. Your ability to mischaracterize remains nearly unparalleled. I assure you, tens of millions of self-respecting liberals support some or all of the policies in my list. Very few libertarians would support any of the policies. You might want to update your terminology to "socially libertarian". When you say "protecting what has already been decided or enacted", does it suffice that a politician not actively seek to repeal changes to be "socially liberal"? For example, Pres. Trump hasn't sought to repeal any rulings pertinent to your list. Is this sufficient to make him a social liberal? First, the terms liberal, libertarian, progressive, socialist, leftist, and nut (and several more that some may wish to add) are NOT synonyms. While not going back to check, the only one from your list that I can recall being able to make a liberal case for is sanctuary cities, and even that is necessarily nuanced. I am about halfway to libertarian, so you can make of that what you will. As far as President Trump, I don't think even he knows what he truly believes. He has in the past been on pretty much every side of every issue as far as I can tell. But no, it should require a core belief to qualify as socially liberal. I am not convinced he has any.
|
|