Scientific American: succinct difference between Right and Left

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (64 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 2 months ago

    The Scientific American article is not terribly long but...

    But it reinforces for me why I am on the correct side.

    But I hear that conservatives distrust higher education and scholarship. What is the palatable replacement for them? I would hazard to guess.

    So here are some excerpts for those without the time or patience to read the article.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … ne-belief/

    --------
    Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do not

    "In politics, researchers usually define “conservativism” as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. “Liberalism” means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality. Political parties evolve with time—Democrats were the conservative party 150 years ago—but the liberal-conservative split is typically recognizable in a country's politics. It's the fault line on which political cooperation most often breaks down."

    ( so much for the dumb conservative idea that the Democratic Party of 150 years ago is the same as the one today)

    "One reason our discovery is exciting is that it hints at ways to work through specific political deadlocks. For example, consider debates around LGBTQ+ topics. Conservatives may feel that the line separating men and women is natural and innate—a big, bold line—whereas liberals may see that distinction as more superficial and culturally based. Welfare payments and policies, too, might be seen through a hierarchical lens, with some assuming that lines between rich and poor often reflect meaningful differences in people's work ethic, talent, morality or value to society."

    Just my opinion, lets stir the cauldron a bit.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Cant edit my original comments. I know conservatives say that nothing is equal in nature, so their repr sentatives said on another thread? Yet, when Kathleen came back with a comment describing what inequality and equality meant and was really about in the practical world, these two well renown conservatives ran like rabbits and was never heard from again. I wish that I can find Kathleen's original  comment.  And the culprits, GA and Wilderness, both know who they are...

      1. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        I think the there has been some change in what a Liberal or Conservative is.

        What it means to be a Democrat vs. Republican has changed.

        What overall was a nation of similar values has changed.

        Regardless of race, education, economic status this country "back in the day" was based on Christian values, shared common knowledge and language, and the minority to that was very, very small.

        Education is going in reverse... more people than ever graduate 12th grade without any of the skills necessary to survive and thrive in our country... Math is now racist?  English is an option?

        If you pull back and look at the bigger picture, as objectively as possible, you can see society fraying, things that used to be unacceptable and that should be unacceptable are becoming 'normalized'.

        Homeless in the streets, physical assaults and crime (no longer reported because 'minor' crimes are no longer responded to by police) are up.

        We have instant gratification on things like TikTok for younger people, everyone expressing their opinions, often based on nothing but misinformation.

        And then we get to what the Biden Administration has wrought...
        We no longer know what a woman is?
        We no longer protect our children from "adult matters"?
        Merit doesn't matter, Equity comes before Equality?

        Very divided...

        It would be much less of a concern if not for a couple matters that will impact us all soon enough...

        Migration and War in particular.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          But has the definition between Conservative and Liberal changed? That is the main theme here.

          Republicans put one man on a pedestal surrendering the so called common values in fealty to this man, or what passes for one.

          Democrats are trying to get the moderates and independents to wake up to the danger of authoritarianism and tyranny found in the Trump movement and supporters.

          Again,  you fit the conservative model to a T, intimidated by change and hierarchal in nature. Nothing you have written here have dissuaded me from that. The America that you love to reminisce about has changed has always been a state of change and will continue to change. But our mode of government has never changed and that is what Trump and his cronies threaten as of today.

          I don't know why your folks cling on to all this stuff, Ken? Every previous generation warns the succeeding  one that the sky was falling. How much of that flak was the Baby Boomers getting from the previous generations? We loved our music, our beatniks-hippies, our counter culture, our equality movements, etc, and yet we are still are here.

          As for the migration and war, I will wait for it.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            That is a hard thing to do, when the moderates and independents see nothing moderate about Biden's Administration and see it threatening their independence.

            Not knowing what a woman is and supporting Trans, to the detriment of women, is not moderate to most people.

            Having children's books in pre-school that graphically show how to give a BJ is not moderate to most people.

            Forcing people to get a vaccination, that has proven side-effects and questionable value, or lose their jobs many consider an assault on their independence.

            Making it so parents cannot protect their children from getting sex-change drugs or operations is an assault on both moderate and independent concepts... it has always been the obligation and right of parents to protect and care for their children until they reach the age of being an adult.

            Then there are economic factors...

            Why are we paying for 10 million foreigners to come to America when we have millions of people homeless?  When Social Security is bankrupt?

            Why are we turning a 'blind eye' to crime sprees forcing stores to close in cities like NY and San Fran?  Why is crime being normalized in general where AGs refuse to prosecute criminals arrested?

            Why are we funding wars that can escalate to WWIII?  Why was there no effort to negotiate?  Why is no one holding the Biden Administration accountable for its many failures overseas...from funding Iran to fleeing Afghanistan to funding the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians when all that needed to be done really is treat Russia with respect, as a peer, as a nation we cannot dictate to... which we can't, and the attempt is leading us right into WWIII.

            Do I need to go on?

            Do you see why moderates and independents are turning to Trump as the lesser of two evils? 

            The assault on Americans, on their beliefs, their rights, and their economy has been severe by the Biden Administration, and no matter how badly people may want to support the Democrats, its hard not to see the reality of just how badly this Administration has done.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yes, I am a Liberal.  I believe a woman's right to choose.  I believe in LGBTQ rights.  However, I believe that there are aspects of liberalism which has gone WAY TOO FAR.  The crime wave is out of control.  It isn't safe to walk the street or to take the subways.   In New York City, for example, if a "person" steals under $1000.00-he is let out.  As a result, many items are locked up.   Then there is the migrant crisis-Americans have enough to worry about regarding its own people.  Migrants are taxing the American infrastructure.  Where will this stop!!!!

              1. abwilliams profile image65
                abwilliamsposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                As the last conservative woman here, still standing, apparently, I would suggest that it stops, Grace, when NY and every blue city/state, comes to their senses and votes RED!
                Perhaps, as a self-identifying "liberal" you've got your s--t together, but you are the exception to the rule.
                Leftist liberals are running cities and states, into the ground! They may wring their hands on occasion, press conference about how, "this MUST stop, this MUST end", but in the end, it's just talk; they don't do jack to fix anything. They don't know how to lead, to fix, to create.... only destroy.  It's sad, but it's true.
                NY needs another Guliani. Blue states need a DeSantis. The U.S. needs Trump.

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes, NY needs another Giuliani.  Blue states needs LAW & ORDER governors & mayors.   Crime is so out of control.   You are right, stating that leftist liberals are ruining cities.   Such cities are now infernos.

            2. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              Again, is Trump  better? I certainly don't see him as the lesser of two evils.

        2. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Good morning Ken, in New York City, there are assaults(punching people).  The victims include Steve Buscemi who was punched while he was going for a walk in broad daylight.  The liberalism in New York is totally out of control.  It isn't safe to ride the subways.  It isn't safe to simply walk the streets.  Something MUST be done to solve this malignancy.   Liberalism has gone to the extreme-look at the results!

      2. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        You shouldn't leave a job half done. What did I run away from?

        I'll give you a head start: It is in the "practical world" that the nature and inequality quip is most true.

        If Kathleen's comment wasn't personal to a specific politician I'm sure I didn't run away on purpose. If it was, then I always run away on purpose.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Kathleen comment had nothing to personalities but general principles, GA.

          Forget I brought this up, sometimes amnesia can be most convenient. I wanted to bring you out on this point (the quip) but for most conservatives it is like touching God's eyeball

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I wasn't thinking about personalities either. I figure she made some point that you think I wouldn't like.

            What is the quip? Principles would be safe, it won't need partisan support (or rejection) to make a point.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              I would not say that it was a point that you would not like more than a point that brought another dimension into the discussion.

              The topic was whether inequality was an accepted given by conservative and their mode of thinking. The conservatives seem to indicate that hierarchy and in equity was no more preventable than a sunrise. We on the left say the far too many heirarchies and subsequent inequalities are contrived.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                I wouldn't have left that conversation, and I don't have an argument for your 'too many and contrived' criticism. But, I also, probably, would not argue at all about specific hierarchies. I would beat the concept to death: human nature demands hierarchal structures in its societies. We don't have a choice.

                That doesn't mean it can't be mitigated, that's what societal evolution has done, but as long as we are what we are it won't be erased. It will just be covered up with layers of civilization. When things become primal and those layers of societal security are peeled away you will still find that basic human trait.

                So, if that's agreeable as a starting point, then the specifics of your criticisms can be argued. If not, then there isn't even an agreement about what is being argued.

                Since 'we' (at least me) also believe physical nature, and our nature, don't care about equality beyond that of opportunity, Of course there will be hierarchies of 'equity' within all of our societal hierarchies.

                Or, did I miss your point?

                GA

                1. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Aren't you from Maryland, GA? Get a load of this Maryland citizen. Wow! Talk about breaking a hierarchy. This guy is a bastard of sorts too. Certainly goes against class structure.

                  https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idR … 052024RP1/

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Oops. Your link took me to a "Top Stories" page, not an article. So I don't know what the Maryland guy did.

                    GA

                2. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  While I agree that hierarchal arrangements are a primal part of the human family, I watch as to what composes the hierarchies and their foundation.

                  If you accept the idea that there are too many hierarchies and that too many are contrived and as such do contribute to unsupported inequity then we have no argument.

                  I use the example of what is the difference between a woman and a man only relevant biological, anatomical differences are noted.

                  It is in the progressive mindset that in the 21st century  no assumptions as to equality and the subsequent development of hierarchies just due to the fact of anatomical differences, should be made.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                    So you have a problem with equality in the man/woman hierarchy . . .
                    ". . . . step by step, slowly I turn . . ."

                    What is that hierarchy? It is one of more powerful and less powerful—with gradients of "powerful" as its levels.

                    Men started on top because they were physically more powerful, and that was all that mattered. Women were the 'weaker sex' so they were on the bottom.

                    Then as society evolved, the top gradient of physical power was replaced with societal-control power.

                    Then women started getting some of that societal-control power and the men's club top tier was no longer exclusive. It's not unreasonable to foresee that male top tier get turned into a Ladies club as they gain the power that men once had a monopoly on.

                    That's where you want to go. You think that would be the epitome of equality, right? But think about that original hierarchy. It hasn't changed a bit. It is still the more powerful on top and less powerful on the bottom. The names changed but the game is the same.

                    GA

    2. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Keeping it succinct, for now, maybe. Yes, I did read the article, though it was a chore. Seems, I had gone over my free article limit. However, I found an old email address from work eons ago that worked to get me in to read it. Hooray!! Just now when I went to it to copy/paste something it says I need a subscription. Oh No!! ha-ha But, I did manage earlier to get the one that stood out to me most. It is;

      "We find instead that the main difference between the left and the right is whether people believe the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides."

      One example they shared is with abortion. It, paraphrased, says conservatives see a clear line of delineation that life begins at conception. Liberals see it as transitional or in a sense undefined today.

      For conservatives one could speculate the line itself holds more importance than what it separates. In other words, it is the fence that separates what is mine and what is yours. Touch my fence and I will shoot you. Of course, I remember as a kid in West Virginia a familiar sign saying, "We shoot trespassers."

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        "which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter."


        Tim, while we all recognize that there are lines of demarcation in life, they are simply not as hard and fast as conservatives would have us believe.
        That "line" of theirs has been an excuse to deny others their rights and opportunities, it has always been used to justify inequity over the eons of time.

  2. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago

    Why conservatives continue to be so obtuse about a simple concept remains beyond me?

    The lady amongst your crowd should know better.

    What about the hierarchy with the subsequent inequity when:

    Women could not own property

    Women could not vote, but they certainly paid taxes

    Women were kept from supporting themselves and were excluded from meaningful jobs in the workplace.

    Women were subject to legal corporal punishment from their husbands

    Women now subject their reproductive rights to the caprice of a bunch of old men

    You are a human being and not an animal, right? As a result, I would expect more

    Need I say more?


    As for Mr. Ken, who seems to believe that women have it easy. Benevolent Paternalism is not freedom. As I told you before, freedom and the options that come with it is something most of us would want. Who are you to deny that to anyone because of your hierarchal beliefs and perceptions?

    As for you, Mr. GA,

    I blame hierarchal structures that exclude people for what they look like instead of based on merit and achievement along the opportunity to attain to such. Just because hierarchal structures exist doesn't mean that they are always right. Those that are maintained through power and coercion, will never coexist within society peacefully. If folks perceive that the game is rigged, what is the point in playing? What the basis as to who is at the top? While it may work in Britain as the royal family, that does not work here. And I am realistic to know that the game is so far rigged as it is virtually intractable, but that does not mean we don't ask the questions and attempt to level the playing field wherever possible. I am reminded of the military system of rank. Officers are at the top of the hierarchy, but it is not impossible for an enlisted member to enter this area if they are prepared to do what is required. I can live with that kind of hierarchy. No one is inherently better than anyone else.

    And please do not introduce your world-famous bromide, "two wrongs don't make a right"

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Mr.  GA," "world famous . . .," oh my. Is that good or bad?

      Here's the deal. You say you don't like hierarchies but when you explain what you don't like you are explaining the contents of the hierarchy—which is one of less powerful to most powerful.

      You start with the example of the one concerning men subjugating women by virtue of their physical or societal strength. I can agree that isn't right.

      Since the times of your early twentieth-century examples, women have gained some societal strength for themselves and have moved up a bit on the men. That's not a bad thing, it's a result of their drive for equality.

      You then say you would be fine if the roles were reversed with the women at the top subjugating the men to the lower level the women once held. Right?

      Now consider, the hierarchy didn't change a bit, its population did. It is still most to less, but now the women are the most. Right?

      Why are you not okay with the men on top, but fine with the women on top? Is it that you think women would never be as conniving and oppressive as men? Is it a 'revenge' thought, as in now it's the men's turn in the barrel?

      I won't say it, but that sure reads like a straight swap. As in it's wrong when it's men but right when it's women.

      Before you have an aneurysm, consider this just a semantics argument. But one with a purpose. I agree with you that many hierarchies in society are unjustly populated, but that is the fault of its population, not its structure. You're blaming the wrong thing. And you do that because attacking hierarchies allows you to blame conservatives through their expressed support for hierarchies.

      It ain't all our fault bud. Those hierarchies exist because humans need them. Their populations are whatever they are because we are human. The things to change are their human populations not the multilevel structure of them.

      Conservatives may well be at fault in the structures you call unjust, but it's because we may be guilty of bad acts, not because we believe in the structures.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Let me clear things up as a misunderstanding, I never meant that women should mimic the same sort of hierarchy men have impose. I should have said that getting a gender mix will reduce the power and influence of the male hierarchy.

        If it  is the fault of the population who stands to benefit from the hierachy's continuation, should that population and its members not be challenged? We give them the excuse to build and support oppressive structures.

        The hierarchies may be necessary but the population that benefit shall be constantly challenged and kept on notice. That exactly what we need to work on, "the human population"

        Conservatives and their expressed love for hierarchies is just another way of keeping out groups in their place, is that not right, GA?

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          We were good right up to your last statement. You backslid.

          Conservatives do not 'love' hierarchies because they keep folks in their place. We believe in them because we know they are real and beneficial in their form. Rather than keep someone in their place, they show that there are places.

          Give it up bud, you can't blame 'hierarchies' on Conservatives. They aren't a negative.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I backslid? Really?

            This is a exercise in semantics. We know that there are places, what justifies who it is that get to sit in them?

            In politics, researchers usually define “conservativism” as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. “Liberalism” means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality. Political parties evolve with time—Democrats were the conservative party 150 years ago—but the liberal-conservative split is typically recognizable in a country's politics. It's the fault line on which political cooperation most often breaks down.

            Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides.
            -----
            does any of this provide a clearer explanation as to why conservatives love hierarchies so much?

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              You say "love" I say 'believe in.'

              Your blurb is right. We do believe inequalities are a fact of reality. That doesn't mean we endorse them, only that we acknowledge them.

              For instance, if a thousand humans had the opportunity to maintain a position of prominence through unfair methods, a Conservative's reality would think less than a quarter (just an arbitrary illustration) would refuse the opportunity. That same view thinks Liberals think there can be a reality where all 1000 refuse. We don't embrace the reality of inequality, we simply acknowledge it.

              And we (presumptuously speaking for all Conservatives) do believe there are 'lines drawn' by the fact of our nature and the physical world. We also believe there are physical and mental 'inequalities' that are unfixable and that Liberals think all inequality is fixable.

              Believing in hierarchies isn't a valid denigration of Conservatives because hierarchies are a reality for everyone. Your complaints aren't about hierarchies, that would be denying reality, they are about the rules that determine them. And that's a different argument. Use that one to argue your point, it's a more valid accusation.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                Believe in? You may not love but you approve is that so much different?

                I guess that means that you just "like it"?

                Acknowledging it should not mean acquiescing in its regard. If you are on the top of the food chain of course you will acknowledge that status quo as a fact of life, it is quite convenient, but if you are not?

                Such is the foundation where I can never accept conservative ideology nor their candidates. With such attitudes, the world will remain in perpetual turmoil with no end in sight and I can guarantee no real peace for anyone.

                As for your analogy, a liberal would constantly agitate to make those basking in unjustified prominence and privilege forever uncomfortable and increase the 250 to ever larger numbers. We would be doing something, not allowing ourselves to be content with glaring inequities.

                The Problem with conservatives is that there remains so many of their so called "unfixable" inequities that in fact have been and can be fixed. They have used their idea of unfixable inequities to keep those on the outside from ever challenging them. So, we are both somewhere in the middle. Someone with Down's Syndrome will not likely be a nuclear physicist, it is an inequity that is imposed by nature. But to create a hierarchal structur keeping minorities and women from this designation, for example, is manufactured. Conservatives do not recognize the difference, I do. With systemic bias which has been a part of American life, these conclusions are not far fetched.
                -------
                "Your complaints aren't about hierarchies, that would be denying reality, they are about the rules that determine them. And that's a different argument. Use that one to argue your point, it's a more valid accusation."

                Then I accept the "valid accusation". No, it is not a different argument, it has been the point of this discussion. Yes, it is about the rules that determine who and what composes the hierarchies, and the natural conservative resistance to changing the rules.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      I do not project today's realities into the past.

      People who argue, as you have, of how bad women had it in the past, do.

      From running water to AC, from hospitals to ease of transportation, go back 100+ years and none of that really existed throughout much of America.

      Life was hard, cruel, uncompromising and civilization was a thin veneer... go back 200+ years and it was even more-so.

      Past generations worked hard to get civilization to the point where it was 25 years ago... and currently we are working to throw it all away with great haste, tear it all down... to rebuild a better world.

      It will not become a better world, not for Americans, it will just be a torn down world, where the veneer of civilization becomes as thin as it was generations ago, life will be cheap, safety nets and decency a forgotten thing of the past.

      It would be like saying Libya today is better off than it was 20 years ago because Gaddafi was overthrown... its not... its chaos... the world's leading slave market. 

      A very different situation of course, but the point is, when you choose to tear something down, what replaces it can just as likely be something much worse.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Ken, the past can never be ignored in total as that has been the route and reason why we are here now.

        Past societies have spent energy toward the goal of a better world, it is only you that says that this tendency is now being undone.

        In fact, the idea of civilization has always been as much a veneer as the reality. Our European cousins over time seem to take on a more serious attitude and have a more firm grip on the principles of Democracy than we do. That's troubling.

        History's long run has been about tearing things down and building up, so what has been torn down can also produce something that is better, rather than worse.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image73
          Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          History shows that Civilizations rise and fall, this is true.

          Not all societies strove to make a better world or attain a higher level of enlightenment.

          Genghis Khan, whom I admit I have not studied, destroyed civilizations.  I read he was responsible for up to 40 million deaths.

          The Mongol invasion of Russia was conducted by the Golden Horde led by Batu Khan. From 1240 until about 1500.  Hundreds of years that contributed to the decline in Russian civilization and enlightenment.

          The fall of Constantinople, also known as the conquest of Constantinople, was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire. 

          Point being, we are not always tearing things down to produce something better.

          America's "better" was arrived at somewhere between the 80's and 00's.

          And now we are RE-creating issues (Fourth Wave Feminism - Whites are born evil Racism) that had been resolved on a systemic and governmental level which only escalates and adds to our social and economic deconstruction and turmoil.

          When issues like CRT and Equity are on the fringes that is one thing, when they are being propagated and regulated by the government (Biden Administration) that is entirely different... the America that allowed all to prosper and have opportunity in 1994 cannot co-exist with this new America that is focused on victimhood rather than merit, quotas rather than competence in 2024.

          America's decline and destruction is at hand, and those who are bringing about its demise are not a great and powerful military horde at our borders, it comes from within... from those benefiting from bringing about its demise, those currently in control in DC.

          The most incomprehensible and damaging thing to the Nation's future that I have harped on and tried to explain every way I could conceive of, was deciding to instigate Russia into war with 'the West'.

          The Biden Administration unified Russia, China and Iran in ways that nothing else could. 

          The Biden Administration's actions could not have been more beneficial for China over the course of the last 3.5 years if Xi Jinping were running things himself (Manchurian Candidate Biden has done his bidding I think).

          Russia was driven into China's arms and away from Germany/EU.

          Nord Stream was blown up (just like Biden promised it would be) severing Germany/EU access to cheap and affordable energy from Russia.

          Those resources are now diverted to China, India... BRICS nations.

          The Biden Administration released hundreds of billions of frozen assets and rescinded sanctions on Iran... allowing them to recover economically as well as divert billions to Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah... and Russia.

          The Biden Administration decided to insult and denigrate Saudi Arabia, then try to demand... in return Saudi Arabia joined BRICS and will no longer trade oil in the Dollar only... the UAE did them one better and no longer trade oil in the Dollar at all... they too joined BRICS.

          Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were invited to become members with effect from 1 January 2024.

          Many more are attempting to join BRICS today.

          The Depths of damage done by the Biden Administration to America's economy, America's future, as well as our Sovereignty as a Nation cannot be over-stated... for me its like seeing the biggest iceberg ever to float in the ocean... and then realizing you can only see the tip of it.

          I can only see the tip of the damage this Administration has done... the depths and size of it will be known later, when ship America crashes into it in the not too distant future.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Not all societies strove to make a better world or attain a higher level of enlightenment"

            But many did, didn't the US?

            What is so special about the period between 1980-2000?
            ---
            "And now we are RE-creating issues (Fourth Wave Feminism - Whites are born evil Racism) that had been resolved on a systemic and governmental level which only escalates and adds to our social and economic deconstruction and turmoil.

            When issues like CRT and Equity are on the fringes that is one thing, when they are being propagated and regulated by the government (Biden Administration) that is entirely different... the America that allowed all to prosper and have opportunity in 1994 cannot co-exist with this new America that is focused on victimhood rather than merit, quotas rather than competence in 2024"
            ------
            No one is recreating anything, Ken, those issues have always been with us and have not gone away.

            CRT is correct in stating that America was guilty of systemic racism both by law and by custom. The magnitude of that depravation still resonates as part of so many of the disparities  between the races that exist today. That is my point, and I stand by it. This is a behind the 8 ball experience that forebears are responsible for creating. How could I be expected to overlook that? As I said before, just because you remove the dagger from a man's back does not mean that he is healed. And while we cannot undue the past, I'll be damned, if I allow the tormentors the options of lying and changing the narrative about what actually occurred.

            Trump in his ignorance and inability to learn anything, since he already knows it all, gives me no confidence that he could do any better than Joe Biden at this time.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image73
              Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Could you legally be denied a job, a home, an education anywhere in America based on Race?  on Sex? 

              No... opportunity and liberty was there for anyone, regardless of race or sex in the 80s, 90s, 00s.

              Since the re-election of Obama, there has been an ever increasing focus on Race, on Sex, on dividing the people.

              The result of the corruption in DC, the result of draining the nation of its wealth, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, was at first the Tea Party wave... post 2007/2008 Housing Market fleecing of Americans...
              then in further response to the governments actions in 2016 came Trump.

              As I always say... and so did Michael Moore... Trump was as much a F-U vote to DC by the people as much as it was anything.

              In 2024 it will be something entirely different, they have (knowingly or not) made a martyr out of Trump.  Every working stiff, every person who thinks the government is corrupt and has been screwing over America and Americans for decades now is likely going to vote for Trump... the alternative being Biden and continuing on the course we are on now, and for those who can see, they understand that would be nothing less than Death to the Nation... and our economy.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                "No... opportunity and liberty was there for anyone, regardless of race or sex in the 80s, 90s, 00s."

                And how do you know this with such certainty? I was here as well, I did not see this in any special way. And what benefits there were will be eliminated by a biased Trump and MAGA.

                The Tea Party was a racist reaction to our first Black President, the group appearing at the same time as Obama's inauguration.

                Trump is cut from the same cloth as the people he accuses of being corrupt, anti labor, pro corporate and wealthy, standard GOP boilerplate.

                1. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Today I emphasize because yesterday was different. Anyway, when I think of Trump I am reminded of the Frank Zappa song; "I'm the Slime". Just substitute Trump for TV set or video and waa-laa we have today's reality as I see it.

                  I am gross and perverted
                  I'm obsessed and deranged
                  I have existed for years
                  But very little has changed
                  I'm the tool of the Government
                  And industry too
                  For I am destined to rule
                  And regulate you

                  I may be vile and pernicious
                  But you can't look away
                  I make you think I'm delicious
                  With the stuff that I say
                  I'm the best you can get
                  Have you guessed me yet?
                  I'm the slime oozin' out
                  From your TV set

                  You will obey me while I lead you
                  And eat the garbage that I feed you
                  Until the day that we don't need you
                  Don't go for help, no one will heed you
                  Your mind is totally controlled
                  It has been stuffed into my mold
                  And you will do as you are told
                  Until the rights to you are sold

                  That's right, folks
                  Don't touch that dial

                  Well, I am the slime from your video
                  Oozin' along on your livin' room floor
                  I am the slime from your video
                  Can't stop the slime, people, look at me go
                  I am the slime from your video
                  Oozin' along on your livin' room floor
                  I am the slime from your video
                  Can't stop the slime, people, look at me go

                  Disclaimer: Though that reflects my feelings I am not endorsing Biden.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Tim,

                    Wow, Frank Zappa, he has been gone for a while.

                    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

                    The Who

                    Why would a greedy corporate capitalist like Trump betray his own class? The biggest deception by the Republicans on the populace is this phony populist movement where they pretend to give a rats ass about working people. I know that a lot of people are grasping for Trump because they are disappointed in Biden. But by selecting Trump are we jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

                    This is the extent of The nostalgia for Trump and his economic miracle between the time of his inauguration and the pandemic, that people seem to want to drool over. But like everything else regarding Trump, these too, are phony fireworks.

                    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-rem … 18606.html

                2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Come on now.  Lets keep it real.

                  You know the systemic laws, the rules and regulations we lived by... in those decades were as fair, impartial, sometimes even favorable to 'minorities' as they have ever been, for as long as we can remember.

                  I would love to be able to give the Biden Administration a pass, if not for the multitude of things that have really harmed America that were so... so... so avoidable.

                  Nuland, Biden... these people are pre-historic in their thinking and outlook, they belong to a different world... they have done America immense harm abroad.

                  Worse... no MAJORITY is going to be happy with these two choices... this election is going to leave America VERY divided... heaven help us if the economy tanks in 2025, we will be descending into 3rd world like chaos throughout most of the Coast states for sure.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "You know the systemic laws, the rules and regulations we lived by... in those decades were as fair, impartial, sometimes even favorable to 'minorities' as they have ever been, for as long as we can remember."

                    You know, that is what conservative white guys always say. We were supposed to have had an advantageous break.

                    After being ripped off for over a century since emancipation, a bone or two is finally offered. It was hardly a universal solution and there was a lot of ground to be retaken, that had been stolen. Favorable as it has ever been was just the beginning, Being involved in employment during this period,  the appearance is not always the reality.

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 weeks ago

    "Conservatives may feel that the line separating men and women is natural and innate—a big, bold line—whereas liberals may see that distinction as more superficial and culturally based."

    This is one of many areas where liberals seems less than intelligent to me.

    Men and women are different.  Those differences are natural and innate.  These are facts and they are indisputable.

    Like a person once said, if you think there isn't a difference between men and women, just try to milk a bull and learn the lesson very quickly.

    There is no procedure known to mankind that can change XY Chromosomes into XX Chromosomes or vice versa.  It just isn't possible.

    There is a very well-known black minister who is running for congress.  He said it best. 

    "If you take a person and drug them up, cut them up and dress them up as the opposite sex all you have is a person who is still the same sex but is now cut up, drugged up and dressed up."

    I think this is proof that the left can't deal with the reality of anything and chooses to live in a delusional world.

    Truth, facts and reality are kryptonite to the left.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Men and women are different.  Those differences are natural and innate.  These are facts and they are indisputable."

      Are they? Should those differences be used to discriminate when those differences are shown to have no bearing on who is capable and who is not in regard to any task or ambition?

      Conservative thinking is so Philistine when these points come up for discussion. But, that is nothing new, either.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Should those differences be used to discriminate when those differences are shown to have no bearing on who is capable and who is not in regard to any task or ambition?"

        NO idea what you're referring to here.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "NO idea what you're referring to here."

          I would not have thought that it was a difficult idea to grasp. I will put it to you this way, so men and women are physically different, what of it?

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            So, then you have the conservative viewpoint.

            "the line separating men and women is natural and innate—a big, bold line"

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              And what conclusion are we to derive from this?

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                It establishes the fact that men cannot become women and women cannot become men no matter what is done.

                Transgenderism is a terrible thing.  Individuals under the age of 18 should not have such procedures under any circumstances.  Many individuals who have undergone these treatments at a young age have regret for the rest of their lives.  Their bodies are permanently mutilated.  There are individuals in the medical profession with no ethics or morals who champion such procedures for children.

                Don't get me started on the children's books that have been put in public schools championing transgenderism.  It is a disgrace.

                That is why it is important to realize there are lines between men and women that are not able to be crossed no matter what.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "It establishes the fact that men cannot become women and women cannot become men no matter what is done."

                  That is correct and the way I see it. Even as a liberal, I never really understood the transgender concept as valid unless demonstrated in a medically established way. It is the Achilles Heel in my general liberalism on virtually everything else.

                  How far do YOUR lines go toward delineating the differences between men and women?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I have to jump in. We argue so much it's only fair to also note when we agree (on the trans part).

                    GA ;-)

                  2. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "How far do YOUR lines go toward delineating the differences between men and women?"

                    Mine are based on reality.  Men are XY Chromosomes and Women are XX.  Men have male genitalia and women have female genitalia.  It's that simple.

                    As a person once said, "Women cannot become men and men cannot become women.  All that can be done, and all that ever has been done, is to surgically and/or chemically alter a person's body to provide the illusion of being the opposite sex."

                    I don't believe in letting men compete in women's sports.

                    I don't believe in mutilating the body of a person under the age of 18.  These surgeries take away their ability to have children and live a normal life. 

                    Yet, the left seems to champion letting children have these "transitions," and letting men play in women sports, use females bathrooms, etc.

                    It is one more case where the left seems too stupid or too crazy to accept reality.

  4. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 7 weeks ago

    Residents of South Bronx love President Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E10QsJgUkG8

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Classic BMovie GOP theatre, some times taking scraps from masters table can reap great rewards. How much wer the actors paid to turn coat?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)