(12-21-2018 01:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  You don't even seem to understand how arrogant and smug many of your comments are.

I don't. I'm open if you point them out. I'm starting to suspect that you're just one of those people that is on this board because you like picking fights, though.

I feel like there are quite a few arrogant and smug comments by conservatives towards liberals, but that seems pretty standard.

(12-21-2018 11:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

Republicans learn their lesson, Democrats don't. (Strictly speaking to security and defense)

It's not that Demoncraps don't learn their lessons it's that they're all hypocrites. Take the case of the wall. There's Demons flailing their arms and raising their voices against it and at one time or another they've come out FOR the wall but since they lost and they hate Trump they're all of a sudden against it. There's videos of Schemer, Oblunder, Killary, Billy Bob, Biden all calling for the wall in years past.

Their religion is the religion of lies and deceit, it's that simple.

(12-21-2018 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 01:23 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 12:40 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrats hate America

I am aware that asking for self-awareness on this board is asking a lot.

And I know that trying to cooperatively examine the motivations for vitriol is a little naive on a board that exists for vitriol and has probably jettisoned cooperative people a long time ago.

But I don't really know where I would go to talk to liberals and I feel like I understand their flavor of hypocrisy anyways. And I thought I got conservatives until Trump.

Now I realize I don't understand conservatives at all and I never could have predicted the rise of Trump, nor the continued undying loyalty. So I'm trying to shift my perspective from small govt/big govt, hawk/dove, and the old ways of looking at things to something that explains the passion on both sides despite idealogical shifts.

Mindless talking points:
Shifts in foreign policy that don't exist
Ignoring the difference between strong defense and interventionism
Falsely claiming the same people bashing Obama are approving of Trump in Syria
Conservatives believe more in fake news (when liberals keep believing the proven lies in NYT and CNN)
Conservatives hate liberals and liberals are open to other ideas.
Undying loyalty to Trump
Conservatives brought about the rise of Trump

And you started out alright, but then started with your arrogant, smug, mindless talking points. Now you are getting angry because you are being called on it. If you had stuck to the article you would be ok here.

Trump isn't president because of conservatives. They supported Cruz and Carson. Trump is president because a huge swath of the country was ignored by BOTH parties for 30 years. Its a populist movement against a government that has helped the poor, foreigners and the top 30% of the population and made policies that helped those groups, often at the expense the middle 50%. I didn't get it at first, but I did live in some blue collar factory towns and it started to make sense.

To quote James Carville, "Its the economy, stupid." Most Democrats STILL don't get that. Life expectancy has declined in the US for 3 years running and 4 years running in the 45-54 age group. No age group had ever suffered a decline in life expectancy other than war and the 1919 flue pandemic prior to that, let alone the whole country. People are desperate. And of 22 candidates, Trump was the only one with empathy for them. For the rest, it was business as usual. Democrats lost because they not only ignored those people, they called them names and promised to eliminate their good paying jobs in the extraction industries.

It doesn't seem to me like you want to have an actual discussion (I could be wrong), but I'm ok with you and I just agreeing to disagree from here on out.

(12-21-2018 01:53 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 01:35 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I think the "America First" slogan captures the modern republican base, especially this forum, perfectly. Too long has 50% of the country sat by and watched the rest of the world prosper at our expense while the middle class in this country faltered. The progressive left wants everyone to be equal and the fact that conservatives do not want others to benefit from their hard work leads them to be labeled as racist because the majority of those that would benefit are minorities. I see it all the time on my facebook and I'm not talking about jobless college kids. I'm talking firm middle class people that fully support open boarders and medicare for all because they truly believe it is society's responsibility to make sure everyone has a decent quality of life. I respect them because they are willing to put their money where their ideals are even if I disagree with it completely.

To sum it up, basically conservatives think I work my ass off to support myself everyone else should do the same. Liberals think everyone should contribute to supporting everyone.

The vitrol comes from the liberals can't get their way without taking what the conservatives have earned and do not want to share. When it comes down to your ideas basically will end with you robbing me to fund them people are going to get a little pissed off.

Part of my question in posting the article is the search for an explanation that both sides can agree on. Is there a theory that both liberals and conservatives would look at and say, "Yeah, that sounds like me."

I really doubt that liberals look at themselves as the people that want to rob people to fund other people. Or even the people that want everyone to be equal. I think that's called Communist.

That's part of the problem. The left likes to point at the European countries as the model for how it can work, but it won't work here. Our populations are drastically different both in number and culture. To implement those kind of socialist policies in a country of our size it would take seizing healthcare from private companies because they would never accept the profit cuts it would take to make it work financially. It would take something more akin to Communism to make socialist ideals work in this country. Liberals may not look at themselves as people that want to rob paul to pay for peter's blood pressure meds, but what else could it be called?

There are probably quite a few things conservatives and liberals agree on, but the things they don't agree on are such deeply held beliefs it's always going to cause conflict.

(12-21-2018 02:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

Republicans learn their lesson, Democrats don't. (Strictly speaking to security and defense)

It's not that Demoncraps don't learn their lessons it's that they're all hypocrites. Take the case of the wall. There's Demons flailing their arms and raising their voices against it and at one time or another they've come out FOR the wall but since they lost and they hate Trump they're all of a sudden against it. There's videos of Schemer, Oblunder, Killary, Billy Bob, Biden all calling for the wall in years past.

Their religion is the religion of lies and deceit, it's that simple.

This is part of what I'm trying to understand. 'All Democrats are hypocrites' has not historically been a conservative view. Republicans and Democrats disagreed, but it was considered ok to be friends with people with opposite points of view.

Now, it seems like most conservatives I know think like this, that Democrats follow the religion of lies and deceit and half the country should be purged.

(12-21-2018 02:10 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  That's part of the problem. The left likes to point at the European countries as the model for how it can work, but it won't work here. Our populations are drastically different both in number and culture. To implement those kind of socialist policies in a country of our size it would take seizing healthcare from private companies because they would never accept the profit cuts it would take to make it work financially. It would take something more akin to Communism to make socialist ideals work in this country. Liberals may not look at themselves as people that want to rob paul to pay for peter's blood pressure meds, but what else could it be called?

There are probably quite a few things conservatives and liberals agree on, but the things they don't agree on are such deeply held beliefs it's always going to cause conflict.

I'm not saying that they have to agree on policy, but Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on the differences for the policy, right?

I hate USF and I think they're evil. I understand that they don't agree with that I think they're wrong. They usually think the opposite. But we can both agree on where the differences come from. I went to UCF and they went to USF and regardless of who is right, we can figure out where the perspectives diverged and it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the other side.

But it seems to be impossible explain the opposite side of politics without using some variation of 'they're stupid' or 'they don't understand fundamental truths about the world'.

There has to be a philosophical disagree that conservatives and liberals would both be ok with owning.

Also, the whole conservatives believe in religion, the liberals don't isn't really true and doesn't really explain anything about vitriol if it was.

The Republicans believe in Jesus so that's why they hate people with a liberal worldview so much? Jesus sounds great...
[/quote]

I've found that MOST Catholics are Democrats and most of it stems from the fact that they really don't know what the Bible tells us. They equate feelings as being right. Not according to the Bible, feelings will not open that heavenly gate for anyone, it's living by the law of God, not mans. Even the fact of food stamps for instance. In the Bible it states that he that does not work shall not eat. I assume it means those that CAN work not these that CHOOSE not to work. They believe that there should be open borders because "pobrecitos" (poor people) want to come and work whether they deserve it or not. Even getting into heaven requires rules and if you don't abide by those rules you "just ain't getting in". Heaven does have walls and a gate too.

Of all my friends who are Catholic I can say that about 95% are Liberal Democrats. If you don't believe me, ask your Catholic friends what political leanings they have. You won't be surprised because I already told you so.

(12-21-2018 02:17 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 02:10 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  That's part of the problem. The left likes to point at the European countries as the model for how it can work, but it won't work here. Our populations are drastically different both in number and culture. To implement those kind of socialist policies in a country of our size it would take seizing healthcare from private companies because they would never accept the profit cuts it would take to make it work financially. It would take something more akin to Communism to make socialist ideals work in this country. Liberals may not look at themselves as people that want to rob paul to pay for peter's blood pressure meds, but what else could it be called?

There are probably quite a few things conservatives and liberals agree on, but the things they don't agree on are such deeply held beliefs it's always going to cause conflict.

I'm not saying that they have to agree on policy, but Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on the differences for the policy, right?

I hate USF and I think they're evil. I understand that they don't agree with that I think they're wrong. They usually think the opposite. But we can both agree on where the differences come from. I went to UCF and they went to USF and regardless of who is right, we can figure out where the perspectives diverged and it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the other side.

But it seems to be impossible explain the opposite side of politics without using some variation of 'they're stupid' or 'they don't understand fundamental truths about the world'.

There has to be a philosophical disagree that conservatives and liberals would both be ok with owning.

Yes, in a pristine world this would be possible and you don't see politicians acting like this. What you have to consider is where you are seeing the vitrol. Facebook, this forum, etc you are seeing common American's blowing off steam. Both sides get stuck in their echo chambers where each are posting and reading cherry picked information that fuels their fires. Based on some of the things I read here you'd think Antifa was days away from launching the 2nd civil war. Their not and the only places they cause problems are in liberal enclaves.

You are way over thinking this. The internet is not a place for peaceful discourse. If you want that go back to UCF, rip down those stupid national championship banners, and find a professor to chit chat with over a latte

(12-21-2018 02:25 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Yes, in a pristine world this would be possible and you don't see politicians acting like this. What you have to consider is where you are seeing the vitrol. Facebook, this forum, etc you are seeing common American's blowing off steam. Both sides get stuck in their echo chambers where each are posting and reading cherry picked information that fuels their fires. Based on some of the things I read here you'd think Antifa was days away from launching the 2nd civil war. Their not and the only places they cause problems are in liberal enclaves.

You are way over thinking this. The internet is not a place for peaceful discourse.

I wish that were the case, I'm hearing these conversations with my friends, at work, at my church. Both sides saying they have no idea how the other side could consider them Christian/decent person.

That's why I'm on here discussing this stuff instead of with them. I don't care if y'all hate me, but even bringing up the possibility that Trump might have valid points or might be wrong on things breaks relationships these days.

(12-21-2018 02:25 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  If you want that go back to UCF, rip down those stupid national championship banners, and find a professor to chit chat with over a latte

Molon labe

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

But the implied issue there is that 'conservatives' have no problem with 'torture' overall. I find that implication rather grotesque. Yet that it is the pervasive worldview from some. Not meaning to be 'in your face', but from that short snippet it makes me wonder at the potential lack of objectivity from the author.

I'll read the article more fully --- but that snippet, when you look at the underlying premises, seems rather slanted in and of itself.

(12-21-2018 11:10 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:57 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

Did quick glance, the article is leftist trash.

I thought it was pretty fair. I can see how you wouldn't like the part about conservatives being more prone to misinformation, but I would think even conservatives would agree that there are more far-right 'personalities' than far left.

Define 'personalities', and define why the supposed 'additional personalities' makes any one side 'more prone to misinformation'?

I guess Robert O'Rourke and his empty air positions and statements and Bernie and his views that have no support in the historical record as ever being successful are *not* personalities?

(12-21-2018 11:10 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:57 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.
That would explain short term shifts.

Did quick glance, the article is leftist trash.

I thought it was pretty fair. I can see how you wouldn't like the part about conservatives being more prone to misinformation, but I would think even conservatives would agree that there are more far-right 'personalities' than far left.

I think that depends on how one defines “far left” and “far right.” If you define Britt Hume as far right and Chairman Mao as far left, sure. If you define Mark Levin as far right and Bill Clinton as far left, not so much.

The way I see it, conservatives prefer what Barry Goldwater called, “proven ways—not because they are old, but because they are true.” In that context, I wish conservatives were more willing to support things that have proved themselves elsewhere, like Bismarck health care and consumption taxes. Where conservatives lose me in when they start to support things not because they are true, but because they are old. I see the left as more willing to try unproved theoretical constructs, under the guise of “doing something.” Many times, their theories make things worse, not better.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn’t.

(12-21-2018 02:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  ? Anyone is welcome. I disagree though. A good case are the parents (White, E. Asian, Jews) in Manhattan fighting the school district that wants to put poor performing students (Blacks, C. American Hispanics) into the good schools and ship good performing students over to the bad schools. Those parents are largely Hillary voters.

From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

But the implied issue there is that 'conservatives' have no problem with 'torture' overall. I find that implication rather grotesque. Yet that it is the pervasive worldview from some. Not meaning to be 'in your face', but from that short snippet it makes me wonder at the potential lack of objectivity from the author.

I'll read the article more fully --- but that snippet, when you look at the underlying premises, seems rather slanted in and of itself.

Fair enough. There are a few parts that are unflattering to conservatives, but that necessarily make it untrue.

I didn't read that as conservatives have no problem with torture. My read is 'more fixed = more willing to support torture'. That makes sense to me. I felt that was true during 9/11 era that Republicans were more likely to support that, but that doesn't mean that all Republicans support or all Democrats oppose.

(12-21-2018 12:24 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:50 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:10 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:57 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:50 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  From the article: Take 9/11, for example. Americans across the worldview spectrum were petrified. In the short run, the more fluid became more willing to trade civil liberties for security, more willing to support the use of torture. The fixed were already likely to support those things before the attacks. As time passed, however, the fluid went back to valuing civil liberties and opposing torture. Their worldviews hadn’t changed.

That would explain short term shifts.

Did quick glance, the article is leftist trash.

I thought it was pretty fair. I can see how you wouldn't like the part about conservatives being more prone to misinformation, but I would think even conservatives would agree that there are more far-right 'personalities' than far left.

In looking at the article, what I see is it's written by Ezra Klein, and per his wiki bio in the first sentence :" left wing political commentator " - that tells me the slant he's going to present from right off the bat. As I suspected - that's exactly what he does, in my opinion. Nothing like painting with a broad brush.......and his view of painting conservatives in a poor light doesn't surprise me in the least.


Conservatives I think generally believe that the smaller government is, the better - they continually show us that they suck at whatever they try and run.....I think also conservatives believe that not trusting government is a good thing. Thinking they always have the people's best interests is not really how government works - they always take care of themselves first.....

Now, I suppose a lefty can somehow twist what I just said to try a paint me as a racist, bigoted, homophobe whose scared of my shadow because that's almost become the default, but whatever....

Klein is a liberal, but this is an interview (and a fair one to me) instead of an opinion article.

The small government thing doesn't make sense to me. Deficits and the size of the government did not exactly shrink during the current term or with George W. Bush.

I don't think anyone got racist, bigoted, homophobe from that post. Did you do an OK sign as you were typing and I just couldn't see it?

This shows that you simply dont understand the issue with large government that is held by conservatives/libertarians.

The core concept is the the ideal of a *limited* central government -- as opposed to an all encompassing government that can (and does) rule on a huge horizon of items, sometimes by diktat.

That is the key to all ideologies in the progressive 'family' -- modern liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism. They all hinge on the concept of government being the checkpoint to what *is* allowed and allowable. And the type of governmental control that each wishes is embodied in the liberal archetype of its view on the Constitution -- instead of the underlying legal basis of literally everything in this union being a matter of law, or a matter of text, the modern US liberal viewpoint strongly supports the notion of 'a living document' -- an ideal where circumstances dictate the *current* meaning (and rights and powers) of the Constitution. It literally embraces a concept of 'law de jour' (and I literally mean 'literally' there).

In pervasive libertarian mindset, the ideal is 'if circumstances change, then enact a law that addresses it, and have the legislators put their feet to the electoral fire for that'. The same applies to the Constitution.

So the key to the ideal of 'smaller government' tuns more precisely to the ideal that government is by defintion restrained by the rule of law, not the opposite in which it dictates law (for example the current administrative state and effective legislation through rule making).

Modern liberalism/progressivism *requires* not just big size government, but also requires the suspension of the concept of limited *power* government.

(12-21-2018 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Define 'personalities', and define why the supposed 'additional personalities' makes any one side 'more prone to misinformation'?

I guess Robert O'Rourke and his empty air positions and statements and Bernie and his views that have no support in the historical record as ever being successful are *not* personalities?

(12-21-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that depends on how one defines “far left” and “far right.” If you define Britt Hume as far right and Chairman Mao as far left, sure. If you define Mark Levin as far right and Bill Clinton as far left, not so much.

I'm ok letting go of the whole conservatives being more prone to disinformation for the sake of focusing on the primary discussion (EDIT: if need be).

But I am quite curious about this (because I thought everyone would agree there were more conspiracy theories on the right).

Y'all are correct, in order to figure out stuff like this, you need to have a truth baseline. I've typically used PolitiFact and FactCheck.org as good (though imperfect) ways to cut through the partisan BS, but I'm told that many Conservatives don't like these kind of non-profits.

Is there something (outside of right-wing media) that Conservatives would trust to tell them when Fox News or Limbaugh was distorting the truth?

(12-21-2018 01:53 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 01:35 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I think the "America First" slogan captures the modern republican base, especially this forum, perfectly. Too long has 50% of the country sat by and watched the rest of the world prosper at our expense while the middle class in this country faltered. The progressive left wants everyone to be equal and the fact that conservatives do not want others to benefit from their hard work leads them to be labeled as racist because the majority of those that would benefit are minorities. I see it all the time on my facebook and I'm not talking about jobless college kids. I'm talking firm middle class people that fully support open boarders and medicare for all because they truly believe it is society's responsibility to make sure everyone has a decent quality of life. I respect them because they are willing to put their money where their ideals are even if I disagree with it completely.

To sum it up, basically conservatives think I work my ass off to support myself everyone else should do the same. Liberals think everyone should contribute to supporting everyone.

The vitrol comes from the liberals can't get their way without taking what the conservatives have earned and do not want to share. When it comes down to your ideas basically will end with you robbing me to fund them people are going to get a little pissed off.

Part of my question in posting the article is the search for an explanation that both sides can agree on. Is there a theory that both liberals and conservatives would look at and say, "Yeah, that sounds like me."

I really doubt that liberals look at themselves as the people that want to rob people to fund other people. Or even the people that want everyone to be equal. I think that's called Communist.

But liberals/progressives *are* redistributionist in nature. Far more redistributionist than other ideologies in the US. That you cannot disagree with.

For the life of me I cannot think of a single bill championed by the progressive cause in the last 40 years that was not redistributionist in nature, in some form, in some matter.

And think about it, the modern views on Progressivism all have a fundamental and deep tie to the 'Positive Bill of Rights' championed by FDR. Even the catch all programs of the New Deal are intrinsically tied to this philosophical base --- i.e. that the the government's main role is to provide positive benefits to some subclass while being funded in a majority (it not total) way from others.

Even those programs that were not that in the beginning have been transmorgified to that end -- Social Security used to be defined simply as a piggy bank where you placed monies for your own Security. Now it is a program specifically funded by one class (who will never see any benefit to what they put in) for the benefit of other classes.

(12-21-2018 03:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This shows that you simply dont understand the issue with large government that is held by conservatives/libertarians.

The core concept is the the ideal of a *limited* central government -- as opposed to an all encompassing government that can (and does) rule on a huge horizon of items, sometimes by diktat.

That is the key to all ideologies in the progressive 'family' -- modern liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism. They all hinge on the concept of government being the checkpoint to what *is* allowed and allowable. And the type of governmental control that each wishes is embodied in the liberal archetype of its view on the Constitution -- instead of the underlying legal basis of literally everything in this union being a matter of law, or a matter of text, the modern US liberal viewpoint strongly supports the notion of 'a living document' -- an ideal where circumstances dictate the *current* meaning (and rights and powers) of the Constitution. It literally embraces a concept of 'law de jour' (and I literally mean 'literally' there).

In pervasive libertarian mindset, the ideal is 'if circumstances change, then enact a law that addresses it, and have the legislators put their feet to the electoral fire for that'. The same applies to the Constitution.

So the key to the ideal of 'smaller government' tuns more precisely to the ideal that government is by defintion restrained by the rule of law, not the opposite in which it dictates law (for example the current administrative state and effective legislation through rule making).

Modern liberalism/progressivism *requires* not just big size government, but also requires the suspension of the concept of limited *power* government.

This sounds more libertarian than conservative to me. And I don't think libertarians are even a simple majority of the Republican party these days.

That leads back to the question, what binds all these people together? Further, what binds these people together to barely support McCain, to be more passionate about Romney of all people, then to be motivated to support Trump at higher levels than any president I can recall?

(12-21-2018 03:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  'a living document' -- an ideal where circumstances dictate the *current* meaning (and rights and powers) of the Constitution. It literally embraces a concept of 'law de jour' (and I literally mean 'literally' there).

You completely lost me here. The ideal is literally embracing a concept?

(12-21-2018 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But liberals/progressives *are* redistributionist in nature. Far more redistributionist than other ideologies in the US. That you cannot disagree with.

For the life of me I cannot think of a single bill championed by the progressive cause in the last 40 years that was not redistributionist in nature, in some form, in some matter.

And think about it, the modern views on Progressivism all have a fundamental and deep tie to the 'Positive Bill of Rights' championed by FDR. Even the catch all programs of the New Deal are intrinsically tied to this philosophical base --- i.e. that the the government's main role is to provide positive benefits to some subclass while being funded in a majority (it not total) way from others.

Even those programs that were not that in the beginning have been transmorgified to that end -- Social Security used to be defined simply as a piggy bank where you placed monies for your own Security. Now it is a program specifically funded by one class (who will never see any benefit to what they put in) for the benefit of other classes.

I don't disagree on the point about redistribution. But liberals would not identify as redistributionist in philosophy (I'm pretty sure). They would say (I think) that redistribution is important now because of income inequality, but unnecessary if significant strides are made on income inequality.

Redistribution would be a means to an end (they would probably say that end is equal opportunity), not an end in itself (equality of outcome as has previously been argued).

But that doesn't work as a wedge philosophical difference because conservatives wouldn't label themselves as against equal opportunity (I don't think).

(12-21-2018 03:21 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Define 'personalities', and define why the supposed 'additional personalities' makes any one side 'more prone to misinformation'?
I guess Robert O'Rourke and his empty air positions and statements and Bernie and his views that have no support in the historical record as ever being successful are *not* personalities?

(12-21-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think that depends on how one defines “far left” and “far right.” If you define Britt Hume as far right and Chairman Mao as far left, sure. If you define Mark Levin as far right and Bill Clinton as far left, not so much.

I'm ok letting go of the whole conservatives being more prone to disinformation for the sake of focusing on the primary discussion (EDIT: if need be).
But I am quite curious about this (because I thought everyone would agree there were more conspiracy theories on the right).
Y'all are correct, in order to figure out stuff like this, you need to have a truth baseline. I've typically used PolitiFact and FactCheck.org as good (though imperfect) ways to cut through the partisan BS, but I'm told that many Conservatives don't like these kind of non-profits.
Is there something (outside of right-wing media) that Conservatives would trust to tell them when Fox News or Limbaugh was distorting the truth?

It all depends on what sets of prejudices you bring to the discussion. You admittedly lean left. I think that explains your, “more conspiracy theories on the right,” comment. And I think you probably reinforce those prejudices by relying on PolitiFact and FactCheck, both of which appear to have leftward slants.

From my perspective, there’s not a lot reported as news that is not true. I think the problems arise when you address the three issues of, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I don’t think there’s any source that delivers the whole truth. So you have to listen/watch/read multiple sources and put each one’s piece of the truth together with the others. I tend to like BBC and The Economist—BBC leans hard left and Economist leans libertarian to center left, but neither spends all day bashing Trump, and I can deal with their biases while can at least finding out what’s going on in Asia, Africa, and South America. And any source that includes commentary and punditry quickly violates the, “nothing but the truth,” standard.

(12-21-2018 03:31 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 03:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  'a living document' -- an ideal where circumstances dictate the *current* meaning (and rights and powers) of the Constitution. It literally embraces a concept of 'law de jour' (and I literally mean 'literally' there).

You completely lost me here. The ideal is literally embracing a concept?

The core concept of the "Living Document" theory of Constitutional interpretation is that the 'interpretation of the document *must* reflect the current society'. Thus the key underpinning of the theory is that any interpretation is dependent upon the point in time the relevant passage is examined.

"Rule de jour" means 'rule of the day' -- thus the concept of a Living Constitution interpretation is literally of a form of 'rule de jour'. Rule de jour is typically a perjorative in the courts and used to mock another's position that is..... let's say 'unique' and requires a large amount of novel contortions.

But the core idea of the living constitution is literally 'rule of the day', aside from the snide implication contained in the translated phrase of 'rule de jour' (as opposed to 'rule of law')