Conservatism verses the current GOP, can a distinction be made?
this is just an opinion piece, folks, no need to go bovine on me.
Before Trump, there was a Conservative Party (Republican) verses the more liberal one (Democrats). As recently as the 2008 election, the Republican candidate, John McCain, struck me as a “stand up” guy. In a different reality, i could have easily saw myself voting for him. But, Alas, I am a democrat, conservatism as defined in the society was slow and tardy in its defense of the status quo, while my experience and the realities of my life required agitation and moving forward faster and with greater determination in the issues that concerned me most. The Democrat policies were more consistent with that desire of mine.
But even then, it was about people like me who needed things to move faster verses people that wanted change to move more slowly and resisted it coming on to quickly. Yet, that desire was reasonable so, the “other side” were not demons.
But, this article speaks of an aberration of what was once a conservative but reasonable Republican Party. Your thoughts…….
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/ … aign=shareThe link returned an error message, but this looked like the article:
How Trump Killed Conservatism
The president has cultivated and encouraged the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene.
By Peter Wehner
It has a paywall for me.
The first sentence is worth a discussion, but the second sentence says that isn't what the article will be.
------------
Skipping the article, your comment, and the John McCain timeline are a good start. McCain's defense of Obama instantly popped to mind.
Here's what happened. The pendulum swung too far, too fast. The internet became a reality for almost everyone — the major social media platforms gained prominence in the 2006 - 2008 McCain period. Now everyone could be heard. Everyone! Even the ones that should never be heard.
And, we elected a Black president.
Both were major changes happening real fast. Hard to keep up.
So along with the internet, it's mostly your fault (the creation of the Trump Republicans and presidency).
The 'electing a Black president' milestone was sinking in and becoming less of a thing, but then the Democrats forced Obamacare purely with the power of politics—not informed public will. Every Republican felt steamrolled, but the Right-wingers were especially upset—they became the seeds of future Trumplicans. Since you're also a Democrat, you're responsible for that part too.
And just as the Obamacare fight was peaking, the progressive Democrats got into a damn bathroom fight. Now, you're telling Christian moms it's perfectly fine and natural for a penis to share vagina space with their little girls. How many Trumplican seeds do you think that declaration planted? Since you identify as a Democrat progressive, they're your fault too.
And then ... ♫ ... along came Hillary ...♫
First a Black president, and now a woman one??? Well, we moderate conservatives braced to give it a chance, but then you crowned Hillary. Now even the moderates were saying, Oh hell no! As she campaigned, you could see the first shoots of those Trumplican seeds breaking ground.
First it was Russiagate, then it was impeachments and prosecutions, then it was anti-Trump cabals and collectives within government—all of which you support. So those Trump seeds are your fault too.
And your crowning glory was the trans issue. The Progressive Democrats created a lot of Trump converts with that one.
So yep, the civil Republicans of 2008 were pushed to become the coarse Trumplicans of 2024. The zero-sum mentality, the chaos and the national divide represented in the change in the Republican party are because of you: Credence2 The Progressive Democrat et al.
Demanding too much, too fast. Demanding everyone's reality be what you say it is.
GA ;-)I am a subscriber and have the option of “gifting” articles to others. see if this link works.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/ … aign=share
I like Democracy and seek out the voices that have been muffled for whatever reason. With the 2008 meltdown blamed on Republicans, Jesus could not have been a viable candidate. Because of the fact that a black president was elected does that reflect the pendulum swinging too far, too fast for you? I say the man was eminently qualified and had the temperament for the job. I say that it was about time.
Elections have consequences, GA. We voted for a democrat for president and we all agreed that he was not there to shine shoes. Regardless of what Republicans say, I thought the concept of Obamacare was a good one. We had Medicare and Medicaid under LBJ, i guess that you were against that as well? But, don’t let me forget, you also had issues with the New Deal from FDR. After the program’s existence for over 90 years, that is pretty damn obstinate.
So now in response to those “Christian Mom”, we secular oriented people have to insist on having their handbills plastered all over public schools as a stark demonstration of proselytizing?
Trumpism represents more than just the “other side” as the article points out. Trump has earned the negative publicity and attention of the legal system. He only has himself to blame.
The Republicans were not pushed, they as I complained before were obstinate and resisting change that the majority of people voted for. They as a group, brooded over a changing circumstance.
Yes, i am a part of it, and will stop at nothing less than having his eminency properly deposed.
Moving too slowly, being obstinate in the face of needed change, insisting that everyone else’s reality is contrary to mine. Turn the mirror around for a closer look? Why don’t you just say “Republicans” As I always have said, slow moving and obstinance toward an issue with the answer being patience is always a great answer as long as you are not the one waiting. Is your perception of reality any different? it comes down to yours verses mine.
We will see how all of these differing “perceptions” are negotiated come mid-term time? Trump won the election, lets see how long he can stay on top?
========
Since Atlantic has broken its promise to me, I saved this article just for you.
Is THIS the idea of turnabout by the Republicans being fair play?
The “make america great again” movement is the beating heart of the GOP, the dominant political party in America—which makes MAGA the most important political movement in the world. And that is why some recent developments within the MAGA movement are so disquieting.
Earlier this month, the College Republicans of America, one of the oldest youth organizations affiliated with the Republican Party, hired Kai Schwemmer as the group’s political director. Schwemmer has past ties to the white supremacist and anti-Semite Nick Fuentes and his Groyper movement, a loose network of white-nationalist activists and internet trolls who gravitate around online influencers, primarily Fuentes.
College Republicans of America President Martin Bertao defended the hire on X, writing that he had reflected on the decision and chose “to apologize … to absolutely NOBODY,” adding, “CRA will never back down to the WOKE mob!” For his part, Schwemmer told Fox News Digital that he and the College Republicans are “done feeding into the ‘eat your own’ cancel culture paradigm of division that only seeks to advantage the left.”
Schwemmer is hardly an isolated case. Last year, Politico reported on leaked Telegram chats spanning seven months from leaders of Young Republican chapters in several states—chairs, vice chairs, and committee members exchanging racist and anti-Semitic messages.
While some figures in the GOP criticized the comments, Vice President Vance came to the defense of the Young Republicans, saying that the “reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys.” Vance added, “They tell edgy, offensive jokes. Like, that’s what kids do.”
Several of the worst offenders were in their 30s.
A few months later the Miami Herald revealed that leaked chats from a Republican group at Florida International University showed participants using racial slurs, repeatedly expressing a desire to violently attack Black people, and describing women as “whores.” The text messages contained jokes about gas chambers, slavery, and rape. There was also plenty of praise for Adolf Hitler. Such praise appeared so regularly that at one point, the group was renamed “Nazi Heaven.”
These incidents are evidence of the normalization of white-supremacist and neo-Nazi rhetoric among younger Republican activists.
Among the older generations, a ferocious, intra-MAGA civil war is being waged between high-profile media and political personalities, including people such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Matt Walsh on one side and Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin on the other. There’s also Laura Loomer versus Elon Musk, and Musk versus Steve Bannon, and Bannon versus Dinesh D’Souza, and D’Souza versus Carlson. On and on it goes, with no end in sight.
The most recent bitter recriminations center on the Iran war and Israel. Consider an exchange between two former friends and Fox News colleagues, Mark Levin and Megyn Kelly.
Levin, a popular radio-talk-show host who strongly supports both the Iran war and Israel, took to social media last Sunday to describe Kelly, a critic of both the war and of Israel, as an “emotionally unhinged, lewd, and petulant wreck” who is “utterly toxic.” Kelly, who hosts one of the most-listened-to podcasts in America, responded by calling him “Micropenis Mark Levin,” and by claiming, “He tweets about me obsessively in the crudest, nastiest terms possible. Literally more than some stalkers I’ve had arrested. He doesn’t like it when women like me fight back. Bc of his micropenis.” Levin soon fired back. “Busy Sunday morning for Megyn Kelly,” he wrote. “She wakes up and has ‘micropenis’ on her mind. Suffice to say, if it talks like a harlot, and posts like a harlot, it’s … well, you know the rest. Shalom!”
Then Donald Trump weighed in, posting a defense of Levin on Truth Social, calling him “a truly Great American Patriot” who is “far smarter than those who criticize him.” Marjorie Taylor Greene, however, sided with Kelly. “I wholeheartedly support Megyn Kelly telling the world that Mark Levin has a micropenis,” she wrote. “It’s the most deserved insult and I don’t care if it’s vulgar.”
The MAGA movement, like other radical political movements before it, is eating its own.
In january 2016 I was a lifelong Republican, having served in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations. Yet that month I wrote in The New York Times that Republicans should not vote for Trump under any circumstances, even if his opponent was Hillary Clinton. I described him as a “virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness.” But I went beyond that.
Trump’s nomination, I said, would threaten the future of the Republican Party, because although Clinton might defeat it at the polls, only Trump could redefine it. I added this:
Mr. Trump’s presence in the 2016 race has already had pernicious effects, but they’re nothing compared with what would happen if he were the Republican standard-bearer. The nominee, after all, is the leader of the party; he gives it shape and definition. If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party; it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one. Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.
What we have seen in the decade since is the realization of those worst fears. To be clear, the MAGA movement’s rancidity isn’t due to only Trump. The impulses now on display within MAGA existed long before he entered politics. But those impulses were, for the most part, confined to the fringes. Republican presidents and other political leaders did what they could to keep it that way.
But from the moment Trump announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015, he sought to cultivate and encourage the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene. Among Trump’s most consequential legacies has been his deformation of the temperament and disposition of virtually the entire Republican Party. It has been a remarkable shift to observe: The very qualities that early on made Republicans, including evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, uneasy about Trump are those they have since come to accept and embrace. He rewired their moral circuitry.
I don’t mean to suggest the Republican Party pre-Trump was anything close to perfect. Like any political party, it had weaknesses, and its record was mixed. It was hardly the ideal embodiment of conservatism; no political party could be. But under Trump, the GOP has become a profoundly different, and a far more malicious, party. Within the Republican Party, from top to bottom, Trump has made cruelty and transgressiveness cool. And in the process, he killed American conservatism.
Trump has overturned many long-standing public-policy commitments of conservatives—supporting free trade, reforming entitlements, supporting foreign assistance to save lives and advance American interests, standing by NATO, and standing against Russian oppression at home and aggression abroad. But the deeper and more lasting damage he has done is to conservatism as a sensibility.
ONE of the most important figures in the history of conservatism is the 18th-century Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, his most famous work, Burke warned about the dangers of a revolutionary zeal aimed at completely redesigning a civilization. Burke rightly feared it would unleash destructive passions and horrifying violence. He believed reason alone was not ennobling. He warned, too, that if “the decent drapery of life” was torn off, barbarism would follow.
A few years later, in Letters on a Regicide Peace, Burke wrote, “Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in.”
Burke believed that manners and mores, customs and norms, codes of conduct, and beauty itself made life more humane. Burke had his critics, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, who believed that Burke’s argument on behalf of the beauty of tradition sought to make oppression and inequality tolerable. But Burke’s key insight was that stripping civilizations of their beauty and sense of reverence would lead to spiritual impoverishment and, eventually, to terror. And like his contemporary Adam Smith, Burke believed that the cultivation of human sympathy, including the capacity to feel the pain of others, was essential to a good society.
A century and a half after Burke, the influential British philosopher Michael Oakeshott, in his essay “On Being Conservative,” argued that conservatism “was not a creed or a doctrine, but a disposition.” To Oakeshott, to be conservative is to be inclined to think and behave in a certain manner. The conservative disposition, Oakeshott said, “breeds attachment and affection.”
“The man of this disposition,” he wrote, “understands it to be the business of a government not to inflame passion and give it new objects to feed upon, but to inject into the activities of already too passionate men an ingredient of moderation; to restrain, to deflate, to pacify and to reconcile; not to stoke the fires of desire, but to damp them down. And all this, not because passion is vice and moderation virtue, but because moderation is indispensable if passionate men are to escape being locked in an encounter of mutual frustration.”
British conservatism is somewhat different than American conservatism; the latter has traditionally been somewhat more forward-leaning, a bit more rights-based and ideological, and focused more on the individual as opposed to the community. But there has been a lot of overlap, including respect for tradition and order, the importance of institutions, the rule of law, and the complexity of human society, along with a wariness of radical change. And both recognize the importance of the education of character, the cultivation of decency, and the taming of the dark passions.
MAGA is not just antithetical to conservatism; it is at war with it.
It’s important to acknowledge that many rank-and-file MAGA voters haven’t knowingly rejected the conservatism I’m describing; they voted for Trump and attached themselves to the MAGA movement for a variety of reasons, including economic dislocation and feelings of cultural displacement. But it long ago became clear what they signed up for. At the core of the MAGA project and Trumpism is disruption and destruction, the delegitimization and razing of institutions, and the brutalization of opponents. Its leader, the president, abuses power, hurts the innocent, and mocks the dead before their families have even begun to grieve.
On Saturday, minutes after the death of Robert Mueller was reported, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!” This comes 15 weeks after Trump lashed out at the Hollywood actor and director Rob Reiner—“I wasn’t a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned”—after Reiner and his wife were stabbed to death in their home.
The MAGA ethic celebrates dehumanization. It is lawless, crude, and combative. Its entire ecosystem—social media, podcasts, and talk radio—is committed to spreading lies and conspiracy theories, to stoking rage and resentment. The disciples of the MAGA movement define themselves by what they hate much more than by what they love. They pursue culture wars with revolutionary zeal even as they vandalize our civic culture.
If a public figure today talked the way conservatives once talked—about the virtue of compassion; about the importance of good character in our leaders and resisting our baser impulses; about the need to encourage courtesy and decency, and refine manners and morals—they would be mocked as woke, as weak, as a “cuck.”
The MAGA movement represents the betrayal of the temperamental tradition of conservatism. And as a result of the disfigurement of the Republican Party, conservatism is politically homeless. That is a terrible loss for the GOP, and a greater loss for America.
Even people who don’t identify as conservatives and see blind spots within its tradition can, I think, acknowledge the contributions of conservatism at its best—its embrace of epistemic humility and skepticism of utopian thinking; the importance it places on institutions and civil society; the priority it places on character formation; and its instinct to preserve when others are pushing for radical change. The conservative scholar Yuval Levin says that conservatism begins with a vision of what we love in the world and is driven by the defense of what is best about the world.
Trump and the key figures within the MAGA movement rejected conservatism not because they failed to understand conservatism well enough but because they understood it all too well. If conservatism is to ever again find a home in the GOP, it will be because the party decides that what is true and good and beautiful is indeed worth conserving. Right now the Republican Party is light-years away from that, and those who cherish conservatism should say so.Damn, 2500 words. That's a lot more work than I'm up to.
I replied because I liked the way your comment framed it: the change in the Republican party, better than the tone and preview of the article.
There has been a change. Your comment led to a discussion of what and why. The article leads to an argument about who is wrong.
I'll have to study up on this one. 2500 words, whew.
GADeleted
I read your pasted article and came back for a second shot at this one.
Peter Wehner, never heard of the guy, but I googled him when I was done. A speechwriter. A Republican speechwriter. A 3-time presidential speechwriter.
No wonder I was impressed.
Generally, in concept and tone (an escape hatch), that was an agreeable description of what I think happened to the Republican party. It was a good article.
Even so, I still prefer the direction I took from your OP comment—it can be more to the 'why' than the 'who.' The article is all about the who and the how bad. That argument's been done to death.
Instead of arguing responsibility (Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump...), discuss the why.
Why was MAGA so successful? Why did MAGA go from extreme fringe to the Oval office?
I think you nailed the 'Zero Point' timeline (props to Tsmog) with your original McCain reference: ~2008-2010. That's when 'something' changed, and our politics began becoming more stridently partisan.
An agreeable starting point?
The two events I mentioned were serious contentions. They were lightheartedly presented, but they were still major societal shifts.
Consider the societal impact of instant, everywhere, and with anyone communications. Suddenly, the nut job isn't an isolated case in Peoria, now he's globally connected with all the other previously lonely nut jobs.
... and they get soap boxes too. Just like us regular folks.
From the house phone on the kitchen wall or living room table to the smartphone in everyone's hand. That happened in just a couple three years. That's a major societal shift. The internet did that.
Then there was the Black president thing. The lighthearted treatment was a purposeful handling of a serious point: you went from hundreds of years and generations of striving for the right to vote, to we, as a people, codifying that Right in our national constitution, to electing a Black president, in 60 years, one generation. That's a pretty big societal change too. Doncha think? Even better, except for the nut jobs, America was okay with the idea of a Black president.
See the direction? It's a lot better than the one your article encourages. Plus, it includes pre-Trump changes we both agree happened (the Zero Point). We haven't agreed on what they were, but we did agree that they were there (the McCain reference).
What do you think triggered a non-Trump change in 2008-2010 politics? When did the non-Trump trigger become the all-Trump rationale?
GAI provided a good article? I am going to have a heart attack!
The “why” amounts to an overreaction from a generally reactionary right who was ok with Obama as long as he did not do anything during his term. Signature policies are not new to any President, coming either from the right of left. This administration has swung the pendulum off from its rocker. The backlash is coming from many directions and I don’t believe that Trump with all of his luck will avoid the storm, this time. I say that MAGA represents an underlying resentment by white conservatives who could not come out and say that they resented a black president. It all started with the Tea Party, remember. They started “bitching” not even 30 days after Obama took office, So, it had nothing to do with Obama care, the President had not even had time to sit before they starting stirring all of this up. All of this after GOP policies were responsible with all the deregulation and such for the greatest economic crisis since the 1930’s. To be honest in my assessment, racial resentment carries more weight than reason, at least within this society.
Yes indeed, we agree on the starting point. But i disagree as to the cause or the “why”. The stark division that was to come involved more than just the presence of the internet, in my opinion.
You’re ok in in the societal change, but it was not accepted by all, the holdouts were the Tea Party and later the foundation of MAGA.
McCain was a true gentleman in every sense and a credit to your idea of conservatism not necessarily being the same as the GOP. I say that for the most part, McCain was the exception rather than the rule. Is there any other reason that Trump and the GOP turned on him like vipers?
As for the last question, I don’t believe that the gender bender issue in of itself was responsible for Democratic losses in 2016
2016-Clinton underestimated the electorate and took much for granted believing that no one in their right mind would vote for Trump. A populist movement was growing and Clinton as an establishment candidate could not get over finish line amongst working class whites who felt left out.
In 2024, Trump stoked a us/verses them xenophobic fear that right wing leaning whites cling to like barnacles on a boat. I heard him say and do the most outrageous things and get away with it, while his base was not affected one iota. That slavish form of devotion, combined with a Biden administration that was inadequate from the view of conservatives and had this bone of the cause of inflation hanging on his neck, allowed Harris to fall short. (I am going to hang Trump if he does not do any better). Because of the economy or the people’s perception of it, Trumps squeaks by again. He convinces independents and regular Republicans that he would be best for the economy. It is not all Trump rationale, he has a slavish group of followers that would support him regardless, but the key is with independents, non-Trumpers and Democrats. And there are more of us than there are of them.
Gotta stay tuned.,….Yep, the article surprised me too. That you would try to skip straight to Trump, Trump, Trump didn't.
What about pre-Trump, ~2008-2010??
We seem close enough on the 'Black president' thought, but I think you're missing the importance of the internet thing. A lot of 'accepted' experts—serious-study-types, not media pundit types, promote the same thought. I'm not sharp enough to come up with it on my own.
Proof of that immediate instant-anyone-anywhere point seems to be the news of the day; from phone bans at schools, to national bans by age, to the trends of the current Meta/Google trials.
Huge societal changes, right in the middle of our Zero point timeline and all facilitated, and then driven, by the internet.
You should give it some thought. Your perspective on that issue should impact most of what would follow. You don't want to start off wrong, do you? Think of that 'butterfly effect' thing, if your first step is wrong, you'll be in a corner, again, by the third or fourth one.
The internet point, as a foundational one, as a base point, is important for its power as an enabler and amplifier for everything else. The point is that it enabled the fringes that weren't 'okay' with a Black president, or whatever their issue was, to become a thing. Now, instead of fading back to Peoria, they have online conventions that gain attention, which is voter power, which means political attention. Imagine that, conventions of idiots and nuts. It used to be organizations that had and used mailing lists; now, every nut and idiot knows about the power of email and subscriber lists. They didn't have that before Obama. Or the internet.
Just consider that perspective for a bit. It still might not fit, but ... maybe ...
Another small point is that the transgender issue was noted as a contributing factor, but it was the Hillary candidacy that was noted as being too much. The 'Hell no' factor. ;-)
GA... a second bite to offer a fair return.
After the 'it's Obama and the internet's fault' point is established, the next step is acknowledging that the genesis of the new political shift, the vehemence and vitriol shift, was Hillary's actions. Russiagate. ( bet a mention of MyEsoteric's ardent defense of the Steele dossier gets a reaction - But it's all good, Right?).
You don't get to blame Trump until 2015. What happened in Obama's eight years if the Black thing wasn't an issue?
What changed?
Access to the internet changed. Mass instant access changed. Remember, a couple of three (2 - 5) years, that's too much, too soon. And it started during Obama's years. He didn't cause it; it's just timing.
But Hillary saw it and used it. She's the next step, right? The next change agent in the chain?
Hang in there, the tiki torches and the Proud Boys are next. And they are the internet's fault too.
GA
And most of that was before Biden... 25% inflation with nothing to show for it. 8% interest making housing unaffordable for young people, anyone not well off really.
Then add Open Borders letting millions in, giving them housing in 5 star hotels and 10k credit card allowances, free plane tickets to wherever they wanted to go... work programs that incentivized companies to fire their American workers for migrant ones.
Also add in Child Sex change issues, un-checked fentanyl on our streets, starting a war with Russia, calling anyone who supported Trump a "domestic terrorist"... which one upped Hillary's "deplorables".
Then there was DEI... pushing every company in America and every government agency to have HR departments drive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion down everyone's throats.
The general messaging from the Progressive side, and given voice by Biden's Administration, that white people are the problem, that racism was in their genetics and they are inherently evil.
Look... if nothing else, Trump has shown the country what the Progressive Left is really all about... Migrants ahead of Citizens... taxes on anyone that owns anything, until they can own nothing... they aren't hiding what they really believe anymore... Ilhan Omar, AOC, and others give voice to it daily.
If that is the direction America goes in after Trump... look out... the insanity won't be isolated to pockets like NYC and Seattle anymore, it will become Nation wide.
Edmund Burke. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, his most famous work, Burke warned about the dangers of a revolutionary zeal aimed at completely redesigning a civilization. Burke rightly feared it would unleash destructive passions and horrifying violence. He believed reason alone was not ennobling. He warned, too, that if “the decent drapery of life” was torn off, barbarism would follow.
A few years later, in Letters on a Regicide Peace, Burke wrote, “Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.
We see this break down today in our society...
Was it Thomas Jefferson or John Adams that said the Republic with its freedoms would only work for a society with a strong moral foundation?
Went and found it:
In a 1798 letter, Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
I think we are seeing that today... compounded by a denigration of America itself in our schools and Progressive politics, and many millions of people added to our numbers that have come from somewhere else and do not appreciate America and its freedoms other than for what they can get from the government.Trump and his administration is well on the way to increasing inflationary pressures beyond what was handed to him in 2025. Fair and equal employment opportunity has been an objective of government for years, only the KKK would be against that fundamental principle.
You ignore a great deal, well i am keen on the history here and know that whites and the US government HAD been responsible for a great deal of racism toward black and other racial minorities and it ran deep and was beyond any reasonable explanation. That is the fact that make this a uniquely American problem. Who would think that I would not be aware of that? Like i always say, removing a dagger from someone’s back does not mean that there was not an injury.
Migrants and everyone else here are entitled to due process and not just rounded up like cattle and shipped abroad. From the perspective of a lefty like me, the right is insane and its insanity and ineffectiveness will be reflected in the GOP report card next November. We will see how isolated progressive ideas and thought actually is?
As for the question regarding whether it was Adams or Jefferson that spoke of strong moral foundation, if I had to guess it would be Adams, Jefferson was a hypocrite.
Conservatism is not always consistent with morality or “being religious”, it is just support for a stagnant status quo that advantages one group over another.
The xenophobia and fallacious assumptions from the Trumpian right continue to turn the stomach. This is a country of immigrants. I hear multiple languages spoken at the Publix or Walmart, we accept that all in passing. As most of these are able to speak English reasonably well.
As always, that is just my opinion.When I look at the actual inflation data, I don’t see clear evidence that we’re already heading into another inflation surge. Inflation recently came in around 2.4% year-over-year, which is very close to what economists generally consider a normal, stable range. In fact, around 2% is widely viewed as the target rate for a healthy economy, so being at 2.4% is not far off from that goal. Just a year earlier, it was closer to 2.8%, so if anything, the trend has been downward, not upward. That matters to me, because it shows inflation has already been cooling from the spike we saw in 2021–2022, when it climbed as high as roughly 9%.
Historically, when I step back and look at the bigger picture, today’s inflation level doesn’t resemble periods where inflation was truly out of control. In the late 1970s and around 1980, inflation was running at 14–15%, which is a completely different situation than what we’re seeing now. Even going further back, the worst “low” inflation period—the Great Depression, actually involved massive deflation, where prices were falling sharply and the economy was collapsing. Compared to those extremes, today’s environment looks relatively stable.
To me, the key point is that inflation doesn’t just rise or fall based on who is in office, it responds to specific policies and broader economic conditions. Certain policies, like tariffs or increased spending, can push prices up, while others, like expanding energy production or reducing regulatory costs, can help bring prices down. On top of that, the Federal Reserve plays a major role in controlling inflation through interest rates, regardless of the administration.
So based on the numbers and the historical context, I don’t think it’s accurate to say we are already “well on the way” to rising inflation. What I see instead is an economy that has already moved from a high-inflation period back toward a more typical range, and one that is actually quite close to the 2% target economists aim for, with future inflation depending on what policies are actually implemented, not assumptions about what might happen.
In my view, the economy is not collapsing, but it’s walking a tightrope.
It’s stronger than doom headlines suggest. But it is clearly weak and fragile.
Regarding immigrants, do you believe they should be expected to follow our laws? Do you feel that those deported are not being provided due process?I have to ask why is stronger than the “doom headlines” suggest?
I will agree to sit on my hands if the upcoming inflation rate on the upcoming cost of living reports remain under 3 percent, but if they don’t…….
Yes, we should follow the immigration laws and yes i believe and i will get cases for you where migrants were not allowed due process.I understand your question about why I said the economy is stronger than the doom headlines suggest. What I meant is that while the economy isn’t booming, key indicators—like employment numbers and the cooling of inflation from its 2021–2022 highs- show that it isn’t collapsing either. Headlines often focus on fears or worst-case scenarios, but the numbers show the economy is still walking that tightrope rather than falling off it.
I agree with you that if upcoming inflation and cost-of-living reports stay under 3%, that will reinforce the idea that things are stable. But if they rise above that, I’m open to reassessing.
Regarding immigration, I also believe people should follow our laws, and yes, there are documented cases where migrants claimed they were not provided due process. I gathered these examples for you if you want to see them.
I understand your question about why I said the economy is stronger than the doom headlines suggest. What I meant is that while the economy isn’t booming, key indicators, like employment numbers and the cooling of inflation from its 2021–2022 highs, show that it isn’t collapsing either. Headlines often focus on fears or worst-case scenarios, but the numbers show the economy is still walking that tightrope rather than falling off it.
I agree with you that if upcoming inflation and cost-of-living reports stay under 3%, that will reinforce the idea that things are stable. But if they rise above that, I’m open to reassessing.
Regarding immigration, I also believe people should follow our laws, and yes, there are documented cases where migrants were not provided due process. I can gather examples for you if you want to see them.
These are **the only recent cases I could find where immigrants formally claimed they were not given due process and a court specifically ruled or addressed that claim — along with where each case stands now:
1. Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez — DACA Recipient Wrongfully Deported
Claim: She was deported in February 2026 while attending a lawful immigration appointment despite having active DACA status and without being given an opportunity to be heard by an immigration judge, which her lawsuit argued violated due process
.
Ruling: A federal judge found the deportation was unlawful and a flagrant violation of her due process rights and DACA protections.
Current Status: The judge ordered DHS to facilitate her return to the United States, and she has since been returned and reunited with her daughter while her legal status matter continues.
2. J.G.G. v. Trump — Venezuelan Migrants Deported Under the Alien Enemies Act
Claim: A class action lawsuit filed by Venezuelan men argued the U.S. government deported them to El Salvador without giving them meaningful notice or a hearing to challenge their removal, effectively denying due process.
Ruling: Federal Judge James Boasberg ruled that under the law, those deported should be able to challenge their removal and be given the chance to seek habeas corpus review — meaning due process protections must be honored.
Current Status: The government has appealed portions of the case, and the issue remains in ongoing litigation. The ruling itself confirmed that due process must be available to these deportees.
3. Venezuelan Deportations to CECOT — Denied Due Process
Claim: In this related decision, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. denied due process to a group of Venezuelan migrants when it deported them to a Salvadoran prison (CECOT) without hearings or chances to contest removal.
Ruling: The judge found the government’s actions violated due process rights and ordered that those deported be afforded hearings or facilitated return so they could seek legal remedies.
Current Status: The ruling stands, but the government has challenged enforcement of those orders, and the process of providing due process to those deportees is ongoing.
4. Stephanie Kenny‑Velasquez — Denied Individualized Due Process in Detention
Claim: She and her attorneys argued that her re‑detention by ICE in December 2025 occurred without individualized justification and therefore violated due process rights
.
Ruling: A federal judge agreed, finding the government failed to justify her re‑detention and violated due process.
Current Status: The judge ordered her release and reclassification to non‑detained status while her immigration case proceeds.
In my view, it is clear that mistakes have been made, but it is human to make mistakes, and claims are being handled, as they should be.
Not the worst article in the world... written by a former Republican, so its somewhat framed better than I'd expect from the Atlantic.
Anyways, we have had long discussions and debates on this... ultimately the two Party system became more of a one Party system, where it was the American Citizens getting screwed over regardless of who was in power.
This went on for a quarter century before enough people caught on and realized that it didn't matter who they voted in... other than Democrats made the pain even worse than when it was Republicans (IE - Obama and ACA ... Biden and everything from open borders to 25% inflation).
Trump is the manifestation of American people realizing Congress and their government no longer served the American Citizen's interests. Nor what was best for America.
Atleast the war efforts we see today are in America's best interests... restoring sanity ot Venezuela and kicking China out... in America's best interests.
Tackling Iran... a Theocracy whose existence has been 'Death to America"... for 50 years and whose every effort seems not to make their nation better... but to wage war on America and Israel.
Corporate Media and a zealous Democratic led establishment effort... spent over a decade villainizing Trump and denigrating the American Citizens who supported him (Deplorables, Domestic Terrorists)...
85% of Americans wanted the SAVE Act passed... according to CNN no less... so it war probably more like 95%... it is common sense... Citizens vote... NON-Citizens don't.
But the Democrats can't do that... because the interests of the American people... Citizens... and the Nation...are not what they represent, not what they care about.Because it was written by a Republican, i was suspicious. But, I know the quality of Atlantic journalism and I trusted that the article was relevant to the discussion.
So, it is three parties, now; Democrats, Republicans and MAGA people. But the MAGA consumes what was once “Republican” like a shark toward a sardine. It is extremist in every sense of the word.
I cannot in good conscience ever vote for reactionaries, nor support reactionary policies. That is what MAGA IS.
Again, i need to point out, your “American People” and mine are not the same.
I don’t think that aggression toward other nations in the hemisphere is going to play well over the long term.
A friend of mine directed me toward supporting information in regards to the ISIS threat…..
1. Iran's strategic position: ISIS was a direct
threat
According to academic analysis from International Affairs, Iran saw ISIS as a hostile
Sunni jihadist organisation that threatened: • Iranian allies (especially the Assad
government in Syria)
• Shia populations in Iraq and Syria
• Iran's regional influence and security Iran therefore adopted a counter-ISIS
strategy, not a supportive one.
Iran did not help ISIS in
Syria - it fought ISIS.
All credible research and reporting agree that Iran viewed ISIS as a major enemy and deployed troops, militias, and resources to combat ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.
There is no
evidence that Iran provided ISIS with support
————
So, tell me again, what its all about, Alfie?
I invite the Republicans to turn off the pilot on their gaslighting operations. I am going to question the numbers and percentages and will do a little of my own research. As it is now, i am against this threat to millions of eligible voters over not even a handful of offenses (illegal voting).
As far as I am concerned, Trump is a villain. I don’t conceal my opinion of the man. MAGA and Trump have had more than just a few disparaging words regarding Democrats and the Left, so turnabout is fair play?Except for when it is from the Party of Choice?
I would argue some of the tripe the Biden Administration pushed was reactionary as well as culturally revolutionary... but you supported it, as you would often say "the alternative was unacceptable".
So you tolerated many things the Biden Administration pushed, Trans, Child Sex Change...
Do you think perhaps many people who voted for Trump did so because they felt they didn't have a choice? The alternative was considered far worse?
Maybe they didn't like 25% inflation and high interest rates...
Maybe they didn't like seeing grown men compete against young women in sports...
Maybe they didn't like being threatened by 'Progressive' politics that told them they could not prevent their child from getting sex-change treatment?
Ahhh... but we are in the same boat.
You might not like that fact... but when 25% inflation hits me, it hits you as well.
If they do away with Social Security benefits, that impacts me as well as you.
The feel I am getting from what I have seen recently is that the young people are disaffected with America... and with Capitalism as they perceive it...
As I have said, if The Trump Administration is not successful, the swing back to the Left could be more extreme than you might imagine.
And as I have said and debated with you before, when you have the majority of young men in a society without hope, purpose, something they believe in... that's when violent extremist revolutions take place.
I could delve into the dynamics of how I think this will work... primarily the women voters are going to put someone more incompetent and destructive to American interests into the WH in 2028 ... like they did with Mamdani in NY City... and then instead of the pendulum swinging further to the Right, we will get a collapse of the economic system and social upheaval that will bring about something... different... and not what you or I would consider good.
See the lights still haven't gone out...
I attach some videos that both expand on this post and elaborate on what is going on in the current moment.
Remember, these videos are to make you THINK... consider facts and opinions you may not otherwise see or hear from your chosen sources of information, nothing more:
Starting off with the most direct (and short) to the point I want to get across video... timestamped:
https://youtu.be/VunsWETRvWI?t=76
Then we have some insightful observations from Promethean Action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON61m4NztQs
Lastly, here is Victor talking about the rebranding of the Democrats, explaining what the Party really represents (more moderately than I would put it) today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fToAPs0BNcc
Those of you who continue to listen to the people paid handsomely to lie to you and deceive you, the MSM (Main Stream Media) will likely reject these opinions and facts.
This is the last time you will have to read me suggesting to you... learn to think for yourself rather than be fed information by biased 'news sources' that serve interests other than what is best for YOU or America the Nation.
That's it folks, my final message on HP... its been great debating and arguing and learning with you all, I have grown as an individual because of it, years of researching things I would have never looked into if not for these forum discussions.
See some of you on X from time to time.
KenKen, I just want to say I’ve truly enjoyed our back-and-forths over the years. Your insights, challenges, and willingness to push us all to think critically have made this forum a richer place.
All three videos you shared offered riveting facts that, through my own research, I find myself in agreement with. I appreciate you leaving us with such thought-provoking material.
It’s been a pleasure debating, learning, and growing alongside you. I wish you all the best in your future explorations, and I’ll be keeping an eye out for you on X. Thanks for everything! Shar
Cred. I read through the article, and I’ll be honest, it feels like it’s written from a very specific point of view, and that point of view drives the whole argument more than anything else.
The author basically argues that Trump didn’t just reshape conservatism, but replaced it with something built more on personality, grievance, and power than on traditional principles. That’s a pretty strong claim, and to me it reads more like an opinion than a balanced analysis. I can see that the writer is coming from a more traditional, old-school conservative mindset, something closer to Reagan-era ideals, and measuring Trump against that. But just because Trump doesn’t fit that mold doesn’t mean conservatism is dead. It may just mean it’s evolved.
Where I really take issue is how the article seems to frame Trump supporters, like we’ve somehow been pulled away from “real” conservatism. That’s not how I see it at all. From my perspective, Trump isn’t abandoning conservative values; he’s cutting through the parts that weren’t working anymore. I support him because he gets things done. He doesn’t drag his feet, and he’s willing to push forward even when it’s controversial. The article barely gives him any credit for that.
I also noticed the tone when it comes to his personality. The author clearly sees his blunt, combative style as a negative across the board. And I’ll admit, sometimes it can be a bit much. But I don’t think that automatically disqualifies him. In fact, I think that’s part of why people support him. A lot of us are tired of polished politicians who say all the right things and then do nothing. Trump may not be smooth, but he fights, and that matters to me.
The article also leans pretty heavily on the idea that what Trump has built might not last, that it’s too tied to him personally. I get why someone would question that, but it still feels like speculation. What I see right now is a movement that clearly has energy and support. Dismissing it as temporary doesn’t really explain why it’s been so effective.
That said, I can admit there are a couple points worth thinking about. The question of whether the movement is more about loyalty to Trump than a clear set of principle, that’s a fair concern. And there’s definitely a divide between traditional conservatives and this newer, more populist direction. I don’t think that tension is going away anytime soon.
Overall, though, the article feels one-sided to me. It starts from the assumption that Trump damaged conservatism and builds everything around that idea. What it doesn’t really consider is that this is what conservatism looks like now for a lot of people, more direct, more results-driven, and less concerned with fitting into an old definition. Whether someone likes that or not is a different conversation, but it’s hard to deny that it’s real.
At the end of the day, it comes across less like a fair critique and more like frustration that the Republican Party isn’t what it used to be. And from where I stand, that change isn’t necessarily a bad thing.Your input is appreciated.
Trump is a novelty not seen before, goes well beyond what the Conservative Party and its leaders advocated as recently as GW Bush. Trump is an abrasive politician who makes many more enemies than allies. I think that his grip is weakening between the war and the lack luster economy, andd it will take its toll next fall.
Yes, Trump fights but he has been hitting me and mine with the “right cross” to the point that we have to be masochists to support him. This “new populist”direction promoted by Trump and MAGA is reactionary and I based on instinct, resist it.
Cmon, Sharlee, every article critical of Trump always has a fatal flaw for you.
But, the author is right, Trump has changed the Republican Party for the worse. Traditional conservatism has never taken on so great a reactionary and extremist position that is heralded by Trump, today. The Republican Party is not what it used to be and neither is conservatism and I agree with the author that it has been a turn for the worse, not better….And the same can be said for the Democratic Party and the shifts it has made... with the likes of Omar Ilhan, AOC, Bernie Sanders, being the true heart of the Party today... corrupt cronies like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden are done, they and their likes will be removed or retired from the Party prior to 2028.
The extremist shift the Left is in the midst of taking perhaps you don't see?
Which of the Parties has really shifted to the extreme?
Which of the Parties has disregarded every 'normal' in pursuit of power?
Who tried every form of legalize to rid themselves of their opposition?
Who tried to ban the opposition from ballots?
Who, despite overwhelming American support (85%+) refuses to pass the SAVE act?
You don't see how far down the road your Party has gone, because all you see is 'Orange Man Bad' and anything... anything is acceptable to you, things you would have put a uniform back on to fight 20 years ago if necessary, is now embedded deep in the heart of your Party.I think I’ve tried to present an unbiased perspective; this is just my opinion. I do agree that Donald Trump has, in many ways, reshaped the Republican Party. I’ve said that before, but it’s worth repeating. To me, today’s Republican Party has some similarities to what the Democratic Party used to be.
When you consider Trump’s background, he was a Democrat years ago, it’s not that surprising. In some ways, he still seems aligned with those older “Kennedy Democrat” ideals. I can relate to that, because I was the same way, and I think I still carry some of those beliefs with me.
Cred, regarding your thoughts -- I think you’re looking at the Democratic Party through a lens that just doesn’t match what it is today.
I remember that era too, back when someone like John McCain could be respected across the aisle, even by Democrats. There was a clearer difference back then: Republicans leaned conservative, Democrats leaned liberal, but both sides still felt grounded in something recognizable. That’s not really the case anymore.
What stands out to me in your comment is the idea that Democrats were the party of “moving forward faster” and pushing real change. I understand why that felt true at the time, especially depending on what issues mattered most to you. But when I look at the Democratic Party today, I don’t see that same kind of focused, practical momentum. I see a lot of broad promises, a lot of messaging, but not a lot that actually translates into meaningful progress for everyday Americans.
And I think that’s where we probably see things very differently. From my perspective, the party today talks a lot about change, but what are they actually delivering that moves the country forward in a real, tangible way? Where are the policies that strengthen the economy, improve security, or make life more affordable without creating new problems? I don’t see a clear direction; I see a lot of reaction. I don't see them offering progress; I see them denaturing a lot of the progress we have made.
A couple things I’d genuinely ask you, because I think they get to the heart of it:
What specific policies from today’s Democratic Party do you feel are truly moving the country forward, not just sounding good, but actually producing results?
And compared to 2008, do you feel the party is more focused and grounded now, or more fragmented and driven by competing ideological agendas?
And when you look at their agenda, does it offer you something you have longed for?
From where I sit, the Republican Party under Trump shifted because people were tired of slow, cautious politics that didn’t deliver. You called conservatism “slow and tardy”, and I actually think that frustration is exactly what led to Trump. He’s not slow. He pushes, sometimes hard, sometimes messy, but he moves things. That’s a big reason I support him.
So I don’t see this as conservatives losing their way. I see it as adapting. And when I look at Democrats today, I don’t see a party that’s clearly moving the country forward; I see one that’s still trying to define what that even means.I look at the young College Republican spoken about at the beginning of the posted article. These are the people who Vance explains away as “boys being boys” after network chatter among them reveal racism, misogyny and xenophobia linked with every kind of violence and assault. Who expects me to not notice it? Who expects me to give any credibility to its leaders and platform when grown men behave like this? Even a KKK Klavern meeting employed more discretion in concealing the actual agenda. Trump is the symbol that lets the racist free to be the racist without criticism. There is no tryinf to excuse it as there is no acceptable excuse. I would believe that John McCain would not accommodate such absolutely trashy banter from GOP future leadership.
Even if the Democrats stood still, at least they don’t offer me a clearly hostile and reactionary alternative, taking things backwards. That is how i see Trump and MAGA and we can’t under those circumstances find any common ground. Even if the messaging from the Dems leave much to be desired, i wont support authoritarians as a substitute. That is why I can never support Trump for as far as I am concerned he is moving and accelerating in things the wrong way. But, that is to be expected, you are the rightwingers advocate and I definitely am not.
Getting to the heart of means it is always preferable when presented a choice to stay in place rather than move backwards. I am a liberal progressive type, moving forward faster, certainly does not apply to an administration and policies pulling the lever in full reverse.I hear you.
I don’t think it’s fair, or accurate, to take the worst examples of behavior from a handful of young Republicans and use that to define an entire movement or millions of voters. Every political group has fringe voices or people who say things that are offensive or out of line. I’ve seen plenty of examples on the left, too—whether it’s extreme rhetoric, hostility, or behavior that most reasonable people wouldn’t defend. The difference is, we tend to excuse our own side and magnify the worst of the other.
When it comes to Donald Trump, I don’t see him as a symbol that “frees racists.” I see someone who speaks bluntly, sometimes too bluntly, and that gets interpreted in the worst possible light by people who already dislike him. That doesn’t mean there aren’t people who latch onto his message for the wrong reasons, but that happens with any major political figure. It doesn’t define the whole.
I also think comparing today’s GOP to something like the KKK goes way too far. That kind of comparison shuts down any chance of real conversation. Most Republicans I know aren’t motivated by hate; they’re focused on things like the economy, border control, safety, and a belief that the country is heading in a direction they don’t recognize anymore.
As for someone like John McCain, I respected him too, but the party and the country have changed since his time. Some people feel that change was necessary because the old approach wasn’t working for them anymore.
On the “moving backwards” point, I think that depends on perspective. What you see as regression, others see as correcting course, whether that’s on immigration, crime, foreign policy, or cultural issues. And on the flip side, what’s called “progress” by some feels rushed or forced to others.
Do you think the behavior of a small group of college Republicans is representative of the entire Republican Party and its voters, or could that be an unfair generalization?
When you say things are “moving backwards,” what specific policies or outcomes are you pointing to, and how do you weigh those against the concerns others have about the current direction of the country?
At the end of the day, I don’t think either side has a monopoly on good intentions or bad behavior. But if we reduce each other to labels like “authoritarian” or “racist,” then yeah, it makes common ground almost impossible before the conversation even starts.You’re apologizing for inexcusable behavior once again, Sharlee. Geez, i was not born yesterday, here is the description of this college republican group.
—-
College Republicans is an umbrella term that describes college and university students who support the Republican Party of the United States. The leading national organization, College Republicans of America,[1] is the newest and largest group, created to align with President Donald J. Trump and the "America-First" agenda. The Republican Party is not affiliated with any college groups, although Republican Party members often benefit from college students' campaign efforts on their behalf.[2] Campus chapters may function independently, may be part of a statewide organization, or may be affiliated with a national alliance such as CRNC. The various campus-based Republican clubs function as recruitment organizations for the Republican Party and have produced many prominent Republican and conservative activists.
I don’t understand why the Vice President of the United States felt it necessary to weigh in defending the behavior of this organization unless there was a definite association between the group and the GOP itself. It is not insignificant, as on the contrary, it tells me who and what you actually are when you think no one is looking or listening.
What ever the Democrats are failing to do, the fact they are far more diverse than the Republican Party says that i will not hear comparable banter from its young leadership. And I have not heard it. It is not an unfair generalization as these are supposed to be the future leaders of the party. I don’t care for the direction to which the party has changed. I have read much of the comments from your heir apparent and hate seems pretty prominent to me. As a black man, my perspective on what is “moving forward” would naturally be invisible to you. It is not your fault, it is simply what you all are motivated to believe and observe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi … supremacy.
Granted, it is long, absorb as much as you have time to, but Trumps rap sheet encompasses a continent. At the minimum, at least the Democrats are not attacking me and mine in the same way. The man was creep going well back into the 1970”s and he is no better now. This is what i mean by driving things backwards, every thing Trump has touched has had that effect. It is not hard for me to determine which group or political party poses the greatest threat.
From the white supremist perspective, any attempt by the out group to insist on parity is perceived as rushing or forced. When the changes finally came, i am more than willing to say, that we have waited long enough.
Racism to the extent presented by Trump, administration and his followers will not be tolerated and will be a source of discomfort for us all where Iran, China, etc, will be reduced to mere scenery along the road.
Correcting what course on cultural issues?
So, what policies or proposals from the Democrats do you feel actually move you forward as an individual? This is a straightforward question, and I genuinely want to understand what they are offering that I might be missing. Did you see any meaningful, quick change under Obama or Biden?
I really want to understand your perspective. You speak of ideas that, logically, don’t seem to align with what the Democratic Party actually pursues. I hope you can offer some clear answers to my questions.
Just curious... just wonder what you think of:
UN adopts slave trade resolution
The United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution on Wednesday designating the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity.
The resolution calls on member nations to pursue reparatory justice, including formal apologies, restitution and compensation. It also demands the return of cultural artifacts, such as artworks, monuments and national archives, to their countries of origin. The United States, Israel and Argentina voted against the resolution. Deputy U.S. Ambassador Dan Negrea said before the vote that the U.S. “does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.”
...
So... out of curiosity who do you think pays "restitution"?
Do you think they will be able to go back a couple hundred years and target the companies that were responsible for it? Will they go after the Royal Family of the UK and Dutch nations to pay for it?
Or does the UN... in its wisdom... expect governments to pay for it... in particular the US government... which, by the way, is the American people... the taxpayer gets burdened with this.
The UN has proven over the last decade to very much be an enemy of American interests... from using billions of our taxdollars to fund the efforts to bring millions of migrants into America (which we then have to support with more tax dollars) ... to this nonsense.
Where are they in the efforts to combat terrorism?
Where are they in the efforts to stop TODAY's slavery?
Where are they in condemning the concentration camps run in China?
The UN has not just become useless, it has become a detriment to world order and the interests of the US.
Related Discussions
- 25
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 114 minutes ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 16
To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris
by Kathleen Cochran 21 months ago
Opinion David FrenchI believe life begins at conception. If I lived in Florida, I would support the state’s heartbeat bill and vote against the referendum seeking to liberalize Florida’s abortion laws. I supported the Dobbs decision and I support well-drafted abortion restrictions at the state and...
- 184
The End of Liberalism
by Alexander A. Villarasa 12 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism and Progressivism. Quite a leap this idea of Krauthammer's , liberals have...
- 31
How can any American support the Republican Party???
by Thomas Byers 12 years ago
How can any American support the Republican Party???They are out of touch with reality and really don't care about the middle class and poor. We can only hope that the Hispanic people will vote for the Democrats and keep a Republican President out of office any time in the near future. Have you...
- 342
Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
by Credence2 3 years ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...
- 28
Should Democrats get down in the dirt with Republicans?
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
One of the constant criticisms of the Democratic Party is that it plays too nice. They refuse to use the understanded, immoral, and unethical practices that MAUGA Republicans do. This is one reason pollsters are finding that is driving the Democratic Party's approval rating so low - to put it...