What has become of conservatism?

[Deleted]

We had a lot of a Progressiveness from both parties, mainly this severely anti-Conservative mantra of Change and Progress, but one party cloaked it in American advancement and supposed greatness.

In the End, Centre-Left and Centre-Right parties mostly towed a similar line and had similar goals. Globalization by Imperium was still the mantra of the political elite.

Do you never tire of casting pearls before swine? You always sound like you are at philosophical debating society in Oxford or something. You know no one is really going to understand you here right? Just curious.

[Caolela]

Do you never tire of casting pearls before swine? You always sound like you are at philosophical debating society in Oxford or something. You know no one is really going to understand you here right? Just curious.

I understand Theo perfectly well, advanta, and he's correct. Except I'd have described them as right-wing and further right-wing or hard right, not Center-Left and Center-Right.

Both major parties are owned by corporate interests in this country. We live in an inverted totalitarian system. Or an oligarchy. Or plutocracy. Or fascism as FDR once described, what Mussolini called corporatism. Pick your flavor.

You're also right in the sense that much of this flies clear over the heads of a lot of people here, regardless if it's discussed at 4th grade reading level or something a bit more advanced.

[Theodarzna]

Do you never tire of casting pearls before swine? You always sound like you are at philosophical debating society in Oxford or something. You know no one is really going to understand you here right? Just curious.

Boredom. Profound boredom right now.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand Theo perfectly well, advanta, and he's correct. Except I'd have described them as right-wing and further right-wing or hard right, not Center-Left and Center-Right.

Both major parties are owned by corporate interests in this country. We live in an inverted totalitarian system. Or an oligarchy. Or plutocracy. Or fascism as FDR once described, what Mussolini called corporatism. Pick your flavor.

You're also right in the sense that much of this flies clear over the heads of a lot of people here, regardless if it's discussed at 4th grade reading level or something a bit more advanced.

I think the labels of Left and Right are not even helpful terms anymore IMHO. Do they even mean anything? If most Left Wing parties have more or less bent the knee to Capitalism and much of the Left is unconcerned with the bad parts of Globalization, why even bother with it?

I would say an obsessive love of a peculiar form of Capitalism is now an article of faith among the elite, be they elite who look like Mitt Romney or elite who look like Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny.

At the end of the day the real differences between most mainstream parties is nothing save for some sliver of social issues matters. Heck most garden variety Democrats or Labor voters you find in these major wealthy urban metropolis' are completely asleep to the problems marching across the planet or outright deny them.

The populist right has emerged to at the very least to put the breaks on the process of Globalization that Centre-Left and Centre-Right parties have both jacked off to.

The Left in America needed Bernie Sanders and I suspect that he will die long before he can save them. The Right? Well, we wait and see what Trump actually does.

[cubby]

Thank you for dodging the question put to you, I'll try it again... You mean making decisions based on someone's color isn't racist? Yes or No... it is really that simple.

No, it's not racist. Let me ask you a rejoinder: do you know why it's not racist?

[Dadwen]

No, it's not racist. Let me ask you a rejoinder: do you know why it's not racist?

ok I'll bite, you're saying if someone won't vote for someone because of their color like say the only reason they would not have voted for Obama is because he was black, is not being racist?
I have to admit I'm curious how you come by that result?

[Barnabas]

Another liberal author still not looking at how it all went wrong for them.

[cubby]

ok I'll bite, you're saying if someone won't vote for someone because of their color like say the only reason they would not have voted for Obama is because he was black, is not being racist?
I have to admit I'm curious how you come by that result?

That is racist - but that is NOT what he said.

Because that, by the very definition I linked, is not what racism is - the very thing he asked for it precisely what I provided. Racism is not making choices based on color. So picking a black person over a white person for President isn't racist - just like it isn't racist to pick a white person over a black person. The color of their skin is merely a contributing factor.

Look, I've been around these forums long enough to know you're more than likely going to take this down to some asinine discussion. But I implore you - look at the definition provided, that he asked for, and ask yourself is picking Obama because he's black racism, defined as:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

[Dadwen]

That is racist - but that is NOT what he said.

Because that, by the very definition I linked, is not what racism is - the very thing he asked for it precisely what I provided. Racism is not making choices based on color. So picking a black person over a white person for President isn't racist - just like it isn't racist to pick a white person over a black person. The color of their skin is merely a contributing factor.

Look, I've been around these forums long enough to know you're more than likely going to take this down to some asinine discussion. But I implore you - look at the definition provided, that he asked for, and ask yourself is picking Obama because he's black racism, defined as:

his quote in your post -

You mean making decisions based on someone's color isn't racist? Yes or No... it is really that simple.

and ya a white person only voting for a white person against a black person because of skin color is just as racist as a black person voting for a black against a white person only because of skin color, if that is all your making your decisions off of.

not seeing how basing your decision off of skin color alone can be anything but racist?

and ask yourself is picking Obama because he's black racism, defined as:

that def you linked was number 1, there were two more under it you know?

and number - 3 racial prejudice or discrimination which is linked to - Prejudice a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

so ya it is if you voted for him and against the other one because of color alone.

Honestly using your own words you're the only one seeming to be making a

asinine discussion

here...

[Sierra85]

The Left in America needed Bernie Sanders and I suspect that he will die long before he can save them.

Bernie will die within the next 4 years, it was foretold by Nostradamus and other leading prophecies. However the left now need to put their faith into Elizabeth Warren. She will run in 2020 and she has now gained enough momentum to beat Trump (or pence, probably Pence cause trump will get impeached if we are still following the prophecies).

[Barnabas]

Boredom. Profound boredom right now.

- - - Updated - - -



I think the labels of Left and Right are not even helpful terms anymore IMHO. Do they even mean anything? If most Left Wing parties have more or less bent the knee to Capitalism and much of the Left is unconcerned with the bad parts of Globalization, why even bother with it?

I would say an obsessive love of a peculiar form of Capitalism is now an article of faith among the elite, be they elite who look like Mitt Romney or elite who look like Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny.

At the end of the day the real differences between most mainstream parties is nothing save for some sliver of social issues matters. Heck most garden variety Democrats or Labor voters you find in these major wealthy urban metropolis' are completely asleep to the problems marching across the planet or outright deny them.

The populist right has emerged to at the very least to put the breaks on the process of Globalization that Centre-Left and Centre-Right parties have both jacked off to.

The Left in America needed Bernie Sanders and I suspect that he will die long before he can save them. The Right? Well, we wait and see what Trump actually does.

If you want to pay insane taxes for pittance move to sweden. When you realize how dumb it is and want to make more money move back.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie will die within the next 4 years, it was foretold by Nostradamus and other leading prophecies. However the left now need to put their faith into Elizabeth Warren. She will run in 2020 and she has now gained enough momentum to beat Trump (or pence, probably Pence cause trump will get impeached if we are still following the prophecies).

Establishment people won't win. Dems have nobody yet that can win at this point in 2020. We'll see who makes moves in the next 4 years.

[Wells]

Establishment people won't win. Dems have nobody yet that can win at this point in 2020. We'll see who makes moves in the next 4 years.

That's an interesting assumption on a sample size of....one guy who couldn't even win the popular.

[Cyanu]

what has become of conservatism?

conservatism historically has been the ideology of the ruling elite of the feudal times, it adapted the fact that it's elite was no longer that elite by opening to wider audiences aiming to attract them mostly via religion

as time passed it adopted the strictly financial part of liberalism and married liberalism's 'dog eats dog' economic model with it's own dark age ideals on social matters (xenophobia, homophobia, anti-abortion and all that jazz)

the majority of the voters are de facto stupid as they are practically voting against their interests and their lives keep getting worse, so the said voters keep getting angry

when you mix stupid and angry you what do you get? brexit, Trump, Lepen etc

[Barnabas]

That's an interesting assumption on a sample size of....one guy who couldn't even win the popular.

clinton still lost. she is establishment. she had the biggest name. the most money. think again about running an establishment figure next time.

[Elegiac]

clinton still lost. she is establishment. she had the biggest name. the most money. think again about running an establishment figure next time.

We had a non-establishment candidate this election?

[Caolela]

I think the labels of Left and Right are not even helpful terms anymore IMHO. Do they even mean anything? If most Left Wing parties have more or less bent the knee to Capitalism and much of the Left is unconcerned with the bad parts of Globalization, why even bother with it?

I would say an obsessive love of a peculiar form of Capitalism is now an article of faith among the elite, be they elite who look like Mitt Romney or elite who look like Jessica Valenti or Laurie Penny.

At the end of the day the real differences between most mainstream parties is nothing save for some sliver of social issues matters. Heck most garden variety Democrats or Labor voters you find in these major wealthy urban metropolis' are completely asleep to the problems marching across the planet or outright deny them.

The populist right has emerged to at the very least to put the breaks on the process of Globalization that Centre-Left and Centre-Right parties have both jacked off to.

The Left in America needed Bernie Sanders and I suspect that he will die long before he can save them. The Right? Well, we wait and see what Trump actually does.

Agreed, there's no point to the traditional terms of Left and Right in the U.S. anymore, since they've both been usurped by rabid, destructive capitalism. In Europe, America’s Democratic Party would be a far-right party. The Republican Party would be extremist. There is no liberal - much less left or progressive - organized political class in the U.S.

Bernie Sanders never was the answer for liberals or progressives. You can't call yourself a socialist when you routinely back appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare, wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He campaigned for Clinton in the '92 and '96 elections - after Clinton had rammed through NAFTA, greatly expanded the system of mass incarceration and destroyed welfare.

Sanders has a quid pro quo arrangement with the Dems. They don't run a serious candidate against him in VT for his Senate seat. As part of the deal, he serves one of the main impediments to building a third party in Vermont. If Sanders defies the Dem. Party he will be stripped of his seniority in the Senate and lose his committee chairmanships. The party machine will turn him into a pariah and push him outside the political establishment. That's why he capitulated early in the campaign and said he'd back whoever the Dem. nominee turned out to be.

As for Trump and his ilk in the Repub. Party, the growth of protofascists will be stopped only when a movement on the left embraces an unambiguous policy to defend the rights of working people and move toward the reining in of corporate power. As long as the left keeps surrendering to a Dem. Party that hawks liberal values while serving corporate interests, it will destroy itself and the values it claims to represent. It will empower the most racist and retrograde political forces in the country. Fascism thrives not only on despair, betrayal and anger but a bankrupt liberalism.

[Wells]

clinton still lost. she is establishment. she had the biggest name. the most money. think again about running an establishment figure next time.

You're making very concrete claims off a sample size of one election. Good luck.

[Theodarzna]

If you want to pay insane taxes for pittance move to sweden. When you realize how dumb it is and want to make more money move back.

I am not per say against a welfare state but I do agree with Hayek in that a country cannot have a generous welfare state AND open borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie will die within the next 4 years, it was foretold by Nostradamus and other leading prophecies. However the left now need to put their faith into Elizabeth Warren. She will run in 2020 and she has now gained enough momentum to beat Trump (or pence, probably Pence cause trump will get impeached if we are still following the prophecies).

I am a bit skeptical of warren as a serious fighter. She has potential but she is curiously absent on a lot of fights and her base is left confused by those incidences.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie will die within the next 4 years, it was foretold by Nostradamus and other leading prophecies. However the left now need to put their faith into Elizabeth Warren. She will run in 2020 and she has now gained enough momentum to beat Trump (or pence, probably Pence cause trump will get impeached if we are still following the prophecies).

I am a bit skeptical of warren as a serious fighter. She has potential but she is curiously absent on a lot of fights and her base is left confused by those incidences.

[Seranthor]

No, it's not racist. Let me ask you a rejoinder: do you know why it's not racist?

So a white person that refused to vote for Obama because he was black isn't racist? If it is not racist, yea, please tell me why it isn't racist.

[Bullettime]

I am not per say against a welfare state but I do agree with Hayek in that a country cannot have a generous welfare state AND open borders.

- - - Updated - - -



I am a bit skeptical of warren as a serious fighter. She has potential but she is curiously absent on a lot of fights and her base is left confused by those incidences.

- - - Updated - - -



I am a bit skeptical of warren as a serious fighter. She has potential but she is curiously absent on a lot of fights and her base is left confused by those incidences.

Would have loved to see a ticket of something like Sanders-Gabbard in 2020, even though the Dems can't afford to lose both in the Senate unfortunately. Would have had Sanders at the helm for name value and to hammer policy/get people fired up then Gabbard as the youthful charismatic moderate Dem to appeal to the more center crowd and take over the helm if Sanders croaks.

If nothing else, that's definitely a ticket that could have fired up some voters to hit the polls.

[Dadwen]

So a white person that refused to vote for Obama because he was black isn't racist? If it is not racist, yea, please tell me why it isn't racist.

going off number 3 of the definition for racist he linked he was pretty much full of crap
3: racial prejudice or discrimination which is linked to - Prejudice a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

So by going by the above, it would seem using any prejudice about race to vote for or against anyone (and using that as your only factor for your judgement) petty much defines being a racist. (Prob why he just thrown the "asinine discussion" comment at me and never really answered on the thread page before this one).