• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is a hard truth you think liberals need to hear?

Likely most of it. So far as not having an ideology, I find that interesting since I posted a whole bunch while you did not, then played coy. For example, since we're on the subject, which of those things I wrote do you disagree or agree with?
This is rich.
I said rightists don't have an ideology anymore, just opposition to liberals. You object to that and refute it by pointing to a list of things you don't like about liberals and calling it a statement of ideology.
 
Liberals are not a party, but are generally associated with the Democratic Party.

All those issues you cite are associated with the Democrats. Don't be petty in your depiction of what you were referring to. It's obviously the Democratic Party which is trying to (or at least claiming to) make things better.
It's not that binary with me. Liberal does not equal Democratic, conservative does not equal Republican. Trump, for example, is no conservative but Bill Clinton was. In my lifetime there have been liberal Republicans, powerful, influential ones, and conservative Democrats. Powerful, influential ones.
But it looks to me that the Democratic Party in the US, like the Liberal Party in Canada, has moved left of liberal.
 
I agree. The narrative of the left, who are indeed trying to change America quite dramatically leftward compared to what it has been, is that the right has grown extreme. Yet, our last Republican president embraced quite mainstream, almost old-fashioned conservative policy.
Trump? Old-fashioned conservative?
 
HUH????? Trump is a white nationalist as is much of his party, it doesn't get much more extreme than that. His policies favored the rich, and he was totally anti environment as well. Both more examples of his extreme views.
Low taxes enabling people to keep more of the money they earn and energy independence are not extreme views. They are, however, very logical and sensible views - and they are mainstream conservative views.
 
What a mealy mouthed load. You can't be specific because it would expose that.
Especially in light of republicans actively seeking ways to relieve themselves of laws, Constitutional norms and freedoms that are hindering them.
 
Trump? Old-fashioned conservative?
Yep, he was after a secure and orderly border, good trade deals, a strong military, solid support for veterans, solid support for law enforcement, low taxes, good job growth, energy independence, and more. Do you disagree that those were policy focuses important to Trump?
If so, what policies or policy wishes of Trump's WERE extreme in your opinion? Hopefully, you'll do better than the comment #250 "Trump is a white nationalist" - one of the standard, I hate Trump TDS refrains.
 
Many around the world want to come to the U.S. because it has been known to be one of the better countries in the world - and a country which places a high value on freedom. As long as liberals are intent on taking away choice and personal responsibility - transforming the country into a one size fits all/government mandates model with very high taxes, they won't win ultimately. Why? Because that's never been the American destiny or the American style. Socialism isn't a good fit for America or for Americans.
the unfortunate thing that conservatives fail to acknowledge is not everyone thinks like they do......I do not know a single liberal who does not understand that conservative values and history do not have merit and none of them want to change anything for the worse......but they do understand that mankind is in an ever changing existence......that progress does not come from sitting still.....that God gifted man with intelligence to be used to better himself and society.......just as we have to stand up and be personally responsible for ourselves we in turn have a responsibility to each other......conservatives are quick to display their religious fervor and be seen as righteous.....all the while turning a deaf ear to the words of Jesus

our Constitution was written to insure the basic freedoms we all agree on......and it also included our right to vote.....the majority of people in the final deal vote their pocketbook and try to temper their vote with some moral decency and respect for the national good and our history......conservative disdain for socialism comes from the fact they know that they cannot control the economy and more important how that economy affects the masses......so historically they have turned their efforts to moral arguments and religious proselytism......

is Socialism bad.....I personally don't like it but when people are hungry they will to to leaders who promise to help them......does Socialism limit freedom......imo not in the slightest.....as long as the Constitution stands
 
Yep, he was after a secure and orderly border, good trade deals, a strong military, solid support for veterans, solid support for law enforcement, low taxes, good job growth, energy independence, and more. Do you disagree that those were policy focuses important to Trump?
If so, what policies or policy wishes of Trump's WERE extreme in your opinion? Hopefully, you'll do better than the comment #250 "Trump is a white nationalist" - one of the standard, I hate Trump TDS refrains.
Well, There's not much on that list that Trump actually had much to do with. He didn't care about the border for two years until the Democrats won the mid-terms. Next day it became a national emergency because then it was up to the Democrats to do something about it. There's no evidence of support for military or veterans, in fact there's evidence of contempt. Low taxes? Where? For who? Job growth? He inherited a robust economic recovery from a Republican recession and his only accomplishment was not torpedoing it. Energy independance? Obama lifted the moratorium on oil exports and allowed fracking.

Under President Obama, U.S. gas production increased 35%.

· Under President Obama, U.S. gas consumption increased 19%.

· Under President Obama, U.S. crude oil production increased 80%.


There wasn't a day in Trumps administration when the US didn't import energy.
As for trade deals, after all his bluster about Canada taking America's lunch money under NAFTA (which had been negotiated by Bush Sr.) what he ended up with was the same thing the Obama had negotiated under the TPP that he pulled out of about the day after his inauguration.
Trump sucked as a President but like Democrats with Biden, Republicans are stuck with supporting him just because.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but no, I don't think so.


Agreed. Which families, family structures, and communities have fared the worst and have been weakened the worst? Those that have dispensed with the the father figure.

The Consequences of Fatherlessness
Some fathering advocates would say that almost every social ill faced by America’s children is related to fatherlessness. Six are noted here. (Also see related fatherlessness epidemic infographic)​
As supported by the data below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.​
1. Poverty​
3. Physical and Emotional Health
5. Crime​
6. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy​

Which families and communities does the above list sound most like?
What government programs enabled the behaviors the most?

And what has any of this got to do with 'freedom'?

You and the poster I replied to keep going down this welfare rabbit-hole, which still doesn't address the issue or topic I'm disputing.

Not liking means tested benefits at all just means you wish to spend other people's money, until the day where it runs out, which it will, and then what?

The question of "And then what?" needs to be repeated and answered about 5 levels deep on public policy. You appear to have not even considered even the first instance of asking this question.

I don't believe in picking winners & losers. If a benefit is worth giving, give it to all.
 

But again, as you go down the welfare rabbit hole, which is only one of a great many benefits, what has this got to do with 'freedom? The thing we are questioning?
 
Well, There's not much on that list that Trump actually had much to do with. He didn't care about the border for two years until the Democrats won the mid-terms. Next day it became a national emergency because then it was up to the Democrats to do something about it. There's no evidence of support for military or veterans, in fact there's evidence of contempt. Low taxes? Where? For who? Job growth? He inherited a robust economic recovery from a Republican recession and his only accomplishment was not torpedoing it. Energy independance? Obama lifted the moratorium on oil exports and allowed fracking.

Under President Obama, U.S. gas production increased 35%.

· Under President Obama, U.S. gas consumption increased 19%.

· Under President Obama, U.S. crude oil production increased 80%.


There wasn't a day in Trumps administration when the US didn't import energy.
As for trade deals, after all his bluster about Canada taking America's lunch money under NAFTA (which had been negotiated by Bush Sr.) what he ended up with was the same thing the Obama had negotiated under the TPP that he pulled out of about the day after his inauguration.
Trump sucked as a President but like Democrats with Biden, Republicans are stuck with supporting him just because.
We obviously see Trump's policy actions in a different light. IMO, the focus on Trump is nearly always on his personality (and he deserves that) and not on what he supported/accomplished policy wise.
To return to my original point, "extreme" and Trump policy had nothing in common. Trump policy, in my very strong opinion, was mainstream conservative - in fact maybe a tad left of mainstream conservative. When he proposed his 4 pillars idea on immigration, I remember feeling it included some groups beyond the DACA group, whom I felt shouldn't be part of the plan. In other words, I liked the plan but felt it went a bit too far and included some who really needed to go to the back of the legal line and not be able to cut the line.
But I can't argue with some equating Trump personality to extreme. He's out there in his very bold and blustery way and I understand how off putting that was to many. I also saw him as out there but I saw some advantages to his fortitude and strength, which were all a part of his bold personality. Within the personality disadvantages, there were some real advantages too (at least in my opinion).
 
A man is an adult human male.
A woman is an adult human female.
A girl is an adolescent female.
A boy is an adolescent male.
These things are defined by biology, not mental state, feelings, or any other such thing. While society can behave and treat people in the manner in which they prefer, mostly without harm, there are some areas (e.g. sports where one has lobotomize themselves to not see it is unfair for biological males to compete against biological females).

Anyone who adheres to Keynesian economics should never have a job relating to the economy, or money at all.

Everything you don't like isn't fascism.
Everything to the right of Mao isn't fascism.

Tech companies present a clear threat to freedom of speech.
Free speech specifically means allowing things that people don't like.

All the world's problems aren't men's fault.
All the world's problems aren't white people's fault.

Capitalism is the best imperfect economic system.

Alright, I'm good with the bolded. (y)
 
We obviously see Trump's policy actions in a different light. IMO, the focus on Trump is nearly always on his personality (and he deserves that) and not on what he supported/accomplished policy wise.
To return to my original point, "extreme" and Trump policy had nothing in common. Trump policy, in my very strong opinion, was mainstream conservative - in fact maybe a tad left of mainstream conservative. When he proposed his 4 pillars idea on immigration, I remember feeling it included some groups beyond the DACA group, whom I felt shouldn't be part of the plan. In other words, I liked the plan but felt it went a bit too far and included some who really needed to go to the back of the legal line and not be able to cut the line.
But I can't argue with some equating Trump personality to extreme. He's out there in his very bold and blustery way and I understand how off putting that was to many. I also saw him as out there but I saw some advantages to his fortitude and strength, which were all a part of his bold personality. Within the personality disadvantages, there were some real advantages too (at least in my opinion).
Well, we agree on that. Trump wasn't enthusiastic enough about anything policy-wise to be extreme about it. Unless insistence on personal loyalty is a policy.
 
But again, as you go down the welfare rabbit hole, which is only one of a great many benefits, what has this got to do with 'freedom? The thing we are questioning?

I had already explained that and you seemed to agree that income based “safety net” benefits were a bad idea. BTW, forced charitable giving does not enhance freedom either. Assisting those who are unable (due to age or disability) to provide for themselves and/or their dependents is vastly different than assisting those who are simply unwilling to do so.
 
I agree. The narrative of the left, who are indeed trying to change America quite dramatically leftward compared to what it has been, is that the right has grown extreme. Yet, our last Republican president embraced quite mainstream, almost old-fashioned conservative policy.
This is ridiculous. Old-fashioned conservative policy is not mainstream, and the Republican Party has changed radically over the last 40 years.

Republicans Supreme Court justices were the majority who decided Roe v Wade: 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat made that opinion and 1 Republican and 1 Democrat dissented. They were again the plurality who decided Planned Parenthood v Casey even in the early 1990s.

These were not judicial activists, and a case has been made for Roe v Wade as an originalist decision, even though too elaborated so as to discourage states to bring too many cases to try to get the SC to change its mind.

There were always some Republican idiots, of course, but I remember quite a few decent mainstream ones. Not in the Senate now, for sure. They are now so reactionary it's appalling.
 
Low taxes enabling people to keep more of the money they earn and energy independence are not extreme views. They are, however, very logical and sensible views - and they are mainstream conservative views.
we can have energy independence after getting off fossil fuels, and since time is running out we need to get moving on this.
 
Liberals need to accept the fact that they were deceived by the DNC and establishment in the last election.
Still not getting over it, huh? Sad.

I'll preface my response by saying that cons have a much bigger bag of shit that they need to come to grips with but I have no expectation that they're smart enough or humble enough to actually do it.
That being said, liberals need to understand that the militant wokeness isn't winning. Equality is a good thing. Fair treatment is a good thing. But those who viciously try to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them is not promoting that fairness. (and just to be clear, cons need to learn this lesson, too. It's probably the one big issue in political discourse these days)
 
Yep, he was after a secure and orderly border, good trade deals, a strong military, solid support for veterans, solid support for law enforcement, low taxes, good job growth, energy independence, and more. Do you disagree that those were policy focuses important to Trump?
If so, what policies or policy wishes of Trump's WERE extreme in your opinion? Hopefully, you'll do better than the comment #250 "Trump is a white nationalist" - one of the standard, I hate Trump TDS refrains.
"Drill, baby Drill" is moving us towards energy independence? Walk me thru that argument.
I presume you know where oil and coal come from? You appreciate they are finite resources? And we are using them far faster than mother nature makes either. You know that, right?

As for lower taxes, I also need a reminder on that topic. I seem to recall Trump's party have a majority in both houses of congress during his first 2 years. What tax reduction did he pass during that time to benefit, the average american worker/family?
 
Low taxes enabling people to keep more of the money they earn and energy independence are not extreme views. They are, however, very logical and sensible views - and they are mainstream conservative views.
How much lower do you wish taxes to go? Our infrastructure is now 13th in the world, we are near the bottom in health care in the world as well. Its time the rich pay a little more and that would include all corporations.
 
I had already explained that and you seemed to agree that income based “safety net” benefits were a bad idea.

We've strayed quite a way from the 'freedom' topic, but yes you are right in that.

BTW, forced charitable giving does not enhance freedom either. Assisting those who are unable (due to age or disability) to provide for themselves and/or their dependents is vastly different than assisting those who are simply unwilling to do so.

Yes, but then you get the winners/losers picking again, which I am against.

Like I said, I'd go with universal healthcare, like we have with Medicare, and then a very, very, modest UBI, and call it a day; nothing else, with the exception of a universal plan to provide education in an accessible way, like some European countries.

--

And with that, I've got to move on with my real-life day!

Have a good one!
 
I think the main hard truth the left needs to learn is that the right considers them to be an enemy that must be defeated rather than a political opponent to bargain with. If they don't start understanding that eliminating the left is the central focus of right-wing thought, and work on voting rights legislation, they'll be swept away before they know it.
Yeah. Biden definitely has not learned this. He is still surprised Mitch Mc****ing connel is still Mitch Mcconnel.
 
Back
Top Bottom