Conservatives out there, what are your SIX main beefs regarding Liberals? What do you found THE MOST perplexing regarding Liberals & their ideology?
I know that you are not speaking to me, but you might make another thread as to why progressives get so vexed with the right wing.
And you do not have to be KKK to be right wing, either.
I don't know, I use to think that the difference was merely cosmetic. But conversing with so many on the right and with the backdrop of the Trump campaign and all the support for him that I thought would have been impossible in this day and age, I have reason to think that the differences may well be more substantive.
I suppose left progressives are pretty consistent in their views across the board as are right leaning conservatives. Are the differences in people and their attitudes and beliefs based upon nature or nurture?
I suppose my main beef is simply their assumption that the government is supposed to fix everything. I get the impression they want as one Hubber says 'a nanny state. My observations have been that the government is the worst qualified to be anyone's nanny.
And their dogmatic adoration of Hillary lends credence to the claim that they can't think independently. They appear to be little more than party drones.
Both are necessary to retain power and control in a democracy.
For instance, consider the near constant refrain that the rich don't pay their "fair share"; that tax rates in the past were 90% and they have already sunk to only a third of that. What is never mentioned is that the rich actually pay a higher percentage of their income than they did when rates were higher. If such things became common knowledge, an adult, reasoning population might not put up with plans to grab even more. The population must be held in a constant state of childishness, unable to think independently and outside the politically desired guidelines.
The only thing worse than a dogmatic Hillary supporter is a damnable Trumpster. Lets see what the people decide in November....... As the 'people' will have spoken.
If the 'people' are little more than puppets being manipulated, they don't count as thinking, rational individuals. And if the puppeteer is simply stealing wood from his neighbor's forest in order to turn more people into puppets then a time will come when the forest is gone and those puppets will begin having the wood on their noses cut off in an attempt to create more puppets to continue the illusion of numbers. When that happens many will evolve into real people.
At least your talking to me again and we do not let our natural differences foul the communication stream.
The first danger that is presented by any demogogue is the idea that people cannot think for themselves, thus needing a heavy hand to guide them to see things the RIGHT way.
We on the left see that time when right wingers exhausted with niceties of democracy, will resort to bullet once they fail to achieve their aims within representative government. 'Second Amendment' solutions? What happened in Brazil is an example how an unpopular rightwing Government usurps power against the popular will.
I know that this is 'out there', but with the Right, anything is possible.
I agree that both far ends are a danger to us all. Trump is not, in my opinion, a far end. And the cool thing about Trump is no one in government likes him so the demagogue rhetoric is foolish. All that will be accomplished by his election would be a resounding clap of thunder to let the politicians understand the storm is at hand and will consume them if they don't start putting the people first. All that will be accomplished by Hillary's election would be a signal that business as usual in Washington is given a green light.
Whatever, but he's gotta win first, and that still is quite a stretch. We progressives and our allies will continue to see him as an unacceptable option, foolish or not.
Let's see how Trump holds up against Clinton in the upcoming debates, make sure that you tune in!!
I see the point is still going over your head.
I know your point, but I don't agree, it is just that simple... Trump represents more of a problem for me and others than just the possibility of the continuation of politics as usual, that seems to be going over YOUR head...
Nothing is going over my head either. I just think you are presenting a chicken little argument.
So, we are at impasse, ain't nothing new. I see your concerns, so what proves who has the correct assessment? The voters next fall, that's who.
No, the voters will not prove anything.
What happens in the years following voter action will determine what the correct assessment was. Will Trumps radical style destroy the country or will Clinton's "continue as before" continue the slow degradation of our political system and the gathering of reins ever more firmly into the hands of the rich and powerful?
In our system, only the voters have the right to decide. Your predicted outcome could be just as valid a mine. Maybe neither of our projected outcomes will occur. But outside of my vote or yours, and being fresh out of crystal balls, we won't know until then.
Unfortunately, the voters only decide who is to represent them, not what that representative will actually do. And it has gotten to the point that the promises are just blank paper; what will actually be done is to work towards personal and party power bases, with a (very large) bone thrown to big money interests, without any real regard to the needs of country of citizens.
Which is what's wrong with our system today. No one even tries to do what the country needs; only to gather power, money and re-election.
Trump is not the solution, this Libertarian, Johnson, is a better choice. I say this while not denying the problem that you pose here. So, as for self promotion and greed in Washington, when has it ever really been different? The ideal that everybody talks about is one thing, whether itis realistic and attainable is another. The idea of men and women operating from a primary desire of public service went out Webster and John Quincy Adams. Both parties are maintaining the status quo, for their own benefit. Trump is just a 'double agent'.
And if Johnson had a chance in hell of getting elected a lot more people would vote for him. But he doesn't because the Democratic party is buying it for Clinton and Trump already bought it for himself (had he had to survive without his own millions spent he would not be where he is). And of course that's assuming that Johnson would not cave in and become just another politician like all the others.
So it's the same old thing with Johnson; Big Money has priced him out of the market and everyone recognizes that. That leaves Trump for those that wish a change in how our government operates. Maybe it won't work - Perot tried, too, and failed with no noticeable results - but maybe it will, too. Certainly Trump is far more successful than Perot ever was.
"The idea of men and women operating from a primary desire of public service went out Webster and John Quincy Adams."
I believe you're right. I also believe that if we cannot recapture that desire in people we are doomed as a culture. We cannot survive the way we're going, with the powerful dictating who we vote for, what is accomplished by the winning candidates and where the country is going, for none of it is in the best interests of the country or it's people.
We are fractionalized as a people, whether by design by the powers-that-be or by our own greed and wants. This makes it very easy to make all elections about things that should be set aside until bigger issues for the country as a whole are solved and is't exactly what our elections have become. Throw enough ads convincing a gullible public that so-and-so hates abortion and they will gain the votes of a significant portion of the people. Use the money to convince people that a candidate wants strong gun control "for the good of the people" and they raise their chances enormously.
But neither of these (or a half dozen other dividing issues) are what matters. What truly matters at this juncture in time is that our country is being completely controlled by puppeteers and politicians without regard to the needs of the country or the desires of the people. It is solely about personal gain and it WILL destroy us if allowed to continue.
and...[FADE OUT] Battle Hymn of the Republic
[PROFILE 3/4] Pull tight, full screen head
[FADE IN] Star Spangled Banner
... and cut! That's a wrap!
Sorry about the rant.
No, I'm not. As others have said, we've made mistakes as a country and as a culture. But we've also grown morally, we've more often tried to do what was right. We are still (IMO) the greatest nation on earth, with the greatest potential. But we're losing it to the powerful few, and I want those 3 grandchildren sitting on the sofa as I write to have a bright future ahead of them. Not one tied to politicians as slaves to their desire for money and power.
Theonly guy thatwas serious about attacking Big Moneyinpolitics was Bernie Sanders and he did not make the cut.
The only way to change the unresponsive nature of Congress are strict rules as to how they receive money during their tenure and in the campaign process. Citizens United, theSupreme Court ruling heralded by the Right, goes into the opposite direction. To break down empires, a term limit, such that is in force for the Presidency is in order. But, how do you expect the fat cats to take such serious moves to their disadvantage?
One problem remains, what is 'good for the country' has a different perspective from the view of progressives and conservatives. That is why the introduction of just another right wing apparatchik like Trump is a non starter. If such a thing as you suggest is ever possible, it has to start from a neutral position, politically.
Except that there IS no "neutral" position politically. Not when it is about the specific paths we wish to see our country take. Again, abortion, gun control, gay rights, religious beliefs in government or schools: these are all specific paths.
Whether we wish our country to be grasped ever more firmly by the rich and powerful is not such a path. It is about the very concept of democracy as we know it, and about our freedom, and it is being lost as "we the people" ignore OUR duties to country in favor of voting for those that we have been convinced will give us the most of what we want. Whether it be more entitlements to pad our pockets or the power to force our religious beliefs onto others, we are voting for that instead of what our country so desperately needs at this time.
Trump is stilla conservative candidate with a conservative GOP agenda that has the support of everyone from the KKK through Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and the reluctant GOP. I am not politically conservative, so I can never support him, regardless. This idea that he is above the fray as some revolutionary populist candidate is just so much BS. People like him are part of the problem, not the solution. He can do enough 'damage' to progressive ideals to render him unelectable just in itself. But, if he wins on November 8th, I will adjust to the will of the people. If he turns out to be the tyrant that I suspect he is under that toupee, I will have to seriously consider that move to Montreal.
That's the way I see it as well. Trump isn't going to do any real damage, and win or lose it is going to make an enormous statement about how the people feel about the way our government operates. Not so much as to what it does, but the way it operates.
Something "we the people" have needed to say for a long time now.
I see the New York Post just conducted a poll that shows Trump in the lead. I bet that'll put a bee in some bonnets.
Just saw that it is 51-41, Trump on the tail end.
Honestly, for the first time I'm about writing ALL the polls off as pure politics without a trace of honesty in any of them.
Even the way the questions are posed will change the answers given. Polls don't mean much. But, the bad thing is it is human nature to want to back a winner so they can certainly used tainted polls to effect the outcome.
I don't know, the polls were pretty accurate in predicting Obama's defeat of Romney despite Fox News and their "new polling' method designed to weed out liberal bias? They were so sure that the prevailing polls were wrong and that Romney would win, but alas, Obama won by a comfortable margin.
So, you can shoot the messenger..........
It's really comical how the polls that support our own candidate are god given, without a possibility of error or bias, but those supporting an opponent are obviously from a tainted source and not to be believed. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Which is why I don't believe ANY of them any more. The poll takers have found they can convince a gullible public of whatever they already want to believe and are doing it with a vengeance.
-That political correctness blinds them to ALL other reasoning .
-That the cost of socialistic ideals that they embrace are ultimately paid for by all others .
-That they brainwash our youth through controlling the education system ,
- They believe the constitution is fluid.
- That their hatred of tradition and nationalism is so viral
-That honesty and integrity evades their voting character
1. Cavalier attitude regarding taxation.
2. Blind idealism.
3. Denial of common sense.
4. Hatred of traditional American values.
5. Disregard for The Constitution.
6. Tendency to indoctrinate the nation's students with lies regarding America's history to promote their own agendas.
My main beef against both conservatives and liberals is that they both seek to cluster people into a group that they can label. Then they argue on the basis of the label.
Most people are conservative in some ways, and liberal in others.
I for one dislike having people tell me that I think one way or the other based on the label of the day they have chosen to object to.
by ga anderson 2 years ago
I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.Progressive columnist William Galston...
by promisem 3 years ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...
by x 9 years ago
.Whatever it is, say it like you mean it.
by ga anderson 6 years ago
Gary Johnson is the Libertarian party's presidential nominee. If he had a chance to beat Hillary Clinton, would you consider him over Donald Trump?If Conservative's compared Johnson's history and issue positions to Trump's history and issue positions, would they still pick Trump?Is Trump a choice...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|