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.
She specifically has said that she wants to take the CFPB, which she helped create, back to it's original intent. Ergo, by your definition of 'conservative,' Warren is a conservative. There is no way around it. You've put yourself into a zugzwang with your semantic chicanery.
The CFPB only dates back to 2011! That's hardly part of, "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change." So yes, there's an easy way around it: She only wants to change an existing program that's only been around for 8 years. Eight years hardly counts as trying to preserve an old social order.
If that's all you can come up with, you can't really come up with anything.
If you say that Islamist Somali war lords are 'conservatives,' people are going to say 'huh.'
Yes, if those Somali Islamic war lords are trying to bring a theocracy to Somalia, then yes, they are conservative. Sorry if you don't like being lumped into the same category as them.
So by that 'logic' someone like Elizabeth Warren would also be a 'conservative' because she wishes to go back to some of the liberal policies of the past, such as those of FDR, or even further back to early 20th century progressivism.
Is that right? You think Warren is a 'conservative?'
Liberalism made this country great.
The problem here - once again - is the backwards world of definition. Conservatism, using your definition, is:
1. The SCOTUS appointing a POTUS
2. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - the largest Security State in the history of the world.
3. Double the price for health care....which isn't as good as many modern countries.
4. Low wages
5. Deficits of a Trillion or more in supposed "great economic times".....
You know these things aren't conservative! So, yes, by a true definition of the word, it would be conservative to try and save this great nation using many of the templates of the past. Whenever "Free Market" capitalism has caused this country to go completely off the rails...only the progressive and liberal policies of Teddy or FDR have helped get us back on track.
Surely "conservative" should mean nationalism or white supremacy? It shouldn't mean the Tariff King or King of Debt.
I think we'd be better off changing the words we use...maybe "thoughtful" and "realistic" would better define many of the suggested policies of the Warren or similar pols???
So if I lived in a state with an insignificant earlier death rate and moved to a state with a later death rate, I'll live longer?
Migration in and out of states keeps the population in flux. So a cancer patient who lived in one state for most of their life moves to another state and dies of cancer acquired while living elsewhere, the last state gets the stat for a cancer death.
Blue /red creative statistical conclusion like this article, falls under the heading of political propaganda disguised as science to divide the country and forward a political narrative.
This is the kind of nonsense the democrats were so concerned that Russia was spreading!!!! Territory dispute with Russia, dems own the propaganda distribution rights!
The problem here - once again - is the backwards world of definition. Conservatism, using your definition, is:
1. The SCOTUS appointing a POTUS
2. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - the largest Security State in the history of the world.
3. Double the price for health care....which isn't as good as many modern countries.
4. Low wages
5. Deficits of a Trillion or more in supposed "great economic times".....
You know these things aren't conservative! So, yes, by a true definition of the word, it would be conservative to try and save this great nation using many of the templates of the past. Whenever "Free Market" capitalism has caused this country to go completely off the rails...only the progressive and liberal policies of Teddy or FDR have helped get us back on track.
Surely "conservative" should mean nationalism or white supremacy? It shouldn't mean the Tariff King or King of Debt.
I think we'd be better off changing the words we use...maybe "thoughtful" and "realistic" would better define many of the suggested policies of the Warren or similar pols???
modern liberalism is the opposite of classic liberalism
It is a statistical fact that people in blue states, on average, tend to live longer than those in red states. Some of the GOPers here seem to be having problems with that.
It is a statistical fact that people in blue states, on average, tend to live longer than those in red states. Some of the GOPers here seem to be having problems with that.
Again, you fall victim to the correlation=causation fallacy.
50 years ago the Southern states with relatively lower lifespan were blue. According to your 'logic' 50 years ago blue caused early demise, but now, red causes early demise.
The CFPB only dates back to 2011! That's hardly part of, "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change." So yes, there's an easy way around it: She only wants to change an existing program that's only been around for 8 years. Eight years hardly counts as trying to preserve an old social order.
If that's all you can come up with, you can't really come up with anything.
I believe Warren proposed the CFPB starting in 2008, 11 years ago. What are the time limits that define whether going back is "conservative" or not? Again, if we use words that we can't define, we literally don't know what we're talking about.
Again, you fall victim to the correlation=causation fallacy.
50 years ago the Southern states with relatively lower lifespan were blue. According to your 'logic' 50 years ago blue caused early demise, but now, red causes early demise.
Why do I have to repeat what I already said in post 230 again? Just because you want to continue to live in your fantasy that the Southern democrats back then were liberals?
I believe Warren proposed the CFPB starting in 2008, 11 years ago. What are the time limits that define whether going back is "conservative" or not? Again, if we use words that we can't define, we literally don't know what we're talking about.
That is a good question. The farther back the state of affairs you want to revert to is, the more "conservative" that desire is. Eleven years ago is recent history. 100 or 150 years ago is not recent history. Eleven years ago is such recent history, that any desire to go back there would certainly not necessarily be a "conservative" yearning. 100 or 150 years ago would. I suppose if you're talking about, say, 40-70 years ago, that might be a gray area.
That said, if a policy (such as segregation) started 150 years ago but still existed somewhere 50 years ago, a desire to revert back to it would definitely be conservative, because the date in which it started would be the crucial factor.
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.
