Republicans Should Be S(*tscared....But They Aren't

[milee]

Dec 25, 2017 23:15:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 25, 2017 23:00:04 GMT -5 milee said:

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.

You not only know it's true - you like it.  

[Deleted]

If you guys wanna find a pig wresting venture on Xmas night..... I know a place....

[djAdvocate]

Dec 25, 2017 23:13:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Dec 25, 2017 19:18:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

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.

let me describe a perspective for you, and you tell me whether it is socialist, liberal, or neither:

"the degree to which a person can own a thing is the degree to which human intervention is required to engender it.  therefore land, real property, is ENTIRELY the providence of the public.  ditto for our vast resources of minerals, water, clean air, and virgin forest.  you are, however, free to do whatever you wish with your Nativity Scene and Snow Globe."

[djAdvocate]

Dec 25, 2017 23:13:24 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Dec 25, 2017 19:18:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

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.

really?  where have i ever stood for or fought for any of those things?  i don't think i have even commented on most of them, which should tell you how "strongly" i feel about them (not).

you are right, however, about carbon credits.  monetizing pollution is a very liberal idea.

i do, however, have to strenuously object to "pro censorship".  i not only am anti-censorship, i would defend your right to say whatever bullshit you want to say to the death.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 25, 2017 23:40:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

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.      

i vote for him being a "rudderless publicity whore". 

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2017 22:04:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 25, 2017 21:59:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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? 

Hey... You're the one that brought up the Russians! I was just agreeing with you that them being in bed with the Clintons was part of what cost her the election.

[zibazinski]

🤑🤮

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 25, 2017 23:40:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Dec 25, 2017 23:06:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.      

Let me explain my motivation here.

Many self-identifying liberals (progressives) live in a land of sound bites and unthinking Orwellianism. They say "I support science in government!" but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road--carbon credits, social engineering, eugenics, mass marketing, behavioural economics, mass surveillance, arms races, propaganda and tools of mass persuasion--all the controversial places where science intersects government in the real world, they're either clueless or nominally opposed.

They say "I support individual liberties!", failing to perceive that like conservatives they curtail countless liberties they consider harmful to self, others, and society, differing only in their judgment on what is and isn't harmful.

They say "Social liberalism isn't all these yucky radical things." and yet if they opened their eyes to behold their rapidly devolving society, they'd be astonished at how many of their fellow social liberals believe in the yucky radical things. If they bothered to go to the polls, they'd blanch at the sight of the number of their self-identifying liberal brethren who support suppression of controversial speech, violence, indoctrination into a genderless world, reparations, a borderless world, and every other one of the items in my list. Their clay foundation has washed another mile downstream and they don't even realize it.

It seems to me that if there's to be any hope of convincing you you're only as socially liberal to the extent your views comport with the list, it will be to show you that there's very little to social liberalism beyond the list.

I forgot to add legalization of drugs (Dr. Huxley would approve; drugged masses are complacent masses) and prostitution, hence thank you for reminding me. I'll also add legalization of suicide and related technologies after our journey through the suicide booth thread.

Beyond this, the sum of social liberalism is contained in the list plus (it goes without saying) the sine qua non of the ideology: unconditional support for women's right to rapidly, conveniently abort offspring.

It's not going to be long before even you realize that social liberalism has left you behind. Perhaps you'll drift with it, I don't know. If anything good comes out of these discussions, it'll be your impetus to not drift any further.

Dec 25, 2017 23:46:27 GMT -5 milee said:

Dec 25, 2017 23:15:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

You not only know it's true - you like it.  

What is it that I like?

Debate? Exposing the illogic and hypocrisy of ideological opponents? Pig wrestling analogies?

We're having this conversation because you either can't or won't articulate your ideas or defend your arguments. If you can't, so be it. If you won't, I can only assume you fear rigorous debate. You obviously have time. You've been polemicizing about the evils of social conservatism; you're obviously interested in the topic and not worried about controversy. The question asked is simple and straightforward. I assume you hold nothing against me personally and that you have some faith in my competence as a debater.

Is the question loaded? Absolutely. See my response to Tall.

[Opti]

"Let me explain my motivation here.

Many self-identifying liberals (progressives) live in a land of sound bites and unthinking Orwellianism. They say "I support science in government!" but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road--carbon credits, social engineering, eugenics, mass marketing, behavioural economics, mass surveillance, arms races, propaganda and tools of mass persuasion--all the controversial places where science intersects government in the real world, they're either clueless or nominally opposed."

Then please by all means talk to those people and leave this crap off the board. Is it a conservative thing to bring crap you believe is true to the board, hoping people who do not think like this, can explain it to you for people you believe do?

It amazes me time after time. Earlier in the thread jkapp is going about Venezuala, something none of the left of center posters I know of have even discussed let alone held it up as a shining beacon ... but yet again, looking for confirmation/argument on something that was *never discussed or believed here*.

Why can't you conservatives take your arguments to these alleged people that exist instead of dragging them here where they do not? I don't get it. And I am deeply thankful that thus far, no left of center person has imitated this silly practice of arguing about something they believe that conservatives believe but no one on the board has expressed that opinion.

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think "socially Liberal" means something different in Toronto Canada than it does in rural Maine, USA.  

Perhaps, although it might just be Virgil. The laundry list he has is totally different than what I would create if I were to start a conversation on issues social liberals usually care about. They are day to day human living concerns. Healthcare, taking care of one's kids, birth control, abortion when necessary, etc.

And a good bit of Virgil's laundry list I associate with conservatives not liberals, so Virgil's reality is very different than my own. Perhaps this thread should just die as this is not discussing the thread title.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Dec 25, 2017 17:05:12 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Dec 23, 2017 17:10:53 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Don't worry!

They only care about "real american!" votes.

I'm not one, they told me so themselves.

I'm not a real american because:

I was a single mother.
I'm vegan.
I live in a large city.
I live in a blue state.
I'm highly educated.
I have taught graduate-level coursework.

So - they don't want my votes. Not to worry, they will never get it again.

it's a win-win. We neither of us want the other.

In 2018 - could spell win-win-win. 

Other than the single mother thing, you just described a good chunk of my coworkers.  Most of them voted for Trump.

Well this is a very odd claim indeed. What city and industry is this? Only 0.5 to 1% of the US population is vegan, with about 3.5% being vegetarian or vegan. What is it that you consider "a good chunk"? and "most" who voted trump? numbers or percents.  

Do you perchance work at a vegetarian restaurant? That is the only spot I can conceive where one would find such a collection of workers. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

"Let me explain my motivation here.

Many self-identifying liberals (progressives) live in a land of sound bites and unthinking Orwellianism. They say "I support science in government!" but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road--carbon credits, social engineering, eugenics, mass marketing, behavioural economics, mass surveillance, arms races, propaganda and tools of mass persuasion--all the controversial places where science intersects government in the real world, they're either clueless or nominally opposed."

Then please by all means talk to those people and leave this crap off the board. Is it a conservative thing to bring crap you believe is true to the board, hoping people who do not think like this, can explain it to you for people you believe do?

It amazes me time after time. Earlier in the thread jkapp is going about Venezuala, something none of the left of center posters I know of have even discussed let alone held it up as a shining beacon ... but yet again, looking for confirmation/argument on something that was *never discussed or believed here*.

Why can't you conservatives take your arguments to these alleged people that exist instead of dragging them here where they do not? I don't get it. And I am deeply thankful that thus far, no left of center person has imitated this silly practice of arguing about something they believe that conservatives believe but no one on the board has expressed that opinion.

so, if one were anti-science, one could get away with all of that stuff without the hypocrisy?  is that the claim being made here?  because conservatives do everything underlined, as well.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2017 10:21:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think "socially Liberal" means something different in Toronto Canada than it does in rural Maine, USA.  

Perhaps, although it might just be Virgil. The laundry list he has is totally different than what I would create if I were to start a conversation on issues social liberals usually care about. They are day to day human living concerns. Healthcare, taking care of one's kids, birth control, abortion when necessary, etc.

And a good bit of Virgil's laundry list I associate with conservatives not liberals, so Virgil's reality is very different than my own. Perhaps this thread should just die as this is not discussing the thread title.

it must be nice being able to lump every evil in with your enemies.  in my case, since i was raised by a conservative father whom i dearly loved, it is not so easy for me to demonize conservatives.  i also spent a fair amount of time hanging around conservatives as a child.  my uncle was VP of DelMonte, and a pretty radical right winger.  most people i sell stuff to are conservatives.  a failure to empathize with them is really bad for sales.

despite what a few people here think, not every evil is partisan.  people are a mixed bag of good, bad, liberal, and conservative.  the most righteous man on earth might conceivably describe himself as either.

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2017 10:54:02 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Dec 26, 2017 10:21:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

Perhaps, although it might just be Virgil. The laundry list he has is totally different than what I would create if I were to start a conversation on issues social liberals usually care about. They are day to day human living concerns. Healthcare, taking care of one's kids, birth control, abortion when necessary, etc.

And a good bit of Virgil's laundry list I associate with conservatives not liberals, so Virgil's reality is very different than my own. Perhaps this thread should just die as this is not discussing the thread title.

I frankly don't think that his list is really worthy of serious response.  I mean, I am a socially liberal little snowflake, and my special safe space may be in the cab of my new Ford Super-Duty putting down rock salt.  I may have my pea shooter or my high powered rifle on board, but I certainly have my survival gear with me in the winter.  I may be chawing on a piece of jerky.  He can take his liberal safe space and shove it were the sun don't...... oh, never mind.

It's all sunshine and daisies here 

But to the topic at hand- I agree, many conservatives are not worried, and they are fools not to be, just as we were at the conclusion of Obama's term.  Things are cyclical, and all the signs were there.  They are certainly here now.  On the other hand, some conservatives have little to worry about.  Their gravy train just came in, and it will be hell to pay to try to claw that back, and they know it.

My safe place is inside my car. It is time to restock the car with winter stuff, luckily here it is less needed than up where you are. If you are into jerky, get the good stuff. I love Krave when I can afford to indulge.

Its sun and ice here. No daisys, but some dandelions were blooming on Christmas day if that counts.

[Deleted]

Lmao. Virgil needs a hoody.

[Opti]

Not only is the GOP not scared, Trump retweeted an image of himself with a bloody CNN on his shoe. Maybe the Republicans are so focused on Trump they aren't able to see a bigger picture. Trump is doing his usual to derail.

Merry Christmas GOP!

[djAdvocate]

so, i think we are all in agreement.  the GOP is not scared, and the Democrats are.  which is weird, considering the lay of the land.  but it is probably the best thing for Democrats that this is the case.

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2017 13:14:35 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I think Democrats are concerned because the more information that comes out about the dossier and the FISA warrants the worse it looks for them. I assume if there was some smoking gun about collusion it would have come out by now. Instead they have rapidly expanding internal and external investigations that are damaging both sides.

I'm not up on what you are following but I heartily disagree with you on the collusion part. Someone posted a very thoughtful article on following the money and various money laundering schemes the Russians were known to be involved in. It also brought up the fact that Trump's administration has been stacked with people with connections to Russia. And not benign ones.

I don't want to play the popular RW game of jump to conclusions and build a story around it. I won't listen very long to any left of center pundit who does crap like that. I want to know the truth, as best we are able to find out. And I get concerned about some things only if I find out it is an abnormal use of said tool. There are lots of things I wish out govt did not do, but I find it wise to see everything in context before deciding what is true and what is not. What is important and what is not. Do any of us really know the historical use of FISA warrants? I know I do not.

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2017 13:14:35 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I think Democrats are concerned because the more information that comes out about the dossier and the FISA warrants the worse it looks for them. I assume if there was some smoking gun about collusion it would have come out by now. Instead they have rapidly expanding internal and external investigations that are damaging both sides.

Democtarts aren’t scared of a dossier thing.

The only thing concerning about it at all is how it serves as more evidence that the republic is toast. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2017 13:42:30 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Christopher Steele, the guy who wrote the dossier, has backed up considerably on his claims. He said recently in court filings that there was only "possible coordination" between the Trump campaign and Russia. He also admitted they were based on limited intelligence and he hadn't verified them.

Unfortunately election interference and hacking is really common on all sides - it's standard business.

anne: this is an interesting narrative.  where are you getting it from?

my perspective is that this is all highly unusual, and probably unprecedented, so that you understand my question.

[Shooby]

Scared of what??

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2017 17:06:33 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Scared of what??

follow the link in the OP.  you're welcome.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2017 16:56:27 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

If we are talking about election interference here is a short overview: www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/04/u_s_and_russian_election_meddling_is_surprisingly_common.html

The example that sticks out in my mind is Clinton and Yeltsin.

www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/russia-us-clinton-boris-yeltsin-elections-interference-Trump/

oh, sure.  i thought you meant that it was common for OUR elections to be tampered with.

yes, we mess with elections all the time.  i am quite aware of that.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 26, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

Is it a conservative thing to bring crap you believe is true to the board, hoping people who do not think like this, can explain it to you for people you believe do?

... And I am deeply thankful that thus far, no left of center person has imitated this silly practice of arguing about something they believe that conservatives believe but no one on the board has expressed that opinion.

Firstly, YMAM members have argued in favour of every one of the listed items with the exception of reparations and borderless societies.

Secondly, the list represents the post-Clinton Democratic Party platform. There are several members who agree (or who invariably come to agree) with all party positions, the same as for some members on the right. It's an unfortunate consequence of your two-party system.

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting that everyone here who identifies as "socially liberal" believes everything in the list. I'm saying that to the extent you aren't a fan of the policies in the list, i) you're no longer a social liberal and ii) your preferred politicians won't identify as social liberals; they'll call themselves centrists or even conservatives. Social liberalism has left you behind.

Tall and I have identified three areas where it hasn't yet left you behind: legalization of hard drugs, legalization of prostitution, and legalization of suicide. If you can expand this list, please let us know what other specific policies should go on it.

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

On the other hand, some conservatives have little to worry about.  Their gravy train just came in, and it will be hell to pay to try to claw that back, and they know it.

I'll draw your attention to your exploiting the contemporary definition of "conservative". You're suggesting that "conservatives" support Pres. Trump's tax plan despite the obvious lack of anything conservative in the plan.

I won't begrudge you your choice of terminology. I understand you're referring to contemporary self-identifying conservatives, neoconservatives, party-locked Republicans, etc., whose values bear little resemblance to classical conservatism. In other words, I accept that "conservatism" has left me behind.

If there's any difference between you and I, it's the relative rapidity of the shift of social liberalism. The transition from classical conservatism to pro-war, pro-deficit, pro-corporate neoconservatism took decades. The fulcrum of social liberalism changes practically by the year. It's an inherently unstable ideology. Which makes it all the more important for paleoliberals to keep close tabs on what "social liberals" believe at any given time.

Dec 26, 2017 11:21:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, if one were anti-science, one could get away with all of that stuff without the hypocrisy?  is that the claim being made here?  because conservatives do everything underlined, as well.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but if it's "Does not supporting these policies make one anti-science-in-government?", the answer is "Yes". In particular because these are presently the only ways science intersects our governance in controversial ways.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think "socially Liberal" means something different in Toronto Canada than it does in rural Maine, USA.  

In Canada, (small 'l') liberalism tends to be synonymous with the progressive policies of the (large 'L') Liberal Party of Canada, which comport with the list to a large degree (and moreso every year).

Yet another reason why you should rethink your terminology.

[tallguy]

Dec 26, 2017 18:16:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think "socially Liberal" means something different in Toronto Canada than it does in rural Maine, USA.  

In Canada, (small 'l') liberalism tends to be synonymous with the progressive policies of the (large 'L') Liberal Party of Canada, which comport with the list to a large degree (and moreso every year).

Yet another reason why you should rethink your terminology.

Or they should.  We had it first.  

I have in the past changed from calling myself a "social liberal, fiscal conservative" to calling myself "socially liberal, fiscally conservative."  It seems like a small change, but it actually becomes a description instead of a title.  Liberal on social issues is not necessarily the same as whatever is now the evolving definition of "social liberal" or "social liberalism."  I still contend that the items on your list are not liberal (as the term is properly used) issues or priorities. 

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2017 18:16:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I think "socially Liberal" means something different in Toronto Canada than it does in rural Maine, USA.  

In Canada, (small 'l') liberalism tends to be synonymous with the progressive policies of the (large 'L') Liberal Party of Canada, which comport with the list to a large degree (and moreso every year).

Yet another reason why you should rethink your terminology.

I think you need to rethink your terminology on this board. The reality is that the political discussions are US centric, not Canada centric. Should that change, then the board should hew to Canada style definitions.

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2017 18:12:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 26, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

Is it a conservative thing to bring crap you believe is true to the board, hoping people who do not think like this, can explain it to you for people you believe do?

... And I am deeply thankful that thus far, no left of center person has imitated this silly practice of arguing about something they believe that conservatives believe but no one on the board has expressed that opinion.

Firstly, YMAM members have argued in favour of every one of the listed items with the exception of reparations and borderless societies.

Secondly, the list represents the post-Clinton Democratic Party platform. There are several members who agree (or who invariably come to agree) with all party positions, the same as for some members on the right. It's an unfortunate consequence of your two-party system.

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting that everyone here who identifies as "socially liberal" believes everything in the list. I'm saying that to the extent you aren't a fan of the policies in the list, i) you're no longer a social liberal and ii) your preferred politicians won't identify as social liberals; they'll call themselves centrists or even conservatives. Social liberalism has left you behind.

Tall and I have identified three areas where it hasn't yet left you behind: legalization of hard drugs, legalization of prostitution, and legalization of suicide. If you can expand this list, please let us know what other specific policies should go on it.

Dec 26, 2017 9:31:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

On the other hand, some conservatives have little to worry about.  Their gravy train just came in, and it will be hell to pay to try to claw that back, and they know it.

I'll draw your attention to your exploiting the contemporary definition of "conservative". You're suggesting that "conservatives" support Pres. Trump's tax plan despite the obvious lack of anything conservative in the plan.

I won't begrudge you your choice of terminology. I understand you're referring to contemporary self-identifying conservatives, neoconservatives, party-locked Republicans, etc., whose values bear little resemblance to classical conservatism. In other words, I accept that "conservatism" has left me behind.

If there's any difference between you and I, it's the relative rapidity of the shift of social liberalism. The transition from classical conservatism to pro-war, pro-deficit, pro-corporate neoconservatism took decades. The fulcrum of social liberalism changes practically by the year. It's an inherently unstable ideology. Which makes it all the more important for paleoliberals to keep close tabs on what "social liberals" believe at any given time.

Dec 26, 2017 11:21:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, if one were anti-science, one could get away with all of that stuff without the hypocrisy?  is that the claim being made here?  because conservatives do everything underlined, as well.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but if it's "Does not supporting these policies make one anti-science-in-government?", the answer is "Yes". In particular because these are presently the only ways science intersects our governance in controversial ways.

No it actually doesn't. They have this nifty website which states their platform.

www.democrats.org/party-platform

Do the Democrats use carbon credits? Yes. Is it the core of their platform or is it a means to an end? I'll help on this, its the latter.

I'm not going to take your word on what is and isn't true. I've found too often its far off the mark lately. Its rare people understand well, what they dislike. If you really wanted to understand you'd ask questions instead of issue pronouncements that are provably not true.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 26, 2017 19:03:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

No it actually doesn't. They have this nifty website which states their platform.

www.democrats.org/party-platform

Democratic Party literature is vague to the point of uselessness. A better source of info is proposed legislation and statements by party leaders.

Admittedly "reparations" and "borderless world" are still on the fringes, but everything else on the list has worked its way well inward. The DNC wants to reach women, minorities, and disaffected Millennials, all of which entail a stark shift left.

I don't have time to prove this to you for every single item, but I'll tell you what: pick one and I'll line up clips and articles of prominent Democrats campaigning based on it. (Only if this will convince you it's part of the party platform. If not, we shouldn't waste our time.)

[Deleted]

Methinks that Virgil Showlion has confused "genderless" with "gender equality"

Liberals don't want people to be, or be thought of as, sexless automatons... they just want them all treated equally under the law AND society.


I totally agree with him on the whole censorship thing though. Words should all be treated equally under the law AND society as well. That's one of those places where liberals share the "Sure you can do it... as long as I agree that it's okay" attitude of conservatives.