Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberalism is dead!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Liberalism is dead!

    The idea of Liberalism is pretty much dead in the USA. With Bernie running and Hillary running towards him it is pretty obvious now that the left has run from Liberalism and toward some weird form of Socialism. I don't even think that is debatable anymore. The question is , what form of Socialism is it? Its obvious its not a Swedish model. Too many angry and violent people pushing for it and demanding it. This is a weird time and incredibly violent. So much anger in the USA.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mystikeye View Post
    The idea of Liberalism is pretty much dead in the USA. With Bernie running and Hillary running towards him it is pretty obvious now that the left has run from Liberalism and toward some weird form of Socialism. I don't even think that is debatable anymore. The question is , what form of Socialism is it? Its obvious its not a Swedish model. Too many angry and violent people pushing for it and demanding it. This is a weird time and incredibly violent. So much anger in the USA.
    I am torn on this point of view, I think Hillary is a moderate liberal at heart but I also agree that it's rather obvious that the left here in the US is headed towards something resembling democratic socialism ... likewise the right seems to be headed towards some sort of European right wing populist/nationalism. I think the goal of Sanders all along has been to 'remake' the Democrats into a sort of American version of the British Labour Party before the Blairites came along and moderated the party.

    There won't be anyone to represent the moderate center-right Republicans like me

    Comment


    • #3
      What is the ultimate goal of this new liberal ideal?
      Answer that and the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

      Neither Sanders or Clinton are classic liberals. But neither is the party they are representing.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
        What is the ultimate goal of this new liberal ideal?
        Do you think there is an overarching goal that they are both working towards?
        They seem to hate each other. They seem to be very different people. I can't see sufficient commonality there to suggest a common agenda.
        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
          Do you think there is an overarching goal that they are both working towards?
          They seem to hate each other. They seem to be very different people. I can't see sufficient commonality there to suggest a common agenda.
          They are presently fighting to represent the liberal cause in the general election, so they both pander to the left.
          I am asking what is the ultimate goal of the people they are pandering to?
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            I am asking what is the ultimate goal of the people they are pandering to?
            In my opinion there are two types of voters.
            There are those who want to take more than they put in and then there are those who think the state should provide basic services, provide a floor below which no citizen should fall, but think people should essentially fend for themselves and should certainly be responsible for their own actions.

            One group want equality of outcome. The other wants equality of opportunity.


            I'm in the equality of opportunity camp.
            "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
            validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
            "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

            Comment


            • #7
              Hillary isn't a moderate anything. She's a Leftist that would gleefully be dictator in the Central American / South American mold. There's nothing in her past that says she's willing to compromise on anything.
              On the other hand when she doesn't get her way the bodies will start stacking up...

              Sanders. Dyed in the wool old school Leftist Socialist. His world died in the 1980's. He wants a legacy tour to remember the "Good old days..."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                In my opinion there are two types of voters.
                There are those who want to take more than they put in and then there are those who think the state should provide basic services, provide a floor below which no citizen should fall, but think people should essentially fend for themselves and should certainly be responsible for their own actions.

                One group want equality of outcome. The other wants equality of opportunity.


                I'm in the equality of opportunity camp.
                Yes,that's as long as there is a Level Playing Field to begin with :equality of opportunity in health and,particularly, education.

                It seems that to be called a "Liberal" on this forum is,in many cases, a term of abuse.
                Last edited by BELGRAVE; 25 Apr 16, 16:55.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Hillary isn't a moderate anything. She's a Leftist that would gleefully be dictator in the Central American / South American mold. There's nothing in her past that says she's willing to compromise on anything.
                  On the other hand when she doesn't get her way the bodies will start stacking up...

                  Sanders. Dyed in the wool old school Leftist Socialist. His world died in the 1980's. He wants a legacy tour to remember the "Good old days..."
                  That pretty much sums it up, couldn't agree more, Clinton is more dangerous because I doubt Sanders could get anything done.
                  Hillary on the other hand will have DC eating out of her clenched fist.
                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mystikeye View Post
                    The idea of Liberalism is pretty much dead in the USA. With Bernie running and Hillary running towards him it is pretty obvious now that the left has run from Liberalism and toward some weird form of Socialism. I don't even think that is debatable anymore. The question is , what form of Socialism is it? Its obvious its not a Swedish model. Too many angry and violent people pushing for it and demanding it. This is a weird time and incredibly violent. So much anger in the USA.
                    Government dependence, tax the rich and give to the lazy.
                    My worst jump story:
                    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                    No lie.

                    ~
                    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      That pretty much sums it up, couldn't agree more, Clinton is more dangerous because I doubt Sanders could get anything done.
                      Hillary on the other hand will have DC eating out of her clenched fist.
                      More like groveling at her boots as her thugs threaten to kill those that don't bow to the dictator...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        More like groveling at her boots as her thugs threaten to kill those that don't bow to the dictator...
                        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mystikeye View Post
                          The idea of Liberalism is pretty much dead in the USA. With Bernie running and Hillary running towards him it is pretty obvious now that the left has run from Liberalism and toward some weird form of Socialism. I don't even think that is debatable anymore. The question is , what form of Socialism is it? Its obvious its not a Swedish model. Too many angry and violent people pushing for it and demanding it. This is a weird time and incredibly violent. So much anger in the USA.
                          Try "national socialism". It fits the bill nicely, including all of the ramifications of following the German model, unless you prefer the other two models of massive government control - Italian Fascist socialism and Communist socialism.

                          Actually, we have become an "autocratic oligarchy" - ruled by the wealthy. However, the barking moonbat liberals remain all around us in their many guises.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                            Government dependence, tax the rich and give to the lazy.
                            To which the obvious solution is to become on of the lazy. The rich can't afford to support everyone.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                              Yes,that's as long as there is a Level Playing Field to begin with :equality of opportunity in health and,particularly, education.

                              It seems that to be called a "Liberal" on this forum is,in many cases, a term of abuse.

                              Because in America, the liberals are the ones most often abusing the many on behalf of the few.

                              Your form of politics is not our form of politics.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X