(11-20-2018 06:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad has not defined what is hard right, not even using his own common sense. So far, just parroting CNN. I have to admit, I expected more from Lad.


I support less regulation, targeted tax cuts, and border control. It seems those make up his list of "hard right" policies. But i don't consider myself or others like me "hard right". To me, "hard right" are the neo nazis. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal. I guess the left just needs racists to be against in the same way Quixote needed windmills to tilt at.

Tanq has vehemently denied that neo nazis are far right, for starters.

Overall, hard right policies consist primarily of policies to “starve the beast,” less government (the less the better), hawkish stances towards war, decreased immigration, and so on.

No one has really suggested the policies I brought up weren’t conservative and on the far right of the political spectrum, just that they agreed with the approach and think that it was the correct approach.

I suggest they are NOT on the far right of the political spectrum.

Hawkish stances toward war? Specifically? I am for standing up to tyrants, not for kissing their rears. In this respect I consider Trump much better for the country than Obama.

"Decreased" immigration is a relative term. You imply that the current level is ideal, or that to reach an ideal level we need more, not less. I don't know what the current level is, or what the ideal level is, but I cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that decreased levels would be better. Why is more automatically better? I can think of lots of things in which less might be better. What is the problem with less of this instead of more?

And of course, for me those statements apply only to legal immigration. The ideal level for illegal immigration is zero, and so I think less than we have now is better. Differentiating between legal and illegal seems to be one of those hard right thingies. The left just cannot see the difference.

I am beginning to think that you consider anything right of left center as the Hard Right. Maybe that is the problem, as I would consider the hard right to be the rightmost 10% or so of the "spectrum", and you seem to think it is any nonDemocrat.

>> less government (the less the better)

So in your mind anarchists are the ultimate hard right, correct?

I would correct your perceptions.

Right-ist theories are typically rooted in 'equality of access', 'equality in process', and adherence to a process.

First your 'the less government the better' is a stupid caricature (and rather grossly broad stroke) of many branches. Most are actually rooted in the founding documents and the ideal of a limited form of central, federal government. And many actually accept the idea of an large, state government --- the idea of many differing labs, so to speak. With the freedom to 'pick your lab' if you so choose.

If one assumes that the only significant well of governmental power in the United States *should be* the Federal government your pithy description might be spot on. But again, that seems to be another massive differential between 'rightists' and progressives. Your deletion of that other source of significant governmental power is either a basic, fundamental, stupid mistake, but it could be just as well a pathology of your political leaning

=============================

Right-ist policies are not necessarily 'hawkish stances towards war', again kind of a gross over generalization. Rightists typically believe in a strong ability to defend both US lives and US interests. If you want to call that 'hawkish .... towards war' you are free to make any type of definition you wish to. But there is a big honking difference between being pro- strong defense policies and 'hawkish .... towards war.'

I guess if that is a 'tell' for 'hard-right' then Woodrow Wilson, FDR, *and Johnson are three of the biggest 'hard righties' this country has ever seen. Funny, I have never heard them characterized as such.


As for decreased immigration, when you add the tiny lil ol adjective of 'illegal' in front of it I would say for once you might be spot on. Funny how you keep missing that adjective.

I dont think many 'hard rights' are anti-immigration overall as you so opine; perhaps the difference is that the right sees the United States as a 'if you can really contribute, hop aboard' as opposed to 'keep the door open for guests, Marge'. I guess in that regard, since I dont open my door and flag every single passenger in every single car that comes into my cul-de-sac to come in and make themselves a guest, I am a 'hard-right' homeowner.

So I take it from your own self-description of hard right being more for decreased immigration, then the converse of open borders is a true calling card of the hard-left?

(11-20-2018 07:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> less government (the less the better)

So in your mind anarchists are the ultimate hard right, correct?

I would correct your perceptions.

Right-ist theories are typically rooted in 'equality of access', 'equality in process', and adherence to a process.

First your 'the less government the better' is a stupid caricature (and rather grossly broad stroke) of many branches. Most are actually rooted in the founding documents and the ideal of a limited form of central, federal government. And many actually accept the idea of an large, state government --- the idea of many differing labs, so to speak. With the freedom to 'pick your lab' if you so choose.

If one assumes that the only significant well of governmental power in the United States *should be* the Federal government your pithy description might be spot on. But again, that seems to be another massive differential between 'rightists' and progressives. Your deletion of that other source of significant governmental power is either a basic, fundamental, stupid mistake, but it could be just as well a pathology of your political leaning

=============================

Right-ist policies are not necessarily 'hawkish stances towards war', again kind of a gross over generalization. Rightists typically believe in a strong ability to defend both US lives and US interests. If you want to call that 'hawkish .... towards war' you are free to make any type of definition you wish to. But there is a big honking difference between being pro- strong defense policies and 'hawkish .... towards war.'

I guess if that is a 'tell' for 'hard-right' then Woodrow Wilson, FDR, *and Johnson are three of the biggest 'hard righties' this country has ever seen. Funny, I have never heard them characterized as such.


As for decreased immigration, when you add the tiny lil ol adjective of 'illegal' in front of it I would say for once you might be spot on. Funny how you keep missing that adjective.

I dont think many 'hard rights' are anti-immigration overall as you so opine; perhaps the difference is that the right sees the United States as a 'if you can really contribute, hop aboard' as opposed to 'keep the door open for guests, Marge'. I guess in that regard, since I dont open my door and flag every single passenger in every single car that comes into my cul-de-sac to come in and make themselves a guest, I am a 'hard-right' homeowner.

So I take it from your own self-description of hard right being more for decreased immigration, then the converse of open borders is a true calling card of the hard-left?

To your last comment - isn’t that what you’ve been telling me? That the far left is for open borders?????

I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

(11-20-2018 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

Right eye or left eye?

(11-20-2018 09:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 07:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> less government (the less the better)

So in your mind anarchists are the ultimate hard right, correct?

I would correct your perceptions.

Right-ist theories are typically rooted in 'equality of access', 'equality in process', and adherence to a process.

First your 'the less government the better' is a stupid caricature (and rather grossly broad stroke) of many branches. Most are actually rooted in the founding documents and the ideal of a limited form of central, federal government. And many actually accept the idea of an large, state government --- the idea of many differing labs, so to speak. With the freedom to 'pick your lab' if you so choose.

If one assumes that the only significant well of governmental power in the United States *should be* the Federal government your pithy description might be spot on. But again, that seems to be another massive differential between 'rightists' and progressives. Your deletion of that other source of significant governmental power is either a basic, fundamental, stupid mistake, but it could be just as well a pathology of your political leaning

=============================

Right-ist policies are not necessarily 'hawkish stances towards war', again kind of a gross over generalization. Rightists typically believe in a strong ability to defend both US lives and US interests. If you want to call that 'hawkish .... towards war' you are free to make any type of definition you wish to. But there is a big honking difference between being pro- strong defense policies and 'hawkish .... towards war.'

I guess if that is a 'tell' for 'hard-right' then Woodrow Wilson, FDR, *and Johnson are three of the biggest 'hard righties' this country has ever seen. Funny, I have never heard them characterized as such.


As for decreased immigration, when you add the tiny lil ol adjective of 'illegal' in front of it I would say for once you might be spot on. Funny how you keep missing that adjective.

I dont think many 'hard rights' are anti-immigration overall as you so opine; perhaps the difference is that the right sees the United States as a 'if you can really contribute, hop aboard' as opposed to 'keep the door open for guests, Marge'. I guess in that regard, since I dont open my door and flag every single passenger in every single car that comes into my cul-de-sac to come in and make themselves a guest, I am a 'hard-right' homeowner.

So I take it from your own self-description of hard right being more for decreased immigration, then the converse of open borders is a true calling card of the hard-left?

To your last comment - isn’t that what you’ve been telling me? That the far left is for open borders?????

I have stated that before, that in my opinion many on the left *are* for open borders or far more lax borders.

The question to you still stands, regardless of how *I* may have characterized it. Why should you care about *my* view on what the left stance is on the subject when the question is about your comments impliedly state about the stance.

You have stated here that a 'far-right' policy is *less* immigration than left, correct or incorrect?

It stands to logic that a 'far-left' position would be the antithesis of the the 'far-right' position, correct or incorrect?

The antithesis of the a 'much, much less immigration' would then be a 'much, much more immigration, correct or incorrect?

So as much as 'closed borders' stands in your book for the furthest of the right, using your own principles, 'open borders' should stand for the furtherst of the left, correct or incorrect?

You seemingly have pretty much vindicated the expression of very loose borders, or open borders, being the position of the hard-left in your characterization, have you not?

If so, thank you for that clarification that you have just provided. If so, I also guess we can put that age-old question to bed for a long, long time....

(11-20-2018 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

To be blunt its complicated, Lad. At the extremes of what is commonly called far right and far left -- they are essentially the same; at those far edges they are both not that far from the native socialist strain that the 'far right' and 'far left' are both birthed from. And at the far edges they both succumb to the ideal of totalitarianism (albeit with property being titled differently...)

And even in the more moderate sense, one has to remember that the 'right' (and the term 'left', to a lesser degree) are hardly monolithic. There are massive differences between libertarian bents, social conservatives, and a whole plethora of others that are commonly called out as 'righties'. And I am far from being innocent in using the term 'left' and 'right' in a way too broad manner.

If you would prefer, I would be happy to answer your question if you wish to limit the 'left' group to my perception of progressivism in the United States. I'll let you pick the subset of 'right' that you think best fits *your* perception of 'hard-right' and I will try to do the same for my perception of those as well.

To be further blunt, I think that most of the issues that they look at differently have deep roots into the philosophy of *what* the formation of the United States *is* as a matter of the core documents and centers of power in the US.

(11-20-2018 11:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

To be blunt its complicated, Lad. At the extremes of what is commonly called far right and far left -- they are essentially the same; at those far edges they are both not that far from the native socialist strain that the 'far right' and 'far left' are both birthed from. And at the far edges they both succumb to the ideal of totalitarianism (albeit with property being titled differently...)

And even in the more moderate sense, one has to remember that the 'right' (and the term 'left', to a lesser degree) are hardly monolithic. There are massive differences between libertarian bents, social conservatives, and a whole plethora of others that are commonly called out as 'righties'. And I am far from being innocent in using the term 'left' and 'right' in a way too broad manner.

If you would prefer, I would be happy to answer your question if you wish to limit the 'left' group to my perception of progressivism in the United States. I'll let you pick the subset of 'right' that you think best fits *your* perception of 'hard-right' and I will try to do the same for my perception of those as well.

To be further blunt, I think that most of the issues that they look at differently have deep roots into the philosophy of *what* the formation of the United States *is* as a matter of the core documents and centers of power in the US.

Huh, so with such a nuanced view on what constitutes what hard-left and hard-right encompasses, why did you feel the need to call out my response George's post, and not George's post?

George used the same sweeping language yet you only felt the need to try and ring my bell over my rebuttal.

Funny that.

(11-21-2018 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

To be blunt its complicated, Lad. At the extremes of what is commonly called far right and far left -- they are essentially the same; at those far edges they are both not that far from the native socialist strain that the 'far right' and 'far left' are both birthed from. And at the far edges they both succumb to the ideal of totalitarianism (albeit with property being titled differently...)

And even in the more moderate sense, one has to remember that the 'right' (and the term 'left', to a lesser degree) are hardly monolithic. There are massive differences between libertarian bents, social conservatives, fiscal coserand a whole plethora of others that are commonly called out as 'righties'. And I am far from being innocent in using the term 'left' and 'right' in a way too broad manner.

If you would prefer, I would be happy to answer your question if you wish to limit the 'left' group to my perception of progressivism in the United States. I'll let you pick the subset of 'right' that you think best fits *your* perception of 'hard-right' and I will try to do the same for my perception of those as well.

To be further blunt, I think that most of the issues that they look at differently have deep roots into the philosophy of *what* the formation of the United States *is* as a matter of the core documents and centers of power in the US.

Huh, so with such a nuanced view on what constitutes what hard-left and hard-right encompasses, why did you feel the need to call out my response George's post, and not George's post?

George used the same sweeping language yet you only felt the need to try and ring my bell over my rebuttal.

Funny that.

Because what policy positions Obama took tended to be highly collectivist --- a hallmark of what is commonly considered 'leftist' by most. But they were also positions that tended to be promulgated by fascist regimes (i.e. which have the same base vein of socialist thought behind them).

I guess that you dont believe, then, that a hallmark of what many think of as 'left' is collectivist in nature? That is a (limited) definition I can live with. And yes, most can translate George's comments to the 'left' and replace that term with most of the common terms (i.e. modern liberalism, US progressivism.) Are these the groups you want me to 'observe'?

I dont think there is much doubt that many (most) who subscribe the one dimensional view of political orientation place collectivism at the 'left', is there? Or do you disagree with this?

Another hallmark of collectivist/socialist/left/progressive is the far more firm belief in and use of central government power to shape very detailed behavior. To the exclusion and huge preemption of local (or even state) government power. In short, the collectivist point of view tends to run to the 'collectivism' of governmental power and regulation as well as that of property rights and dictating of individual action.

And, many strains that are not within the strictly totalitarian purview of the collectivist school tend to promote the ideals of 'positive rights' for individuals (kind of like Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights), especially when government is to be the provider and source of the goods and services. That is, they like the concept of positive rights except when they are described as 'natural rights' for those constructs that they do not like, interestingly.

So you are correct that I can probably 'translate' the term 'left' to such groups that tend to really enjoy or promote the ideals of collectivism as a very broad stroke, coupled with the comments about the trend to emplacing centralist power in a single governmental entity. Again, the fascists of 1900-1930 *also* shared these traits of collectivism (at least in the social sense) and a belief in the strong central governmental model -- this is why the 'national *socialists*' are called such and why they were loved by the new progressives in the Western countries in the 20's and 30's -- they share the same roots.

Now, turning to the right, I cant find such a common thread. I mean right off the bat I can name neoliberal economics, libertarianism, corporatism, Burkean conservatists, classical liberalism, so called neo-cons, social conservatives and about a dozen fing other groupings that for some reason all tend to be called 'right'. Each has a hugely differing idea and ideals (and therefore policy goals) than the others, across both economic, social, and individual rights spectra. Which do you want to talk about Lad? Or do you just want to pout about the pretty substantial and deep differences that exist in what is commonly believed to be 'the right'? And the differences go way beyond your 10 nm purview of what the 'right' is. I mean, the comment that the 'right' 'likes or promotes war better' is such a kneejerk stupid comment given the strains that it really borders on political and/or philosophical malpractice.

Criminy, I'm supposedly a fing hard rightist and *I* can't even define the term 'the right' when it comes to what the common policies are. I am glad we have your expert view to guide us.

And by the way Lad, you are correct the difference on yours and George's post was that I asked you what 'hard-right' was. That is calling you out? Far from it. What I called you out on was the 10nm deep answer given to that. I am still enjoying you classifying LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson as 'far right' per your response. Really glad to know the promulgator of the 2nd Bill of Rights, one of the most collectivist calls in US history, is 'far right' in your estimation.

(11-21-2018 08:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 11:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d love to know what far right policies are and what far left policies are in your eyes.

To be blunt its complicated, Lad. At the extremes of what is commonly called far right and far left -- they are essentially the same; at those far edges they are both not that far from the native socialist strain that the 'far right' and 'far left' are both birthed from. And at the far edges they both succumb to the ideal of totalitarianism (albeit with property being titled differently...)

And even in the more moderate sense, one has to remember that the 'right' (and the term 'left', to a lesser degree) are hardly monolithic. There are massive differences between libertarian bents, social conservatives, fiscal coserand a whole plethora of others that are commonly called out as 'righties'. And I am far from being innocent in using the term 'left' and 'right' in a way too broad manner.

If you would prefer, I would be happy to answer your question if you wish to limit the 'left' group to my perception of progressivism in the United States. I'll let you pick the subset of 'right' that you think best fits *your* perception of 'hard-right' and I will try to do the same for my perception of those as well.

To be further blunt, I think that most of the issues that they look at differently have deep roots into the philosophy of *what* the formation of the United States *is* as a matter of the core documents and centers of power in the US.

Huh, so with such a nuanced view on what constitutes what hard-left and hard-right encompasses, why did you feel the need to call out my response George's post, and not George's post?

George used the same sweeping language yet you only felt the need to try and ring my bell over my rebuttal.

Funny that.

Because what policy positions Obama took tended to be highly collectivist --- a hallmark of what is commonly considered 'leftist' by most. But they were also positions that tended to be promulgated by fascist regimes (i.e. which have the same base vein of socialist thought behind them).

I guess that you dont believe, then, that a hallmark of what many think of as 'left' is collectivist in nature? That is a (limited) definition I can live with. And yes, most can translate George's comments to the 'left' and replace that term with most of the common terms (i.e. modern liberalism, US progressivism.) Are these the groups you want me to 'observe'?

I dont think there is much doubt that many (most) who subscribe the one dimensional view of political orientation place collectivism at the 'left', is there? Or do you disagree with this?

Another hallmark of collectivist/socialist/left/progressive is the far more firm belief in and use of central government power to shape very detailed behavior. To the exclusion and huge preemption of local (or even state) government power. In short, the collectivist point of view tends to run to the 'collectivism' of governmental power and regulation as well as that of property rights and dictating of individual action.

And, many strains that are not within the strictly totalitarian purview of the collectivist school tend to promote the ideals of 'positive rights' for individuals (kind of like Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights), especially when government is to be the provider and source of the goods and services. That is, they like the concept of positive rights except when they are described as 'natural rights' for those constructs that they do not like, interestingly.

So you are correct that I can 'translate' the term 'left' to such groups that tend to really enjoy or promote the ideals of collectivism.

Now, turning to the right, I cant find such a common thread. I mean right off the bat I can name neoliberal economics, libertarianism, corporatism, Burkean conservatists, classical liberalism, so called neo-cons, social conservatives and about a dozen fing other groupings that for some reason all tend to be called 'right'. Each has a hugely differing idea and ideals (and therefore policy goals) than the others, across both economic, social, and individual rights spectra. Which do you want to talk about Lad? Or do you just want to pout about the pretty substantial and deep differences that exist in what is commonly believed to be 'the right'? And the differences go way beyond your 10 nm purview of what the 'right' is. I mean, the comment that the 'right' 'likes or promotes war better' is such a kneejerk stupid comment given the strains that it really borders on political and/or philosophical malpractice.

Criminy, I'm supposedly a fing hard rightist and *I* can't even define the term 'the right' when it comes to what the common policies are. I am glad we have your expert view to guide us.

Well that's a fun perspective - twist yourself into such a pretzel that literally using the term "far right" is impossible because it doesn't exist. That is a brilliant strategy.

Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout (albeit this second time because the explanation denoted the big differences). I guess anything past "right means you like war better" is kind of hard for you to wrap your arms around?

And by the way Lad, you are correct the difference on yours and George's post was that I asked you what 'hard-right' was. That is calling you out? Seriously? Far from it.

Do you agree that the term 'left' typically connotes collectivist philosophy behind it? Or is that an issue for you as well?

What I called you out on was the 10nm deep answer given to that. I am still enjoying you classifying LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson as 'far right' per your response. Really glad to know the promulgator of the 2nd Bill of Rights, one of the most collectivist calls in US history, is 'far right' in your estimation.

I am so sorry that my view of 'right' doesnt comport with your watercolors.

(11-21-2018 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout.

Ah yes, because I'm the ONLY person on this board who has ever used a broad generalization about a group that could easily be identified (as you so eloquently put it) as a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition." This board would be such a worse place without you policing people for using a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition."

Of course no brand of politics consists of a monolith - to assume that I'm completely unaware of that, especially when I've made that argument many times, is hilarious. However, since we were already speaking in generalities, I felt it wasn't inappropriate to continue that line of conversation.

I see literally zero value in going down this rabbit hole you want to go down - all you'll do is try is argue semantics, like we did last week about the word "discrimination." It's become incredibly tiresome to debate like this over, and over, and over, and over again.

You win - Trump has no policies that would be considered to be on the far-right side of the conservative spectrum. He is truly a middle of the road president!

(11-21-2018 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout.

Ah yes, because I'm the ONLY person on this board who has ever used a broad generalization about a group that could easily be identified (as you so eloquently put it) as a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition." This board would be such a worse place without you policing people for using a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition."

Of course no brand of politics consists of a monolith - to assume that I'm completely unaware of that, especially when I've made that argument many times, is hilarious. However, since we were already speaking in generalities, I felt it wasn't inappropriate to continue that line of conversation.

I see literally zero value in going down this rabbit hole you want to go down - all you'll do is try is argue semantics, like we did last week about the word "discrimination." It's become incredibly tiresome to debate like this over, and over, and over, and over again.

You win - Trump has no policies that would be considered to be on the far-right side of the conservative spectrum. He is truly a middle of the road president!

Please do tell where I say or imply that Trump is a 'middle of the road' President? Far from it.

And Lad, when you complain so vociferously about my 'policing' kneejerk characterizations, I guess you missed the post where according to you 'hard-right == more warlike'. I am sure that was *not* a kneejerk characterization in any way, shape, or form.

By the way, I still have no idea what 'hard-right side of the conservative spectrum' is -- that is except for your CNN-based (or so I gather) self-definition of what 'hard-right' is.

(11-21-2018 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout.

Ah yes, because I'm the ONLY person on this board who has ever used a broad generalization about a group that could easily be identified (as you so eloquently put it) as a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition." This board would be such a worse place without you policing people for using a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition."

Of course no brand of politics consists of a monolith - to assume that I'm completely unaware of that, especially when I've made that argument many times, is hilarious. However, since we were already speaking in generalities, I felt it wasn't inappropriate to continue that line of conversation.

I see literally zero value in going down this rabbit hole you want to go down - all you'll do is try is argue semantics, like we did last week about the word "discrimination." It's become incredibly tiresome to debate like this over, and over, and over, and over again.

You win - Trump has no policies that would be considered to be on the far-right side of the conservative spectrum. He is truly a middle of the road president!

Please do tell where I say or imply that Trump is a 'middle of the road' President? Far from it.

And Lad, when you complain so vociferously about my 'policing' kneejerk characterizations, I guess you missed the post where according to you 'hard-right == more warlike'. I am sure that was *not* a kneejerk characterization in any way, shape, or form.

By the way, I still have no idea what 'hard-right side of the conservative spectrum' is -- that is except for your CNN-based (or so I gather) self-definition of what 'hard-right' is.

You're taking umbrage with the fact that I characterized people on the far right as being more willing and apt to use military force? I must have missed the boat when Republicans started becoming doves... Really?

And you're never going to have any idea what "hard-right" is because you've twisted yourself into a world where that term doesn't exist. So I could keep explaining my view of what would characterize people who are on the far right side of the political spectrum and you would keep saying "I don't see it, I don't see it."

(11-21-2018 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout.

Ah yes, because I'm the ONLY person on this board who has ever used a broad generalization about a group that could easily be identified (as you so eloquently put it) as a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition." This board would be such a worse place without you policing people for using a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition."

Of course no brand of politics consists of a monolith - to assume that I'm completely unaware of that, especially when I've made that argument many times, is hilarious. However, since we were already speaking in generalities, I felt it wasn't inappropriate to continue that line of conversation.

I see literally zero value in going down this rabbit hole you want to go down - all you'll do is try is argue semantics, like we did last week about the word "discrimination." It's become incredibly tiresome to debate like this over, and over, and over, and over again.

You win - Trump has no policies that would be considered to be on the far-right side of the conservative spectrum. He is truly a middle of the road president!

Please do tell where I say or imply that Trump is a 'middle of the road' President? Far from it.

OK, so let's work through the logic here. Trump isn't middle of the road. So that must mean he's out on one side of the spectrum. Is he generally out on the left-side of the spectrum? Or is he generally sitting out to the right? Hhmmmmmmm

Hard left and hard right to me are encapsulated in Charlottesville. The hard right, once again, to me, are the neo nazis. The white supremacists who want blacks shipped back to Africa. The people who think they are a sovereign state. The hard left are Antifa. The people who brook no opposition to the path they deem correct. The ones who don't mind beating you into rightthink.

I think most of the Democrats are far closer to Antifa than than most of the Republicans are to the neonazis. Democrats are far less tolerant of other-think. Just look at the responses to the common sense position that we should be voting on internal factors, not externals. Look at their opposition to the tax cuts and the need to demonize anybody who thinks we need border control. Look at the characterization of wanting a strong defense and not backing down to petty dictators as wanting war. Democrats think we should give up our lunch money to avoid starting a fight. Then they characterize those who won't give up their lunch money as warmongers.

What wars has Trump started with his hard right love of a good bombing?
Why is more legal immigration better than less?
Why is defending our borders a bad thing?

(11-21-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OK, so let's work through the logic here. Trump isn't middle of the road. So that must mean he's out on one side of the spectrum. Is he generally out on the left-side of the spectrum? Or is he generally sitting out to the right? Hhmmmmmmm

Let's.

Let's say Trump is not in the center (although I truly believe he is closer to the center than many republicans and certainly closer to the center than someone like Bernie on the left). He is right of center. I'd say he is about as far right of center as Bill Clinton was left of center, at least when he was president.

But your assertion has not been to link Trump with policies of the far right. And there is no credible thought process by which Trump is far right. Yes, some people on the far right like Donald Trump. But that's because he is closer to their way of thinking than anyone left of center is.

(11-21-2018 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hard left and hard right to me are encapsulated in Charlottesville. The hard right, once again, to me, are the neo nazis. The white supremacists who want blacks shipped back to Africa. The people who think they are a sovereign state. The hard left are Antifa. The people who brook no opposition to the path they deem correct. The ones who don't mind beating you into rightthink.
I think most of the Democrats are far closer to Antifa than than most of the Republicans are to the neonazis. Democrats are far less tolerant of other-think. Just look at the responses to the common sense position that we should be voting on internal factors, not externals. Look at their opposition to the tax cuts and the need to demonize anybody who thinks we need border control. Look at the characterization of wanting a strong defense and not backing down to petty dictators as wanting war. Democrats think we should give up our lunch money to avoid starting a fight. Then they characterize those who won't give up their lunch money as warmongers.
What wars has Trump started with his hard right love of a good bombing?
Why is more legal immigration better than less?
Why is defending our borders a bad thing?

Agree 100%. The right recognizes the hard right and calls them out. The left recognizes the hard left and embraces them.

(11-21-2018 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better than a fing watercolor kneejerk definition.

Offer still stands: which branch of 'conservatism' do you want addressed?

Funny thing I told you it wasnt monolithic and you pouted about that, then I explain that it isnt monolithic and you still pout.

Ah yes, because I'm the ONLY person on this board who has ever used a broad generalization about a group that could easily be identified (as you so eloquently put it) as a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition." This board would be such a worse place without you policing people for using a "fing watercolor kneejerk definition."

Of course no brand of politics consists of a monolith - to assume that I'm completely unaware of that, especially when I've made that argument many times, is hilarious. However, since we were already speaking in generalities, I felt it wasn't inappropriate to continue that line of conversation.

I see literally zero value in going down this rabbit hole you want to go down - all you'll do is try is argue semantics, like we did last week about the word "discrimination." It's become incredibly tiresome to debate like this over, and over, and over, and over again.

You win - Trump has no policies that would be considered to be on the far-right side of the conservative spectrum. He is truly a middle of the road president!

Please do tell where I say or imply that Trump is a 'middle of the road' President? Far from it.

And Lad, when you complain so vociferously about my 'policing' kneejerk characterizations, I guess you missed the post where according to you 'hard-right == more warlike'. I am sure that was *not* a kneejerk characterization in any way, shape, or form.

By the way, I still have no idea what 'hard-right side of the conservative spectrum' is -- that is except for your CNN-based (or so I gather) self-definition of what 'hard-right' is.

You're taking umbrage with the fact that I characterized people on the far right as being more willing and apt to use military force? I must have missed the boat when Republicans started becoming doves... Really?

I think your characterization is rather stupid. Please do tell where LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson sit in your 'crystal and sparkling' view of the world? Each one of those were far more than willing and far more that apt to use military force --- even without formal declarations of war. Hell, two of them drive us into global conflicts. Or do you not realize that? Yet each of those three is as much of a collectivist as anyone that has ever visited this forum.

In my lifetime, far more fing bullets have been shot, more bombs tossed, etc by supposed left-wing Presidents than supposed right-wing (whatever the fk that is) Presidents. Kind of blows the **** out of your dove/hawk self-definition. But since that span of time doesnt include a good number of years you have the ability to discern, you just 'toss that into the hamper'? Good for you.

By the way, you are aware that most people who tend to be termed 'isolationist' in the media are also characterized by the watercolor set as 'right', correct? That is fing odd, both 'isolationist' and 'warlike' (the absolute fing antithesis of isolationist, if you hadnt already noticed.) Good god, are you really going down myna bird path, simply parroting whatever you hear?

Quote:And you're never going to have any idea what "hard-right" is because you've twisted yourself into a world where that term doesn't exist. So I could keep explaining my view of what would characterize people who are on the far right side of the political spectrum and you would keep saying "I don't see it, I don't see it."

I will ask you a third time -- which identified 'branch' of the right would you like me characterize?

Simply put, I feel somewhat comfortable stating that what are termed 'the left' shares at least a modicum of collectivist thought, with more than a scintilla of policing that collectivist thought through direct, central, governmental action.

And you are correct, I cannot identify 'traditional' right-ist thought. Not a pretzel, it is taking the fing time to understand what the different philosophies are lumped together rather piecemeal under that rubric. But I guess it is easier when you let CNN tell you what is 'right' and 'hard-right' and parrot those characterizations.

I would say that one whom identifies as right would probably identify with the base concepts of:

federalism as opposed to highly strengthened Federal government;
neoliberal economic thought as opposed to keynesian viewpoints, or opposed to more collectivist viewpoints;
strong idea of 'rights' as 'negative rights' (i.e. as limitations on governmental power as opposed to 'slurpees for all');
freedom of religion for individuals;
freedom of expression for individuals;
proponents of equality of access as opposed to equality of results;
stronger belief of 'process rights';
rule of law vs rule de jour
very much non-collectivist

And also, for the third time, I do feel comfortable in assigning the following 2 broad characteristics to 'left' -- a much stronger belief in collectivism than not; a much stronger belief in and wish for an stronger, activist, central government. I think we can all agree on those characteristics? Given that, yes, I can see George's characterization of Obama as dead set 'left' (for want of a better term.)

But I also see in Trump at least a streak of a want for a stronger, activist, central government. In that respect Trump very much fits the paradigm of what we a denoting as a 'leftist'.

And for the third time, the *only* distinction I gave between you and George was 'what constitutes 'right-wing''. And, if you feel empowered to answer with a surfical knee jerk response to that question (and unfairly, it is a question that *I* would find hard to answer well) then yes, I will call that out.

I think your delineation on 'anti-immigrant', 'voter suppression', 'warlike' is amazingly superficial tbh. But I also find the terminology of 'hard left' and 'hard right' to be same -- It's great for CNN and for those that watch CNN for the implants. But you get your panties in wad when I point that out for some reason.

(11-19-2018 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Minority (in name only -- literally)

Edited to add: Now I am really pissed at my family for not naming me Geraldo.....

My legal first name came from my father - I am a "Jr."

His was given to him by his Anglo father in large part because it has no spanish counterpart - he had seem to many Rays become Ramons, etc.

But all of us here on the Parliament knew Beto was not Hispanic in the least. But just like in texas, in a national election he will get millions of votes because of his "Hispanic heritage" and the desire of so many to "be a part of making history".

If it makes you feel better, my guess is he would also get a lot of people to vote for his opponent for the exact same reason.

yeah, Ted Cruz sure benefited from that anti-hispanic voting bloc. People voting for him thought Cruz was a German name, I guess.

It is the left that chooses its nominees and votes on the basis of race and sex. We need more women! We need more Hispanics!