Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. For the poor and needy to have the necessities of life.
2. For workers to make high min wages.
3. For all Americans to have health insurance.
4. To try to use peace and negotiation before going to war.
5. To address all environmental concerns that could effect our children's future.
What desires above are worth going to war to stop?
So you are claiming the mainstream media is involved in a conspiracy with democrat politicians to start another cold war with Russia?
But republicans never speak of things like the above, and republicans will not have conversations with liberals about things like the above (perhaps because republicans are at war with liberals.)
ISIS was created because America invaded Iraq. The GW Bush White House invaded Iraq and now you claim liberal internationalists created ISIS and today's terrorist threat?
You typically need around $1 billion dollars in campaign funds to run for president. And a group of large corporations and billionaires give our politicians that money, and that same group writes all of our laws.
When republicans pass a law involving oil production its oil companies that wrote the law, or when republicans pass a law involving prescription drugs it was drug companies that wrote the law.
But republicans fully ignore corporations writing republican laws, and then they attack liberals for the same thing. And then there's no conversation about how both of our political parties are being controlled by billionaires and large corporations (and the corporate republicans are 50x worse.)
We lost our manufacturing because Bill Clinton and a republican congress passed a free trade deal.
But democrats have tried to do things like end tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs, and then potentially bring millions of jobs back to America (but the corporate republicans oppose ending the tax breaks and stopped the democrats from doing it.)
Democrats have tried to raise taxes on CEO billionaires with a law called the Buffet Rule. This action would stop the wealthy elites from getting more money. But the republicans stopped the Buffet Rule from passing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
And democrats have tried to raise the min wage and give the middle class tax cuts, and both those actions would have given low income workers and the middle class more money (but the republicans stopped the laws from passing.)
And whats your plan to fix the problems you spoke of above?
Your plan is the Trump tax cuts. These tax cuts will give the 20% of Americans making an average of $50,900 a year 8% of the tax cuts, and then give the richest 5% of Americans 51% of the tax cuts.
I'm the man who will always help your wife and children if they are in trouble. If I'm your my neighbor I will always look out for your property. I keep your grocery stores well maintained, and I sell you reptile and gardening oriented supplies. And I want surpluses in our budgets, I want no more debt growth, and I want America to be the most powerful country on this planet.
Why do you want to go to war against me?
In the not so distant future America will face huge increases in Social Security and health related spending. And if Trump wins he will add trillions of dollars to our debt (and that's money we will not be able to use for our future SS and healthcare problems.)
And Trumps tax cuts are 3x bigger than Bush's and they will send our deficits into the atmosphere.
Warren Buffet would be the highest ranking liberal elite. And Buffet feels guilty that his secretary has a higher tax rate than himself, and Buffet is trying to do something about it (Warren Buffet seems like a pretty cool ruling class dude to me.)
Liberal: anti-american ideology, bows to political correctness, anti-constitution, anti flag, anti white males, anti-military. and, anti-Christianity. You get the idea.
You're talking a small fringe group of insulated college Professor types who have only a minor effect on everyday life.
Again, this is the effect of talk radio. Angry white men are not losing their jobs because of college re-contextualist no gender no race "safe zone" types.
They lost their jobs because Wall ST wanted to get richer, and people like Rush Limbaugh, who are feeding this crap about PC liberals destroying America into your brain, have been 100% pro Wall ST profiteering since day one.
How you can't see the great dupe that's been played on you..and STILL continue to follow people like Limbaugh, is puzzling to me.
You're talking a small fringe group of insulated college Professor types who have only a minor effect on everyday life.
Again, this is the effect of talk radio. Angry white men are not losing their jobs because of college re-contextualist no gender no race "safe zone" types.
They lost their jobs because Wall ST wanted to get richer, and people like Rush Limbaugh, who are feeding this crap about PC liberals destroying America into your brain, have been 100% pro Wall ST profiteering since day one.
How you can't see the great dupe that's been played on you..and STILL continue to follow people like Limbaugh, is puzzling to me.
If you're ready to do some reading, it's very nicely explained here:
Buffet has turned into a BUFFOON. He is CRONY CAPIALIST elite.
Buffet is a billionaire who uses his political power to stop billionaires from having lower tax rates than you. And he is a man who has given most of his wealth to charity.
And are the Koch brothers also crony capitalist elites?
Or are the Koch brothers political efforts to allow billionaires to control our government, to abolish every government agency that lowers their corporate profits, and loosening envenmental regulations so they can pollute more and give more people cancer a good thing?
Ultimately, to win a war, you have to know your enemy and know yourself. Make no mistake about it. Liberalism, in all its forms, is THE enemy. In order for conservatives to defeat this enemy, we must use all means at our disposal short of bloodshed. The ultimate enemy is not Communism, Radical Islam, or Russia.
The USA fought a cold war against communism because the liberals started it. Look at what the liberal media is trying to do - stir up hatred against Russia and start another cold war, when we already have enough enemies as it is. What will be the ultimate result of such a policy? Increased alignment between China and Russia, as Russia has few other allies in the world, and will inevitably be driven into the Chinese camp. Radical Islam doesn't hate the average American. It hates the liberal internationalists who have interfered in their nations and have sought to extends its influence into their lands. What does the typical terrorist have against the farmer in Nebraska? Nothing much. The terrorists attacked NYC, the symbol of liberalism.
Ultimately, we are fighting a war against two enemies. Radical Islam is the first, proximate enemy, because it wants to kill us. And so we have to fight because of self-preservation and our own security. But it is the ideology of liberalism that is the real enemy. It is the reason why we are involved in all of these conflicts around the world to begin with, why our laws are written by corporations (Obamacare), why our inner cities are collapsing, why we are losing our manufacturing, and why all of our nation's wealth is being transferred to the wealthy elites and upper middle class, instead of the working class, middle class, and average people. It is why Mexican immigrants are pouring into our nation, and why we haven't been able to do anything about it.
Remember. If Trump wins, the first great battle against liberalism will have been won, but the war will continue. They will do everything they can to hold onto their power, like every reactionary class does. If Trump loses, we must not lose heart, and build a coalition of anti-liberal forces that will ultimately be able to achieve electoral victory, and excise this cancer from our nation once and for all. Radical Islam must be defeated. But when that is done, we must face the real enemy - and this enemy is at home.
History will remember the Trump campaign as the beginning of a revolution against liberalism and the liberal ruling class. We are the revolutionaries, and they are the reactionaries.
Trump 2016
Well, as a Conservative, I won't agree with you on a couple of items, in particular the sentence I highlighted in bold, Al Qaeda, ISIS and other radical Islam groups hate all Americans, and those who don't agree with their radical idealogy.
In many ways, radical Islam and liberalism destroy our country, the only difference is, terrorists do that faster by using weapons, whereas liberals want to tear down the founding principles of our country one piece at a time until everything comes crumbling down.
Buffet is a billionaire who uses his political power to stop billionaires from having lower tax rates than you. And he is a man who has given most of his wealth to charity.
And are the Koch brothers also crony capitalist elites?
Or are the Koch brothers political efforts to allow billionaires to control our government, to abolish every government agency that lowers their corporate profits, and loosening envenmental regulations so they can pollute more and give more people cancer a good thing?
Yes, I am saying that liberals are warmongers whose intolerance of other forms of government that are the slightest bit illiberal is essentially equivalent to Radical Islam's intolerance of every other form of society that is not exactly like itself. Hence, the demonization of countries like North Korea, Assad, Russia, getting involved in WW1 and Vietnam (which was escalated by Democrats). We were all-powerful at this time, so we could afford these wars. But no longer. Liberal intolerance of everything that is not like itself will ultimately destroy this nation and isolate it from the rest of the world. Conservatives don't see the world like this. We do not believe in some divine mission to spread our values worldwide. It is not because we don't believe in our values. We just have the humility to realize that not everyone is like us, and that there are many different ways of building a just, humane, and decent society. The Iraq War was a healthy dose of humility for the conservative movement. We learned from our mistakes. But have the liberal elite learned anything? It doesn't seem like it at all! You continue to demonize a country that we very well could work with - Russia. Because they are somehow not exactly like us. How is that different from a radical Muslim who sees any deviation from his particular set of beliefs as a heresy that must be confronted and destroyed? I argue that it is essentially the same sentiment - a primitive tribalism.
This will be easier paragraph by paragraph, so I'm splitting this **** up.
You say one smart thing here, which is asking if the liberal elite have learned anything. Everything else you said is partisan BS that makes Brietbart seem like an intellectual source of information. Look around; Democrat voters (liberals) are firmly opposed to military interventionism. Most do not want a war with ISIS or Russia or North Korea. They may think these places are bad, and I'd actually argue that an self respecting conservative would agree. Anyone who believes in Liberal principles should puke in their mouth when they see what happens in North Korea. But that aside, liberals as a group don't necessarily support military interventionism. The reason they may throw their support to a liberal who does is because they either a) don't place that value as an especially high priority or b) are not aware to the extent that military interventionism continues under the likes of Obama and Clinton. To go back to your question of rather or not they learned, there is one problem with the question. It implies there's a lesson to be had and makes the assumption of failure, and I'd argue that from the liberal elite's position (neoliberalism), what's transpired in the Middle East has been far from a failure so from their point of view, there isn't actually a lesson to be learned. But again, the liberal elites don't represent the liberals and you as a Trump supporter should probably understand that the "elites" of your ideology don't represent you. So when you talk about tribalism, I have no choice to laugh. What was it Jesus said? You can't notice the log in your own eye?
Quote:
No, no. Liberalism has very little to do with the American political tradition, in general. Liberalism was the ideology of the European colonial empires, and especially the British Empire during the Victorian era, and America was created in a revolution against the British Empire. For much of the 19th century, liberalism, in the modern sense of the term, was decidedly NOT the ideology of the American governing and elite class. Modern liberalism only came into being with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson used the ideology of liberalism as war propaganda, and at the time, people didn't have alternative sources of information. That's how liberalism became implanted into the American body politic. It was never an ideology that came to become so predominant in American life because of any reasoned debate, or because its ideas were superior. The government propagandized the American people during WWI using liberal ideology and it stuck afterward. And look at what liberalism is now - it uses the media as a propaganda tool.
It's clear we need to make clear the distinctions of Liberalism and liberalism. The former is the political philosophy of John Locke (and it's various offshoots) that dictate a need for representative government, the existence of rights, a capitalist type market, and the principles of freedom and equality. If you've read Locke, as any informed American should, you would see obvious parallels between the ideals of the founding fathers and Locke's work. I'd go so far as to say that if you don't see them, you're an idiot who's entirely incapable of reading. Jefferson practically plagiarizes an idea from Locke, literally taking a passage of Locke and changing one word (he replaces "property" with "Pursuit of happiness"). To contrast that, liberalism, or modern liberalism, is a broad descriptor for any liberal who can be describes as a left wing liberal, left wing also being a broad term. And just for contrast, a conservative in a modern American context is a liberal who can be described as right wing. In my view, words like liberal and conservative are almost entirely meaningless. So here's my expectation of you: give a clear and concise explanation for HOW you are defining liberal, looking at general principles (this cannot use specific people or examples; I want principles... I'm not accepting the easy way out here) and then we can see who that label actually applies to. If you don't do this, I will not respond to your post. It's essentially moving forward because without it, we'll waste time arguing on what a liberal is. You set the definition and we'll see what that looks like.
Quote:
Its methods haven't changed since it first came into being. Liberals do not wish to engage in debate - which is the heart of democracy - instead, they wish to manipulate the terms of the debate to their favor, and to establish itself as the only reasonable option, using political correctness to stifle any opinions that are inappropriate, as designated by liberalism. If Hillary Clinton and the liberalism she represents was really in the best interests of the American people, why does she have to be so dishonest about it? If it is truly the best path for Americans, she should be able to honestly state her case before the people. THAT is what true democracy is - open, honest, and earnest debate. The real reason why Hillary is so dishonest is because her policies and her ideology are NOT in the best interests of the American people. Nobody lies unless they have to - if you could get everything you wanted by being honest, why wouldn't you? Even a dishonest person WANTS to be seen as honest, as it benefits one's reputation in the eyes of others. Hillary lies because she is out of touch with the true interests of the American people. In other words, liberalism isn't really Americanism, it has hijacked true Americanism and claimed it for itself - but the American people are waking up to this deception.
Again, you say something intelligent, but it seems to be an accident. "The liberalism she represents." Have you seen that woman's approval ratings? She clealry does not represent a lot of liberals. Many are voting for her entirely because her main opponent is so entirely against their values. You cannot be at "war with liberalism" if all you do is base it on liberal politicians, many of whom ARE disconnected from their liberal constituents. But those voters aren't going to disagree that debate is important to republican government. Interestingly enough, you're throwing your support to a guy who, when criticized, has to stop everything and ***** about it on Twitter.
Quote:
Yeah, I think all Americans are sick of these endless conflicts around the world. We are sick of the propaganda against Russia, and see it for what it really is. It's exactly the same as the propaganda that was used to start the Cold War. And it is the ideology of liberal internationalism that is the root cause of these conflicts. It is essentially the same ideology as the crusaders, except what we are trying to spread is not the Christian religion, but "liberal democracy." But the fact is, liberal democracy is not American in any profound sense - democracy and liberalism considered as distinct entities certainly are - but this hybrid Frankenstein monster of "liberal democracy" that we are trying to export around the world isn't American - it's the ideology of the British Empire, first and foremost, and somehow, America has been deceived into adopting it as its own, when it was the very ideology that America fought against to achieve its independence. It is the ideology of a specific faction of the American ruling class that has come to be identified with America itself. But clearly, 50% of Americans do NOT agree with this ideology. So how can it be said to represent Americanism?
Of course Americans are sick of the constant warfare. Many of those Americans are liberals. And I don't know what you mean when you say modern liberalism is like the English Empire. We fought a war against a Parliamentary Monarchy, that was controlled by corporate interests. Despite King George's name being on the declaration of war, the American Revolution was fought to stop the corporate interests from lobbying what economic policies were imposed on the American colonies. Aside from the corporate interests, that I'd argue were largely able to gain the level of influence they currently have thanks to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, what similarities are there?
If that's how you choose to excuse your hate and divisiveness that's again... your choice. But don't pretend that someone else is responsible for your irrational fear.
And yes, what I've said is applicable to both sides.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
