We really need to start having a serious conversation about this....

[Recording Engineer]

Well, since I don't identify as a conservative or a Republican, you would be wrong again. I'll remind you that until about a decade ago I voted for more Democrats than Republicans (and also a few third party types, even for POTUS). I no longer vote that way because the vast majority of Democrats have lost their way (i.e. mind) and wandered far off into the weeds of authoritarianism, bigger government, and a huge array of positively horrendous policies.

By contrast, most Republicans remain grounded in reality and have some pragmatism. Yes, there are problems with many (I can't stand neocons), but the alternatives are usually far worse.

Why all the workaround? It applies to all. You know that.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Why all the workaround? It applies to all. You know that.

You specifically responded to me and implied that I was somehow claiming that "my side" didn't have issues. I refuted all of your points. No workaround was given. Your illogical deflections and non-responses speak volumes.

 

[Recording Engineer]

You specifically responded to me and implied that I was somehow claiming that "my side" didn't have issues. I refuted all of your points. No workaround was given. Your illogical deflections and non-responses speak volumes.

Back at ya. What did that accomplish? You didn’t refute anything either. You just walked-around my whole point twice, on purpose, by ever-refusing to look in the mirror. You’re responding just to argue. Must be nice to be the only one with rose-smelling shit.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Fair-enough… I was just noticing where this thread was already going.

Here we are, 11-pages -in… Surprise, surprise… This thread started with a potlical-direction and stayed. No serious conversation here. However, I do enjoy political-humor; when it’s not presented as anything else.

 

[Matador]

Here we are, 11-pages -in… Surprise, surprise… This thread started with a potlical-direction and stayed. No serious conversation here. However, I do enjoy political-humor; when it’s not presented as anything else.

#fullofsoundandfury

 

[living sounds]

Perhaps, but are you saying that democrats haven't moved to the left? John F. Kennedy was a democrat, and for today's standards of what a democrat is, he sounds like an ultra-right conservative compared to the current dems in power.

In what way exactly? "Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"? Because that's the exact opposite of the "greed is good mentality" of the market fundamentalist Right. Under Kennedy the top federal income tax rate stood at 90%. I could go on and on. He sure wasn't a family values conservative in his private life either (though that's kind of beside the point)...


Regarding authoritarianism - there are elements of it on both sides (I am not very happy with a lot of stuff on the nutty left), but only one side had their president cheerleading an assault on the Capitol... And he was the one friendly with actual authoritarians and talking the strongman talk.

 

[user 37518]

In what way exactly? "Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"? Because that's the exact opposite of the "greed is good mentality" of the market fundamentalist Right. Under Kennedy the top federal income tax rate stood at 90%. I could go on and on. He sure wasn't a family values conservative in his private life either (though that's kind of beside the point)...


Regarding authoritarianism - there are elements of it on both sides (I am not very happy with a lot of stuff on the nutty left), but only one side had their president cheerleading an assault on the Capitol... And he was the one friendly with actual authoritarians and talking the strongman talk.

Already answered, check post 195

 

[living sounds]

Already answered, check post 195

No, what policies specifically and in the agregate? Not a picture of a weirdo.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Back at ya. What did that accomplish? You didn’t refute anything either. You just walked-around my whole point twice, on purpose, by ever-refusing to look in the mirror. You’re responding just to argue. Must be nice to be the only one with rose-smelling shit.

I can't help you to think. So apparently discussing anything with you accomplishes little. I never claimed to be perfect. Have admitted to many past mistakes. I'm sure I'll make more. But keep projecting your fantasy onto the world.

 

[Matador]

Regarding authoritarianism - there are elements of it on both sides (I am not very happy with a lot of stuff on the nutty left), but only one side had their president cheerleading an assault on the Capitol... And he was the one friendly with actual authoritarians and talking the strongman talk.

There's a new bill in Illinois (from the Freedom, Small Government right) banning marriages in Illinois that might be illegal in another state, yet that are legal IN ILLINOIS. The right is worried that if interracial marriages are struck down, that mixed race people might come to Illinois to get married.

Because Federalism isn't a thing any more?

 

[user 37518]

No, what policies specifically and in the agregate? Not a picture of a weirdo.

Ok, here are some: abortion, immigration, prioritizing climate policies when many don't make any sense, crime (see California laws or lack thereof), and in general favoring most things woke just because they are woke, like the photo of the weirdo you mention.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

In what way exactly? "Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"? Because that's the exact opposite of the "greed is good mentality" of the market fundamentalist Right.

Gross oversimplification of reality. You might note where the highest and lowest per-capita military recruitment is by scrolling down through this article. Now compare to an election result map.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-enlistment-rates-by-state-and-region/
Also polling of veterans and active military (all volunteers) indicates a skew to the right over all age groups. So tell me more about the greedy selfish right who don't serve their country.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx

Under Kennedy the top federal income tax rate stood at 90%. I could go on and on. He sure wasn't a family values conservative in his private life either (though that's kind of beside the point)...

No, he was a serial womanizer like many from powerful families. But his policies, by and large, were rooted in traditional conservative American values. There is no doubt he would be rejected by current Democrats.

Regarding authoritarianism - there are elements of it on both sides (I am not very happy with a lot of stuff on the nutty left), but only one side had their president cheerleading an assault on the Capitol...

Read the full transcripts and stop parroting inaccurate "reporting."

And he was the one friendly with actual authoritarians and talking the strongman talk.

Being a strong leader prevented a lot of conflict that suddenly occurred when weak Joe was elected. FDR was friendly with Stalin. Nixon, Clinton, Obama, and others were friendly with Chinese Communist Party leaders. Obama bowed with respect to Kings, Oligarchs, and Dictators.

 

[Recording Engineer]

So apparently discussing anything with you accomplishes little.

It doesn’t when someone only sees current-problems on one side. When we get specific and stay on task, we seem to do better.

 

[user 37518]

By the way, for those defending the Guarding and claiming that they publish great quality journalism and that we shouldn't focus on their left-wing positions, here is a counterexample:

Inaction on global warming amounts to racism – let me tell you why | Elise Yarde

This is the same people telling us to trust the science.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

In what way exactly? "Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"? Because that's the exact opposite of the "greed is good mentality" of the market fundamentalist Right. Under Kennedy the top federal income tax rate stood at 90%. I could go on and on. He sure wasn't a family values conservative in his private life either (though that's kind of beside the point)...


Regarding authoritarianism - there are elements of it on both sides (I am not very happy with a lot of stuff on the nutty left), but only one side had their president cheerleading an assault on the Capitol... And he was the one friendly with actual authoritarians and talking the strongman talk.

As for the 90%+ tax bracket, that was implemented under FDR in 1944. It was lowered to 70% in 1964 under that rabid right winger, LBJ.

https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
And for the record, Congress initiates changes to existing tax law. Note who controlled congress during this period.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It doesn’t when someone only sees current-problems on one side. When we get specific and stay on task, we seem to do better.

I see plenty of problems on the right. Did you read what I wrote? Neocons are big trouble. The sellouts need to go (both sides). I've been specific and provided data and reporting to back my position. You? Do better.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Did you read what I wrote? Neocons are big trouble. The sellouts need to go (both sides). I've been specific and provided data and reporting to back my position.

Sure did. Finally. After I first questioned the follow (which started this latest round):

No, the majority of conservatives have not shifted to the extreme. But a large number of self-described "liberals" have moved very far left and become increasingly authoritarian. One only need look at the pandemic response and related phenomena to see this. Of course there are many other manifestations that are apparent over the past couple of decades.

This is nothing more than just seeing what you want to see. Again, acting like the other side doesn’t stink too. Round and round we always go.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Sure did. Finally. After I first questioned the follow (which started this latest round):

Try to keep up. Again, Some here have provided data, reporting, and rationality while others make blanket assertions and respond to meaningful refutations with ad hominem, sarcasm, and self-victimization.

This is nothing more than just seeing what you want to see. Again, acting like the other side doesn’t stink too. Round and round we always go.

You keep gaslighting that somehow "both sides" stink and therefore are equivalent. I disagree and have explained why I believe that. There's always going to be problems and bad actors. What we're discussing are the differences in fundamental philosophy that have diverged (mostly by the left).

So supporting open borders, defunding the police, extended lock downs, vaccine mandates, and antifa riots/destruction is not a shift to the extreme left, but wanting reduced government interference, rule of law, and a continuation of our nation's core founding values is "extreme right?"

The concept of personal liberty/accountability is not extreme. Keeping government decision making at the lowest level (local preferred) is not extreme. Wanting big gov agencies to be held accountable to the citizens by way of Congressional oversight is not extreme. Wanting a secure border is not extreme. A desire to preserve fundamental civil liberties is not extreme. A meritocracy is not extreme.

 

[hodad]

What we're discussing are the differences in fundamental philosophy that have diverged (mostly by the left).

In the big arc, maybe you have a point. Has conservatism lurched right since Nixon, and even Reagan? Demonstrably yes, in many areas, But today's conservatism is arguably in line with a much older strain of conservatism, where only propertied white men are allowed to vote, women's rights are severely restricted, and most black people are enslaved. When viewed in a larger time frame, I do see where one could argue that today's conservative movement has actually swung back toward its roots. (You'd have to ignore, of course, that attitudes on abortion were far more liberal back then.)

 

[AnalogPackrat]

In the big arc, maybe you have a point. Has conservatism lurched right since Nixon, and even Reagan? Demonstrably yes, in many areas, But today's conservatism is arguably in line with a much older strain of conservatism, where only propertied white men are allowed to vote, women's rights are severely restricted, and most black people are enslaved. When viewed in a larger time frame, I do see where one could argue that today's conservative movement has actually swung back toward its roots. (You'd have to ignore, of course, that attitudes on abortion were far more liberal back then.)

That is factually false and patently ridiculous. Provide evidence that "today's conservatism" wishes to repeal the 15th and/or 19th amendment? Which party is trying to enforce the law and secure the southern border, which, not coincidentally, also reduces human trafficking and modern slavery?

In my opinion both parties have changed considerably. Modern conservatives are much more socially liberal than they were 30+ years ago (on legal immigration, gay rights, interracial marriage, the environment, civil rights) yet mostly adhere to the foundations of individual liberty, smaller government, distributed (as opposed to centralized) authority, and rule of law to provide a stable and civil society. The new left wants to undermine the first amendment, increase the size and authority of all levels of government, centralize more power in the Federal government, keep the southern border unsecured, control more of our lives (what we eat, how we cook, what items we can buy, what medical treatment is required, what car we can buy/drive, what our children are taught, what we can do on our own private property), and then have the audacity to destroy law enforcement against actual criminals. Give me a break.