President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and this is why...

[BotanyBoy]

Is Denmark a socialist shithole? Sweden? Canada?

IDK about Denmark, but Sweden is more capitalist than the US and even though Canada economically is a little to the left of both is still mostly capitalistic.

Those are the countries liberals and members of the Democratic party suggest using a model to correct our massive income inequality and social welfare programs.

Liberals are not suggesting that.

Liberals are not concerned with income inequality.....leftist are. Liberals are ok with making money, having private property and freely exchanging that property, capitalism.

Social welfare is discussable but from a liberal perspective should be offered as a public service to all and provided for via equitable taxation.

Not through direct wealth redistribution programs and sure as fuck not through nationalizing entire markets/industries like the (D)'s are suggesting.

By the way I noticed you didn't actually condemn the Nazis. We'll all just go ahead and assume you agree that murdering millions of people, especially if they're Jewish, is just fine.

Your Antisemitism is showing again bot.

You'd be assuming wrong.

If I agreed with murdering millions of people I wouldn't have such a problem with socialism.

If I were an antisemite I wouldn't have married a Jewish woman.

You're just tossing lies around again because troll.

 

[Dumpington]

I've just read an excellent column by Andrew McCarthy on election meddling by officials in the U.S. government, and it's NOT who you think!

Remember in 2012 when our simpleton U.S. president (Barack Obama) laughed off Mitt Romney's criticism of Russia? Romney had just stated in the presidential debates that Russia was: “without question, our number-one geopolitical foe.” Barack's flippant reply: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Ha ha - how very funny! Except that nobody's laughing anymore!

That night, our sitting president informed Romney that “the Cold War’s been over for 20 years!” Do any Obama supporters feel a need to defend such stupidity today? Not a chance! After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, the Democrats decided that Russia WAS, in fact, a very serious threat, perhaps even as big a threat as climate change! Yes, Barack was wrong! They all admit it now!

But returning to the subject of Russian meddling in our election campaigns - way back in 1884, the famous “Lion of the Senate” - Massachusetts U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy - pleaded with Soviet dictator Yuri Andropov to help his U.S. Democratic Party put the skids on the upcoming Reagan landslide. Kennedy informed Andropov that “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet–American relations... these issues will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy then offered to visit Andropov in Moscow to provide Soviet officials with pointers on the challenges of nuclear disarmament “so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Having thus offered to help update Soviet propaganda, Kennedy further proposed arranging to have television networks give Andropov air time for “a direct appeal to the American people." Now THAT'S some serious collusion right there.

Thirty years later, President Obama sedulously worked against Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, first attempting to force progressives into his right-leaning governing coalition, and then using U.S. taxpayer funds to a failed effort to defeat Netanyahu in 2015. Nothing new there: Clinton had unsuccessfully tried to defeat Netanyahu nearly 20 years earlier, later telling Israeli television, “I tried to do it in a way that didn’t overtly involve me.”

Knowing what we know now, it would have been shocking if Moscow had NOT attempted to meddle in our 2016 election. But even if we accept at face value those assertions that Russia's President Putin wanted Trump to win, there is no reason to believe that Putin actually believed that Trump could pull it off! Trump accomplished THAT feat all on his own! And it's going to be a whole lot easier making it happen in 2020!

 

[jp55665566]

Originally Posted by dan_c00000
Those are the countries liberals and members of the Democratic party suggest using a model to correct our massive income inequality and social welfare programs.

Prosperity has more to do with freedom, than income. All people can prosper, regardless of income, when we have freedom from authoritarian Government.

 

[magicalmoments]

Encyclopedia Britannica has a pretty succinct definition.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

As a hardcore liberal myself, I don't think democracy has anything to do with it.

In fact democracy can very much be a threat to liberty if not constrained by rule of law as we in the US have done with our Bill of Rights....FORBIDDING our democratic government from infringing on certain rights of the individual. Having due process before the state violates individual liberty for very specific reasons, almost always for violating others individual liberty.

Because if the mob rules it will violate the individual, because the mob is not fair nor reasonable. History has proven this time and time again.

To me it's pretty clear that you have to in most cases prioritize individual liberty over collective/state authority to be considered liberal.

Interesting. we are not that far apart. I would maintain that we hold our individual liberty/freedoms/rights, however you want to style them, only with the consent of the majority. The majority set the the individual rights and the restraints and responsibilities that go with them, that is the things that prevent me from infringing on your personal freedoms while exercising my own.
Without the oversight of the majority individual freedoms mean nothing, in my opinion.
I believe that if we are going to have a form of government, and I believe human nature requires that we have some form of leadership, then democracy is the best form yet devised. As opposed to dictators, or ogliarchs, or monarchs or aristocracy or a council of elders.
I agree with you about mob rule. Mobs are not democracy in action, mobs generally are a specialist minority group within the community and act against the will of the majority because fundamentally they cannot accept the rule of law.

 

[dan_c00000]

IDK about Denmark

Of course you don't because you don't know anything. You're a proven anti-Semite. I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because those first three words tell us everything about you.

Sorry bot but you're a clueless bigot and you got owned, hard.

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes (to BotanyBoy): "Of course you don't because you don't know anything."

Seriously? - YOU'RE going to go around telling others that they don't know anything? YOU?

You're a proven anti-Semite, Dan. I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because those first three words tell us everything about you.

Sorry bot (that's my new nickname for you, Dan) - but you're also somewhat of a clueless bigot who just got owned, hard. If I don't tell you this, then somebody else will. (It's probably best if you hear it from me.)

You say you no longer celebrate the Fourth of July with U.S. flags because you find those to be symbols of racism and slavery - but you WILL celebrate at gay-pride parades (and will march with rainbow flags) because you believe that's what the modern Democratic Party represents here in America today? THIS is exactly why Trump won, Dan - and why he'll win again in 2020!

 

[icanhelp1]

Interesting. we are not that far apart. I would maintain that we hold our individual liberty/freedoms/rights, however you want to style them, only with the consent of the majority. The majority set the the individual rights and the restraints and responsibilities that go with them, that is the things that prevent me from infringing on your personal freedoms while exercising my own.
Without the oversight of the majority individual freedoms mean nothing, in my opinion.
I believe that if we are going to have a form of government, and I believe human nature requires that we have some form of leadership, then democracy is the best form yet devised. As opposed to dictators, or ogliarchs, or monarchs or aristocracy or a council of elders.
I agree with you about mob rule. Mobs are not democracy in action, mobs generally are a specialist minority group within the community and act against the will of the majority because fundamentally they cannot accept the rule of law.

That's why we are a republic. The majority cannot for the sake of being the majority deny equal rights to the minority or take control over the minority where the minority loses to the majority. I read many posters on LIT and for the most part ( minus DAN and his bullshit ) have surrounded what a Liberal, socialist, conservative, progressive is. I don't believe that's the issue. What's at issue is what is the Democratic party? What I see is, most democratic presidential candidates are whatever gets them votes. Trump derangement syndrome is a platform. Back 10 to 20 years ago you could define what a Liberal was and they could legislate with conservatives and pass some laws. Today you have TDS, free healthcare for all, free tuition for all, a porous national border, or no border at all. I have some liberal blood in me, I think most americans are liberal to a certain extent, but what we have today is a democratic party that has raced by their liberal progressive identity right into socialism where the government runs or provides everything, ( for free LOL ) If Warren has her way she'll tax business into bankruptcy to provide free stuff, it's all about confusing ( bullshitting ) people about getting free stuff, for votes. More government involvement in our day to day lives, redistribution of wealth means no wealth. Open borders means we will equalize to the lowest common denominator. Nationalism regardless of what race you are is an evil concept. The left has gone insane. Gone are the days of Tip O'Neil and Sam Nunn, truly great Democrats.

 

[magicalmoments]

That's why we are a republic. The majority cannot for the sake of being the majority deny equal rights to the minority or take control over the minority where the minority loses to the majority. I read many posters on LIT and for the most part ( minus DAN and his bullshit ) have surrounded what a Liberal, socialist, conservative, progressive is. I don't believe that's the issue. What's at issue is what is the Democratic party? What I see is, most democratic presidential candidates are whatever gets them votes. Trump derangement syndrome is a platform. Back 10 to 20 years ago you could define what a Liberal was and they could legislate with conservatives and pass some laws. Today you have TDS, free healthcare for all, free tuition for all, a porous national border, or no border at all. I have some liberal blood in me, I think most americans are liberal to a certain extent, but what we have today is a democratic party that has raced by their liberal progressive identity right into socialism where the government runs or provides everything, ( for free LOL ) If Warren has her way she'll tax business into bankruptcy to provide free stuff, it's all about confusing ( bullshitting ) people about getting free stuff, for votes. More government involvement in our day to day lives, redistribution of wealth means no wealth. Open borders means we will equalize to the lowest common denominator. Nationalism regardless of what race you are is an evil concept. The left has gone insane. Gone are the days of Tip O'Neil and Sam Nunn, truly great Democrats.

Well... I guess we are all entitled to our opinions and I'll defend to the death your right to express yours.
I do not see what being a republic has got to do with it. There are dozens of republics, plenty of failed and reinvented ones and a few that have managed to maintain individual freedoms including the USA. There are still a few constitutional monarchies that manage this as well. My point is: being republic is no guarantee of protection of the human rights of the minority. Plenty of evidence of that around the world.
I find your inability to contribute to this debate outside the context of the domestic politics of your republic appalling. Your inability to understand and debate what constitutes a liberal disturbing and if your garbled contribution is representative of the majority in your republic then I would think you are heading the same way as Zimbabwe or North Korea, both republics by the way.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well... I guess we are all entitled to our opinions and I'll defend to the death your right to express yours.
I do not see what being a republic has got to do with it. There are dozens of republics, plenty of failed and reinvented ones and a few that have managed to maintain individual freedoms including the USA. There are still a few constitutional monarchies that manage this as well. My point is: being republic is no guarantee of protection of the human rights of the minority. Plenty of evidence of that around the world.
I find your inability to contribute to this debate outside the context of the domestic politics of your republic appalling. Your inability to understand and debate what constitutes a liberal disturbing and if your garbled contribution is representative of the majority in your republic then I would think you are heading the same way as Zimbabwe or North Korea, both republics by the way.

The problem here is you want to steer the conversation in your direction. The original conversation was "president Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and this is why". I believe we're discussing U.S. internal politics and not the platonic essence of liberalism or communism.

It is quite common to start a discussion on politics and end with discussing the kind of fleas your dog has, or Dan calling everyone on LIT a RACIST, and so it goes with LIT.

I was discussing the fact that the U.S. is a constitutional republic which does protect the minority from the majority, it was designed that way for that specific reason. Our forefathers designed a government to equally represent all it's citizens where no one party or group could eradicate the other. Fair and equitable representation for all and for the protection against the oppressive rule of the British Monarchy that was King George III. Like mentioned in previous postings, we have 27 constitutional amendments and a bill of rights to protect its people from an adventurous government and most important for the protection of individual rights and liberties that we consider sacred. An individual is innocent till proven guilty and is guaranteed a speedy and fair trial and a jury by his/her ( or any other gender ) peers.

To insinuate that N Korea is a republic is quite intellectually dishonest, even for you. Just because you say something 'is' doesn't make it so. Maybe you don't understand the essence of a republic. The only person comparing our republic to other forms, failed or successful, is you, myself, I don't care, I'm discussing internal U.S. politics and how our democratic party in morphing into a so-called democratic socialist party and possibly a full blown socialist party. I'm sure that in Plato's dictionary, next to the word liberal is a picture of you. Personally, I don't give a fuck what you are, this discussion isn't about you or your liberal philosophy. Perhaps you should start your own thread and call it " I'm a liberal how bout you".

As far as mob rule, we've had mobs and riots all through our history, in some cases good and some bad. The Vietnam protest was an example of people resisting government outside the ballot box, demanding change in a failed policy. Government gone wrong and misrepresenting its people, sending their children to die in a foreign country to contain communism. Today we have ANTIFA an underground anti-fascist movement with roots to 1944 Germany, resisting, with violence, a manufactured and perceived threat against a very small faction of White Supremacist, perpetuated by political rhetoric, the media and the intellectual elite, already despised by most Americans. Also oppressing conservatives ( mob rule ) anarchy.

LOL! You must be related to RubenR, you have that same insulting arrogance about you. You being appalled is laughable, you take yourself way too seriously. Zimbabwe? Why not Ethiopia? I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian. I'm a strong proponent of free market capitalism and small government and despise wealth redistribution and certainly no for NHC. I don't want to create a dependent society. I payed my way through college and expect everyone else to do the same. I do believe we should have a safety net healthcare system to assist the less fortunate.

 

[jp55665566]

President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 because he is by far the best candidate.

 

[Dumpington]

jp55665566 writes: "President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 because he is by far the best candidate."

Exactly right! Even most of the evangelical-Trump-haters here on this forum are hesitant to promote any of the many Democratic Party contenders currently seeking their party's nomination, as those candidates are a bunch of LOONS!

The majority of Americans today believe that ours is an inherently good nation that continues its pursuit of a more perfect union - but NOT the modern politically-progressive left! No, progressive-Democrats believe that America is an inherently evil nation that must be transformed by them into an oppressive socialist state - like Cuba, or perhaps Venezuela!

For modern Democrats to succeed, they must distort and revile America’s history to destroy any truth of American Exceptionalism. If our nation's past is evil, then it only makes sense that the present must reject America’s history and its defenders - and embrace the dishonest leftist ideology of those who loathe the United States.

Before the age of Obama, both conservatives and liberals agreed that America was an exceptional, fundamentally decent nation - but differed in how to effectuate a more perfect union. This devolution has several causes, but notable is the increasingly incestuous relationship between the leftist media and left-wing academics.

Modern liberal are pushing a new narrative that America "grew out of slavery," pretty much IGNORING the historical fact that slavery existed EVERYWHERE before the United States came along in the world! Look at Colin Kaepernick's rejection of the "Betsy Ross flag" as a symbol of slavery! In past years, such a dumbass historical interpretation would be laughed off the stage - but not anymore! The folks at the Nike show company immediately ENDORSED his lunacy, with mainstream Democrats quickly falling in line!

The modern left's hatred of America is uniquely theirs - not ours - so why would anyone who rejects the hate-filled progressive ideology subsidize it with their hard-earned money, be it in subsidizing the Left’s brainwashing emporiums or subscribing to its propagandizing fanzines? As the esteemed Thomas Sowell instructs: “We are among the biggest fools in history if we keep on paying people to make us hate each other.”

http://www.relatably.com/q/img/racism-quotes/Thomas-Sowell-racism-quotes.jpg - (Thomas Sowell quote)

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-qu...-fundamental-charles-krauthammer-63-59-54.jpg - (Charles Krauthammer quote)

 

[JKendallDane]

The majority of Americans today believe that ours is an inherently good nation that continues its pursuit of a more perfect union - but NOT the modern politically-progressive left! No, progressive-Democrats believe that America is an inherently evil nation that must be transformed by them into an oppressive socialist state - like Cuba, or perhaps Venezuela!

Cut, paste, change three words

For modern Democrats to succeed, they must distort and revile America’s history to destroy any truth of American Exceptionalism. If our nation's past is evil, then it only makes sense that the present must reject America’s history and its defenders - and embrace the dishonest leftist ideology of those who loathe the United States.

Cut, paste, change two words

Before the age of Obama, both conservatives and liberals agreed that America was an exceptional, fundamentally decent nation - but differed in how to effectuate a more perfect union. This devolution has several causes, but notable is the increasingly incestuous relationship between the leftist media and left-wing academics.

Cut, paste, change five words

Cut, paste, change a few words, rinse repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat

And of course, THE most important part of the equation of any fucking plagiarist that Dump has down pat: Ignore ALL copyright claims, ignore ALL redistribution requirement statements, and DON'T EVER provide a link crediting where the words are actually coming from. In this case that would be: https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/16/the-mountebank-left-is-banking-on-you/

Dump...you are as pathologically psychotic as 45 because I'm beginning to think you actually believe you write your own posts.

.

 

[icanhelp1]

IDK about Denmark, but Sweden is more capitalist than the US and even though Canada economically is a little to the left of both is still mostly capitalistic.



Liberals are not suggesting that.

Liberals are not concerned with income inequality.....leftist are. Liberals are ok with making money, having private property and freely exchanging that property, capitalism.

Social welfare is discussable but from a liberal perspective should be offered as a public service to all and provided for via equitable taxation.

Not through direct wealth redistribution programs and sure as fuck not through nationalizing entire markets/industries like the (D)'s are suggesting.



You'd be assuming wrong.

If I agreed with murdering millions of people I wouldn't have such a problem with socialism.

If I were an antisemite I wouldn't have married a Jewish woman.

You're just tossing lies around again because troll.

I wonder how much the PC culture has destroyed the liberal ideology in our communities. Freedom of speech is not as protected, as it seems someone’s individual rights always seems to be trampled on whether real or perceived. It just appears someone is always offended and we have been over sensitized to the individual to a point where everyone is crying wolf. Protected speech is muted by its own protective environment. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the 1st amendment has become protecting the protections rather than protecting individual liberties.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Of course you don't because you don't know anything. You're a proven anti-Semite. I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because those first three words tell us everything about you.

Sorry bot but you're a clueless bigot and you got owned, hard.

Awwww someone is super triggered LOL

Proven anti-Semite? How do you explain the Jewish wife n' kids??? LOL

 

[BotanyBoy]

Interesting. we are not that far apart. I would maintain that we hold our individual liberty/freedoms/rights, however you want to style them, only with the consent of the majority. The majority set the the individual rights and the restraints and responsibilities that go with them,

To some extent I can agree with that...but not entirely.

that is the things that prevent me from infringing on your personal freedoms while exercising my own.

The only thing preventing that is your own moral creed, the social agreement most of us agree to and my personal resolve to prevent such violations.

Otherwise you could if you wanted to.

Without the oversight of the majority individual freedoms mean nothing, in my opinion.

That makes the majority just the new dictator...this is why it's good to temper democracy.

I believe that if we are going to have a form of government, and I believe human nature requires that we have some form of leadership, then democracy is the best form yet devised. As opposed to dictators, or ogliarchs, or monarchs or aristocracy or a council of elders.

Yes society needs some.

Some forms of democracy have done well but some have crashed and burned too.

Again, democracy has to be tempered or you just have a 51% tyranny....a civil right gone with a simple majority vote is no civil right at all.

I agree with you about mob rule. Mobs are not democracy in action, mobs generally are a specialist minority group within the community and act against the will of the majority because fundamentally they cannot accept the rule of law.

I'm not talking about a specialist minority group, I'm talking about 51% of the population voting to fuck the other 49% out of everything they got and strip them of their rights.

That's mob rule democracy.....there have to be things the 51% just can't do, there has to be government authority the 51% aren't allowed to abuse.

Otherwise "democracy" is just 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on what's for dinner.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wonder how much the PC culture has destroyed the liberal ideology in our communities. Freedom of speech is not as protected, as it seems someone’s individual rights always seems to be trampled on whether real or perceived. It just appears someone is always offended and we have been over sensitized to the individual to a point where everyone is crying wolf. Protected speech is muted by its own protective environment. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the 1st amendment has become protecting the protections rather than protecting individual liberties.

Liberalism in the west is in huge decline.

Socialism is super hot right now.

 

[jp55665566]

Liberalism in the west is in huge decline.

Socialism is super hot right now.

What are groups like ANTIFA? Mere socialists? How is a MSM permitted to continue deceiving the public with partisan coloring of National events? WTF is CNN?

 

[BotanyBoy]

What are groups like ANTIFA? Mere socialists? How is a MSM permitted to continue deceiving the public with partisan coloring of National events? WTF is CNN?

Most of them yes.

Because the MSM is mostly private media....they can be as partisan as they want.

Communist News Network.

 

[jp55665566]

Most of them yes.

Because the MSM is mostly private media....they can be as partisan as they want.

Communist News Network.

IYO... where can the public find unbiased "news"?

 

[Adre]

IYO... where can the public find unbiased "news"?

BBC basically reports events.

 

[AdrianHot]

Personally I proudly think of myself as a liberal.
I believe that the greatest social and political changes in the world have been instigated by liberals. Most of those who use the word "liberal" as an insult don't realise that their freedom to do so was won for them by liberals.
Being a liberal is something to celebrate, not condemn.

I would agree if I would think that the worlds history started with American Revolution. But it didn't. World is bigger place than USA and Worlds history is so much longer than history of USA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

IYO... where can the public find unbiased "news"?

IMO I dont think such a thing really exists.

Though I do think some journalist try harder than others to be impartial.

BBC basically reports events.

Yea, like CNN, Buzzfeed and Salon.

 

[Adre]

IYO... where can the public find unbiased "news"?

BBC basically reports events.

Yea, like CNN, Buzzfeed and Salon.

If you have specific examples of a significant BBC bias I’d like to see them. Or is this just you yapping?

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you have specific examples of a significant BBC bias I’d like to see them. Or is this just you yapping?

"Signifigant".....I like the subjective qualifier that explicitly implies you realize they lean left but also allows you to deny it's significance because that lean suits your bias.

You want to pretend the BBC is objective like knock yourself out, the name calling from you isn't worth the effort.

 

[jp55665566]

Any "news" source that overtly portrays President Trump as a racist is a propaganda outlet.