• 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!

Which of these political groups is worse?

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.

2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)

3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.

4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.
 
Last edited:
Depends on your definition of 'worst'. But I'd say #1 by a slight margin over #4. That's because I would not do well in a society run by them. I'm gay and an atheist.
 
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.

2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)

3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.

4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.

Anyone who wants to use the power of government to control others... sadly, that comprises the majority of Americans.

Liberals are the worst, followed by neoconservatives - both are despicable as fellow citizens; and, since those two groups make up a majority of the nation, it is safe to say that liberty in America is all but dead.
 
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.

2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)

3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.

4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.

I have no problem with any of them. Any one working towards making the country better(even if I disagree with what better is) is ok in my book. Maybe if we spent less time worrying about which group is worse, we could spend more time worrying about how to come together to solve problems. Just a thought...
 
Depends on your definition of 'worst'. But I'd say #1 by a slight margin over #4. That's because I would not do well in a society run by them. I'm gay and an atheist.

Same here.
 
I'll go with option #5.
 
So then as a "liberal", you're just fine with forcing a baker to bake a cake for brothern??

I am not real big on forcing a baker, but I have no problem with including a no discrimination requirement for a business. If the business wants to force the individual baker, that is up to them.
 
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.

2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)

3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.

4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.

Generally speaking 1 and then 4.
People who are "do gooders" are guided by their moral beliefs, they don't quickly or easily give up their plans to do what they think is good.
Even if it ends up being bad for a lot of folks.
 
#5 Liberals.

Virtually every law liberals write takes freedom away from someone. Their party is of dominance and control of the masses, either by carrot of sword.
 
#5 Liberals.

Virtually every law liberals write takes freedom away from someone. Their party is of dominance and control of the masses, either by carrot of sword.

They're nasty, nasty people... look at these mooks on college campuses, and attacking Trump supporters, and refusing to serve them food, etc.

They can FORCE others to do their bidding, but then turn right around and engage in their own form of discrimination and call it "social justice".

Neocons are almost as bad, but liberals are really sick people. They deserve every bad thing they're bringing on our society and themselves.
 
I have no problem with any of them. Any one working towards making the country better(even if I disagree with what better is) is ok in my book. Maybe if we spent less time worrying about which group is worse, we could spend more time worrying about how to come together to solve problems. Just a thought...

Opposites often seem like they are working against each other, but sometimes without one, the other ceases to exist.

Breath in. Breath out. Stop one and the other will also stop.
 
I am not real big on forcing a baker, but I have no problem with including a no discrimination requirement for a business. If the business wants to force the individual baker, that is up to them.

Are you saying the government should force the business to force the baker, if the baker is simply an employee; or, are you saying the business inandof itself should have a nondiscrimination policy and force the employee under penalty of discharge?

The first case is again using government force - improperly and unconstitutionally (IMO); the second case is okay, but not the way I would do it.

If I owned a business in that situation I wouldn't refuse the business, nor would I force the employee - I would try to find another way. Have another employee handle the matter, or if possible handle it myself. Accommodate everyone. I think that is just good business and good relations.

Liberals don't see things that way. They want a one size fits all, top-down government force policy - which usually exempts themselves, and certainly the lawmakers themselves are exempt. You don't see Washington's politicians coping and groping with the evils of Obamacare; unions in league with the Democrats were exempted, etc. Typical of authoritarian rule, there are two sets of rules - one for the unfortunate masses, and none for the elites and favored.
 
Are you saying the government should force the business to force the baker, if the baker is simply an employee; or, are you saying the business inandof itself should have a nondiscrimination policy and force the employee under penalty of discharge?

The first case is again using government force - improperly and unconstitutionally (IMO); the second case is okay, but not the way I would do it.

If I owned a business in that situation I wouldn't refuse the business, nor would I force the employee - I would try to find another way. Have another employee handle the matter, or if possible handle it myself. Accommodate everyone. I think that is just good business and good relations.

Liberals don't see things that way. They want a one size fits all, top-down government force policy - which usually exempts themselves, and certainly the lawmakers themselves are exempt. You don't see Washington's politicians coping and groping with the evils of Obamacare; unions in league with the Democrats were exempted, etc. Typical of authoritarian rule, there are two sets of rules - one for the unfortunate masses, and none for the elites and favored.

Nope, did not say that. Might want to read again, this time for comprehension.
 
Nope, did not say that. Might want to read again, this time for comprehension.

No need to be a smart*** - you're only perpetuating the stereotype of liberals.

I am not real big on forcing a baker, but I have no problem with including a no discrimination requirement for a business. If the business wants to force the individual baker, that is up to them.

This sentence implies government "requirement". Perhaps you should have said from a business (which would show that the policy originates with the business itself) instead of for a business (which implies that the policy is being directed to the business by an outside force).

The second sentence states that the business can do what it wants.

No comprehension problem; rather, poor sentence structure on your part.
 
No need to be a smart*** - you're only perpetuating the stereotype of liberals.

The stereotype that we are smarter and more accurate with what we say?



This sentence implies government "requirement". Perhaps you should have said from a business (which would show that the policy originates with the business itself) instead of for a business (which implies that the policy is being directed to the business by an outside force).

The second sentence states that the business can do what it wants.

No comprehension problem; rather, poor sentence structure on your part.

If you do not understand the difference between regulating a business, and regulating a person, that really is not my problem.
 
The stereotype that we are smarter and more accurate with what we say?

If you do not understand the difference between regulating a business, and regulating a person, that really is not my problem.

Good grief you people are something... if you force a business to do something, you are forcing the person to do something. Duh!!!

So your original statement that say you're not a fan of forcing someone to do something against their free will is BS, right??

As with all liberals, you see nothing wrong with using government force to impose your views and will on others. It's disgusting... every bit as disgusting as the christian that crams the bible down peoples throats with the force of law.
 
Good grief you people are something... if you force a business to do something, you are forcing the person to do something. Duh!!!

Only if the business is only one person.

So your original statement that say you're not a fan of forcing someone to do something against their free will is BS, right??

As with all liberals, you see nothing wrong with using government force to impose your views and will on others. It's disgusting... every bit as disgusting as the christian that crams the bible down peoples throats with the force of law.

I am not forcing any one to do anything. You have options. If you do not believe in pasteurized milk, don't sell milk. If you do not believe in health regulations, do not open a restaurant. If you oppose gun rights, don't open a gun shop.
 
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.

2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)

3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.

4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.

The choices are too limited. Where are the choices for liberal liberal pigeon holing, and stereotyping?

It is obvious that your intentions in the thread have nothing to do with honest debate.

It is more about asking your choir to reverb.

Have a great weekend!
 
Only if the business is only one person.

Oy vey... equality under the law??

So in your state of enlightened wisdom, you would use the power of government to discriminate against such a business owner. Never mind the Constitution - the law is some sort of flimsy, easily ignored, tattered piece of paper, right?? Except when you say it is iron clad law??

What's wrong with just leaving people alone?? It's called freedom.

I am not forcing any one to do anything. You have options. If you do not believe in pasteurized milk, don't sell milk. If you do not believe in health regulations, do not open a restaurant. If you oppose gun rights, don't open a gun shop.

Law is force, and you are the one voting for these government bureaucrats that are making the law - more often than not outside of the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution.

Anyone should be able to open any sort of business they want - again, that's call freedom.

And those regulations you mentioned, most reasonable people wouldn't have any problem with them - on the state level, where these types of laws and regulations belong. But again, as a liberal, you want top-down, centralized government force without constraint by the rule of law.
 
They're nasty, nasty people... look at these mooks on college campuses, and attacking Trump supporters, and refusing to serve them food, etc.

They can FORCE others to do their bidding, but then turn right around and engage in their own form of discrimination and call it "social justice".

Neocons are almost as bad, but liberals are really sick people. They deserve every bad thing they're bringing on our society and themselves.

If you really think that all liberals are bad people, you really need to adjust your attitude.
 
If you really think that all liberals are bad people, you really need to adjust your attitude.

Those that aren't bad people - are incredibly ignorant.

They are driving us down the same path of ruin that every other civilization that died the predictable death of democracy has. That is to say, they haven't learned a thing from history, and they are repeating it.

Whether their intentions are good or not doesn't matter - what matters is that their beliefs are leading us down the road to ruin; and, at the end of that road is death - always lots and lots of death. Be it at the end of a rifle by the likes of Mao, or starved by the likes of Stalin, or gassed by the likes of Hitler - unconstrained government always ends with lots and lots of dead bodies.

Liberals simply haven't learned that lesson. Whether they are "bad" or not is irrelevant - the path they are leading us on is disaster.
 
If you oppose gun rights, don't open a gun shop.
No. The liberal mantra is "if you oppose gun rights, then take all the guns away."

...except for the criminals, gang members, and school shooters.
 
No. The liberal mantra is "if you oppose gun rights, then take all the guns away."

...except for the criminals, gang members, and school shooters.

Ya know, it is really kinda ****ing stupid to tell some one what they believe....
 
There are two types of Progressive Liberals:

1. Socialists attempting to lie about what they are.

2. Useful Idiots who join up because they think it’s cool or they like a social issue (abortion, gay rights). But they don’t realize they are giving support to the most destructive political/economic ideology the world has ever seen.

A close examination of the governing platforms of both Socialism and Communism shows the absolute only difference between the two is Socialist try to claim they can function without a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The problem with that is Socialism is so antithetical to human nature that people have to be forced to do it. This can only happen with an all powerful centralized government controlling everything AKA a Totalitarian Dictatorship.
 
Back
Top Bottom