Google Biased Toward CNN & Left Media in Mass Shooting Coverage - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15026911
What is the deep state?


It is something so absolutely obvious for the entire history of the US and other countries that it has been discovered by the special snowflakes who thought they ought to own it.

It has come as a life changing surprise to them that there exists in the machinery of government and industry a force that seeks to maintain the status quo despite the vagaries of politics.

It is the General who, despite the president's tampering attempts to maintain the traditions and practices that have protected us for generations.

It is the civil servant who, knowing that tampering with some environmental regulations will devastate one area or another, quietly resists the efforts of the temporary occupants of the Whitehouse or congress.

It is the business owner who quietly moves behind the scenes to prevent disruption of our economy for temporary political cache.

It is the police chief who maintains a steady hand on her department despite the popularity of radical change.

It is the intelligence officer who decides what information to give to the leadership based upon his/her very real beliefs about what is (and usually always has been) important.

It the American career diplomat who assures a foreign leader that we are not about to go off of our rails and that normalcy will return soon.

In other words, Rancid, it is the natural force called inertia. It is inherently conservative by definition. It consists largely of people convinced by years of experience that what we have is doing just fine and that there is little reason to break it. It is institutional memory. It remembers what happened the last time someone tried to reinvent the wheel.

It is not corrupt. It is usually not illegal. It is rarely despotic in any way. It is a force for the normal, the mundane and the usual.

Certain right wing people, like Brietbart News have glomed onto the term and used it to describe some nefarious star-chamber, pulling the strings of government and industry while resisting their efforts to change the nation forever.

The fact is that there is no member of this "group" who knows he/she is a member. There are meetings. They are the everyday machinations of government and industry. No locked doors. No secret handshake. No whispered telephone calls. Just the everyday "death by powerpoint" meetings you, as an engineer and leader of your organization, have all too often been forced to attend. It is just people trying to do the best that they can, given the training, resources and scope they have already had, doing their jobs. Sometimes to the chagrin of the summer help we call government.

I do not fear the deep state. It may well have been that I was a small part of it from time to time. Certainly if someone accused me of being a "deep state operative" I would laugh and buy them a ticket to the next Bond movie. But maybe in one or more of my hundreds of government and industry meetings I have furthered the aims and goals of the deep state. I sure hope so. I am proud of my efforts to make my little piece of government and industry run better and maintain it effectiveness for the benefit of the organization and the country in general.

That work for you Rancid?
#15026912
Drlee wrote:It is something so absolutely obvious for the entire history of the US and other countries that it has been discovered by the special snowflakes who thought they ought to own it.

It has come as a life changing surprise to them that there exists in the machinery of government and industry a force that seeks to maintain the status quo despite the vagaries of politics.

It is the General who, despite the president's tampering attempts to maintain the traditions and practices that have protected us for generations.

It is the civil servant who, knowing that tampering with some environmental regulations will devastate one area or another, quietly resists the efforts of the temporary occupants of the Whitehouse or congress.

It is the business owner who quietly moves behind the scenes to prevent disruption of our economy for temporary political cache.

It is the police chief who maintains a steady hand on her department despite the popularity of radical change.

It is the intelligence officer who decides what information to give to the leadership based upon his/her very real beliefs about what is (and usually always has been) important.

It the American career diplomat who assures a foreign leader that we are not about to go off of our rails and that normalcy will return soon.

In other words, Rancid, it is the natural force called inertia. It is inherently conservative by definition. It consists largely of people convinced by years of experience that what we have is doing just fine and that there is little reason to break it. It is institutional memory. It remembers what happened the last time someone tried to reinvent the wheel.

It is not corrupt. It is usually not illegal. It is rarely despotic in any way. It is a force for the normal, the mundane and the usual.

Certain right wing people, like Brietbart News have glomed onto the term and used it to describe some nefarious star-chamber, pulling the strings of government and industry while resisting their efforts to change the nation forever.

The fact is that there is no member of this "group" who knows he/she is a member. There are meetings. They are the everyday machinations of government and industry. No locked doors. No secret handshake. No whispered telephone calls. Just the everyday "death by powerpoint" meetings you, as an engineer and leader of your organization, have all too often been forced to attend. It is just people trying to do the best that they can, given the training, resources and scope they have already had, doing their jobs. Sometimes to the chagrin of the summer help we call government.

I do not fear the deep state. It may well have been that I was a small part of it from time to time. Certainly if someone accused me of being a "deep state operative" I would laugh and buy them a ticket to the next Bond movie. But maybe in one or more of my hundreds of government and industry meetings I have furthered the aims and goals of the deep state. I sure hope so. I am proud of my efforts to make my little piece of government and industry run better and maintain it effectiveness for the benefit of the organization and the country in general.

That work for you Rancid?


Depends on the state. I don't think the status quo in Syria or the rest of the Middle East is "good" and I'm not interested in making it run smoothly.
#15026914
Depends on the state. I don't think the status quo in Syria or the rest of the Middle East is "good" and I'm not interested in making it run smoothly


Who cares? I answered a question from an American about an present American meme. Thanks for your input. :hmm:
#15026925
Hong Wu wrote:https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/08/14/google-machine-learning-fairness-whistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/

Another Google whistleblower has come forward, giving a laptop and 950k documents to the DOJ. Google called a SWAT team to his house over "mental health" concerns and he told Google everything that he had turned over to the DOJ. Revelations include widespread evidence of "human raters" within Google that influence the flow of information relative to someone or a group's rating.

President Trump is said to be preparing an executive action regarding social media companies while the DOJ prepares antitrust cases.


Reddit and Vimeo have suspended Project Veritas accounts over this. Holy shit...
#15026983
Depends on the state. I don't think the status quo in Syria or the rest of the Middle East is "good" and I'm not interested in making it run smoothly.


I was unfair to you Palmrene. I apologize. I can see where you would not be a fan of what I describe, in your country. I certainly would not presume to tell you about Syria. I have not been there, have studied it little, and you could probably summarize what I know about it on a business card. That said,

My guess is that the deep state I describe probably exists on some level in Syria. Is it a force for "good"? I remember when Syria, though always somewhat troubled by Western standards, was a mainstream nation. Under Hafez al-Assad it enjoyed a period of cordial relations with the US. So even Syria had a time when it was just motoring along and doing tolerably well.

If you are indeed 15 years old you have had a unique life experience. Since you were about 8 years old your country has been in a civil war more or less hotly contended. I can understand that you would deny the stabilizing influence of minor government and industry people because in your experience, they have not much existed as any kind of force. It is important for you to consider that normalcy will return to your country. There will be peace and unity almost certainly in your lifetime. When this happens, things will settle down and your country will begin to look more like the rest of us. (At least one hopes so.)

But I will bet that there are still people in your country who are doing what the so-called deep state does in the west. Perhaps not many but some.
#15026986
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:@Verv , the point is that allsides' definition of what is 'left' and 'right' is laughable. Of major news organisations who you might look to for reporting on a news story like this, they claim:
Left:
MSNBC

Lean Left:
ABC
CBS
NBC
New York Times news
CNN news
Time
Washington Post

Centre:
NPR news
AP
USA Today
Wall Street Journal news
(plus BBC and Reuters, who are global enough to get American readership)

Lean Right:
Fox news

Right:
no significant news reporting organisation

Their classification is just rubbish. They say the major TV networks lean to the left, despite their obvious long standing support of, and dependence on, capitalism. Hell, they claim The Economist leans left. With such twisted definitions, of course they'll come out saying the top reports on Google news are 'left or lean left'. They are just leaving out the "...left of Genghis Khan" bit.


Why does the Economist not lean left?

Here are some basic positions of the right:

- Against LGBTQ
- Against gun control
- Laissez-fair capitalism, or hard economic nationalism
- Against open borders
- Against substance abuse
- Against increasing taxes
- Pro-religious
- Against SJWs

Do you see the Economist significantly invested in half or more of these positions or some such? Or would you just say that it really needs to be listed as centrist?
#15026987
Drlee wrote:I was unfair to you Palmrene. I apologize. I can see where you would not be a fan of what I describe, in your country. I certainly would not presume to tell you about Syria. I have not been there, have studied it little, and you could probably summarize what I know about it on a business card. That said,

My guess is that the deep state I describe probably exists on some level in Syria. Is it a force for "good"? I remember when Syria, though always somewhat troubled by Western standards, was a mainstream nation. Under Hafez al-Assad it enjoyed a period of cordial relations with the US. So even Syria had a time when it was just motoring along and doing tolerably well.


I'm not sure positive foreign relations with a country determines the quality of life it's citizens have.

If you are indeed 15 years old you have had a unique life experience. Since you were about 8 years old your country has been in a civil war more or less hotly contended. I can understand that you would deny the stabilizing influence of minor government and industry people because in your experience, they have not much existed as any kind of force. It is important for you to consider that normalcy will return to your country. There will be peace and unity almost certainly in your lifetime. When this happens, things will settle down and your country will begin to look more like the rest of us. (At least one hopes so.)

But I will bet that there are still people in your country who are doing what the so-called deep state does in the west. Perhaps not many but some.


It doesn't seem like it. Things are getting worse. Assad is taking all the property (homes, businesses, etc.) of Syrian refugees and other displaced citizens in Syria and handing them over to members of their clans. Tribes run rampant taking minor towns and villages and enforcing their draconic laws on them. The Syrian government has recently been destroying several poor neighborhoods and displacing all it's inhabitants. The Syrian economy is crippled and it doesn't look like Iran or Russia are interested in rebuilding it. Not like they're capable of doing so anyways with the heavy sanctions placed upon them.

There is no good in the government. It is corrupted from the inside out abd down to it's fundamentals. It has caused so much suffering and torment to those who have had the displeasure of experiencing the violence and defecation it leaves in it's wake. It smells like death and rot which effects every person in the country and leaves them empty and soulless.

This country is a bloated decaying corpse and Assad and co. have resolved to party and enjoy themselves while the outside world wastes away. It's akin to the nobles partying away in their manors while their people suffer plagues of their own creation. If the government are the hosters of the masquerade ball, then I'm the Red Death.
#15027004
Verv wrote:Why does the Economist not lean left?

Here are some basic positions of the right:

- Against LGBTQ
- Against gun control
- Laissez-fair capitalism, or hard economic nationalism
- Against open borders
- Against substance abuse
- Against increasing taxes
- Pro-religious
- Against SJWs

Do you see the Economist significantly invested in half or more of these positions or some such? Or would you just say that it really needs to be listed as centrist?

The Economist is very much in favour of laissez-faire capitalism - it was practically founded to argue for it:

In Britain, the newspaper The Economist was founded in 1843 and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[31] Laissez-faire advocates opposed food aid for famines occurring within the British Empire. In 1847, referring to the famine then underway in Ireland, founder of The Economist James Wilson wrote: "It is no man's business to provide for another". However, The Economist campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

There you go - it even managed to be both laissez-faire and economically nationalist as you demanded, despite those being different views. And it remains neoliberal - see eg https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=rcds20 . It isn't economically nationalist now, but that's a recent development in the US right wing (Tea Party, Trump minions), rather than a long-term attitude. In general, it supported lower taxes, but it wants a well-run system first; it wouldn't cut taxes on the rich if that meant a huge deficit.

Some right wingers are against open borders; those who think in terms of business are in favour of them. The Economist is in favour of movement of labour, for economic reasons. That's perfectly compatible with being right wing.

I'm sure The Economist is against substance abuse, though that's not a left-right thing at all. I don't think it takes a stand on religion.

It's not anti-LGBTQ, but that's because it's not anti-social or cruel. And of course it's not against SJWs; only idiots are against social justice. You seem to be saying that being right wing means being bigoted. If those are your criteria for left and right, then we'd hope that no major publication is right wing. Being against gun control is anarchist; again, American right wingers are an aberration in this.

You might argue that it's centrist, but there's no way you can say it leans left. Unless we bring Genghis Khan into it.
#15027197
Verv wrote:Here are some basic positions of the right:

- Against LGBTQ
- Against gun control
- Laissez-fair capitalism, or hard economic nationalism
- Against open borders
- Against substance abuse
- Against increasing taxes
- Pro-religious
- Against SJWs

They sound like a bunch of reactionaries against this, that and the other thing.
#15027207
Against LGBTQ
- Against gun control
- Laissez-fair capitalism, or hard economic nationalism
- Against open borders
- Against substance abuse
- Against increasing taxes
- Pro-religious
- Against SJWs


No no no. Not the right. At least not any right that considers itself American Conservative.

You have simply described modern republican party politics. Not right conservatism.

Since you do this to distinguish it from what you would no doubt call American left. (we really don't have one worth noticing so I do not concede this point.) Let me ask you:

- Against gun control
- Laissez-fair capitalism, or hard economic nationalism The two are mutually exclusive. You should work on this one.

- Against open borders - Don't tell the libertarians. They will get pissed.

- Against substance abuse - And exactly who is for substance abuse?

- Against increasing taxes - This is pure political pandering. Conservatives are FIRST for a balanced budget. Then and only then, tax breaks.

- Pro-religious - And exactly who is anti-religious? Certainly not democrats. But then democrats are a center right party.

- Against SJWs - I just want to roll my eyes whenever I hear this meaningless meme. It is anti-intellectual but then so is the republican party. Nevertheless I am glad that you have conceded that the "right" in the US is against social justice. So was Tojo and Himmler.

Can we PLEASE up our collective game a little and stop sounding like Fox News. Please.
#15027210
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The Economist is very much in favour of laissez-faire capitalism - it was practically founded to argue for it:


There you go - it even managed to be both laissez-faire and economically nationalist as you demanded, despite those being different views. And it remains neoliberal - see eg https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=rcds20 . It isn't economically nationalist now, but that's a recent development in the US right wing (Tea Party, Trump minions), rather than a long-term attitude. In general, it supported lower taxes, but it wants a well-run system first; it wouldn't cut taxes on the rich if that meant a huge deficit.

Some right wingers are against open borders; those who think in terms of business are in favour of them. The Economist is in favour of movement of labour, for economic reasons. That's perfectly compatible with being right wing.

I'm sure The Economist is against substance abuse, though that's not a left-right thing at all. I don't think it takes a stand on religion.

It's not anti-LGBTQ, but that's because it's not anti-social or cruel. And of course it's not against SJWs; only idiots are against social justice. You seem to be saying that being right wing means being bigoted. If those are your criteria for left and right, then we'd hope that no major publication is right wing. Being against gun control is anarchist; again, American right wingers are an aberration in this.

You might argue that it's centrist, but there's no way you can say it leans left. Unless we bring Genghis Khan into it.


Oh, OK... So, according to you, being right wing means being socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

The socially conservative positions (anti-LGBTQ, pro-life, generally against divorce and feminism) would just be features that are only relevant to bigotry, and nationalist type ideas like strong borders and anti-immigration, economic nationalism are not necessarily relevant. You have a point about economic nationalism n the sense that this is a recent development among American conservatives.

But otherwise, you are just criticizing actual, real conservatives for defining conservatism, and you'd prefer if all of the social conservative stances were just known as 'bigoted.'

You have perfectly illustrated the problem that conservatives face in media. You only allow us to basically be libertarians, and when we are anything else, we aren't even conservatives: we're just bigots.

You prove the point of AllSides while thinking you are arguing against it.
#15027211
AFAIK wrote:They sound like a bunch of reactionaries against this, that and the other thing.


Of course these things could have all been phrased differently. But, I prefer to phrase them in a way where they are immediately recognizable.

Maybe here, too, we are seeing the liberal domination of the dialogue: the exposition of conservatism immediately sounds like a rigmarole of complaints against the status quo and things enshrined by law.

You got the power, and you got the media & entertainment complex actively advancing your narrative and framing all of the wordings around its reality.

You are the establishment.
#15027277
Oh, OK... So, according to you, being right wing means being socially liberal but fiscally conservative.


More or less. It means being socially traditional which in the American experience ASPIRES to being socially permissive. This does not mean that conservatives of all but the last two decades were libertines. It means that they believed in keeping the government out of our bedrooms.

Goldwater (author of "The Conscience of a Conservative" ) in his 1964 presidential nomination acceptance speech:

"Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism"

Goldwater again: "You do not have to be straight to be in the Army. You have to shoot straight."



The socially conservative positions (anti-LGBTQ, pro-life, generally against divorce and feminism) would just be features that are only relevant to bigotry, and nationalist type ideas like strong borders and anti-immigration, economic nationalism are not necessarily relevant. You have a point about economic nationalism n the sense that this is a recent development among American conservatives.


No. As you can see. Anti-LGBTQ and anti feminism are NOT socially conservative positions. They have been labeled that by modern, for lack of a better term, fascists (or if you prefer neo-cons) but these are NOT traditionally conservative positions. The conservative embraces the Bill of Rights. ALL of these are recent developments among American neocons.

But otherwise, you are just criticizing actual, real conservatives for defining conservatism, and you'd prefer if all of the social conservative stances were just known as 'bigoted.'


No again. We are criticizing people who have appropriated the term "conservative" and who are quite comfortable in oppressing others for....what? Certainly not for the good of the country. There is no reasonable case to be made for opposing feminism except a very narrow and very tenuous religious one. These dog-whistle issues are designed to cob together a coalition of single issue voters under the banner of so called "conservatism".

Note on Goldwater. He is the very archetypal American conservative writ large. He was the face and voice of American conservatism (along with Buckley) for a very long time.

Goldwater: My faith in the future rests squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies, new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom.


You have perfectly illustrated the problem that conservatives face in media. You only allow us to basically be libertarians, and when we are anything else, we aren't even conservatives: we're just bigots.


No. Not "anything" else. But when the republican party aspired openly to minority voter suppression they ARE being bigoted. When they attempt to pass legislation specifically denying rights to one American that are available to other Americans, they ARE being bigoted. When they support the idea that their standard bearer can openly say racist things they ARE being bigoted. The question is not why some of the media calls them on it, it is why ALL of the media does not call them on it.

You prove the point of AllSides while thinking you are arguing against it.


Again no. You are buying a enormous straw man argument. What has happened is that someone has painted a wall red, proclaimed it to be green, and rallied together a group of single issue voters who are willing to call the wall green in exchange for everyone else in the group agreeing with their single issue.

Certainly there were voices in the conservative movement in the US like Weaver who would have been comfortable with an on-going hierarchical society based upon Christian doctrine but even Weaver believe in construction rather than imposition.

The irony is that when one takes the long view of the two bedrock Conservative ideas, social libertarian-ism and fiscal conservatism (in other words developed US Constitutionalism) one acquires the method to protect the rights of like minded people through states rights and local government.

What is missing from this abortion now called conservatism is that it takes a system predicated on powering up and attempts to use it to power down. So we get idiotic stuff like the Defense of Marriage act and the Department of Education. Both perfect examples of why neocons are not conservative. Marriage should still be a state issue and conservatives would have abolished the useless Dept of Education long ago. Certainly not put an incompetent in charge of it.

I suggest Verve that you truly look at what you WOULD change if you could. Not through personal preference but by law. For example. Would you ban same sex marriage by law or allow it to be a personal choice grounded on personal ethics or religious belief? One in which the personal decision of everyone is respected. When you ban it by federal law, as neocons tried to do with the Defense of Marriage Act, you not only impose your views on everyone in the country, you deal a severe blow to states rights. (Just what you are condemning liberals for doing, right?) Real conservatives would take the position that the only time the central government should impose its will on the states is when there is a compelling national interest to do it. Even when that interest is a moral one. I maintain that the SCOTUS decision to strike down laws banning same sex marriage IS a conservative position because it is based on the most fundamental conservative ethic of equal protection under the law and therefor something to be enforced on the states. On the other hand, the myriad regulations formulated by the Department of Education and enforced through the withholding of federal aid money and lawsuits, it a direct assault on the supremacy of the people and the state.


10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


SCOTUS decision in Sprague: The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.


So Verve. Is it conservative to be a strict constitutionalist or liberal? I say it is conservative. Modern neocons frequently call it liberal. Especially when one of their groups of single issue voters is under assault.
#15027278
Verv wrote:Oh, OK... So, according to you, being right wing means being socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Being fiscally conservative is indeed a prime marker of being right wing. And we're talking about The Economist, so its positions are mainly economic. If you're going to judge whether it's left, centre or right, that's where you'll mostly look.

The socially conservative positions (anti-LGBTQ, pro-life, generally against divorce and feminism) would just be features that are only relevant to bigotry,

"Pro-life" and "generally against divorce and feminism" are new points you're only just introducing. But the right wing is not generally against divorce; Reagan divorced and remarried, and Trump did so twice. There's plenty of divorce among right wingers. Hardly any right wingers care about it. "Pro-life" (ie anti-abortion, not "against the death penalty") is a very common position among American RWers, and fairly common among those in other countries, but I don't think The Economist talks about it much; if it did, I'd expect it to take a libertarian position - it should be legal, but not funded from taxpayer revenue (this article seems to have the line of wanting it "safe, legal and rare", which is centrist). Being against feminism is patriarchal. It's not a required feature of being right wing; I'd add that to the 'bigoted' section.

and nationalist type ideas like strong borders and anti-immigration, economic nationalism are not necessarily relevant. You have a point about economic nationalism n the sense that this is a recent development among American conservatives.

But otherwise, you are just criticizing actual, real conservatives for defining conservatism,

The point is that nationalism, economic or otherwise, is not a required position for being on the right.

and you'd prefer if all of the social conservative stances were just known as 'bigoted.'

You listed "anti-LGBTQ". That is, by definition, a bigoted position - being against people for what they fundamentally are. Being "anti-SJW", if you actually take it as a political position (rather than, say, liking to laugh at personal excesses and blunders in putting forward social justice) is also bigoted - it's being against someone because they are for social justice.

You have perfectly illustrated the problem that conservatives face in media. You only allow us to basically be libertarians, and when we are anything else, we aren't even conservatives: we're just bigots.

You prove the point of AllSides while thinking you are arguing against it.

No, the point is that AllSides was insisting The Economist couldn't be on the right because it's "libertarian", in a limited sense, and even said that means it "leans left". It's your problem that you list being anti-certain groups of people as being right wing; it's not something I'd have expected anyone to want to defend, really. Yet you say "us" and "we".
#15027468
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Being fiscally conservative is indeed a prime marker of being right wing. And we're talking about The Economist, so its positions are mainly economic. If you're going to judge whether it's left, centre or right, that's where you'll mostly look.


Being fiscally conservative is a trait of being right wing in a classical liberal context, sure. Those are things that mattered a lot in American politics when we were boys, as well. In fact, it is probably the case that for much of the 20th century the primary division in American politics was economic because both parties were fundamentally anti-Communist. At one point the Democrats were home to a significant group of people who even opposed school integration, a position that would be unfathomable today. A lot has changed.

I think that being fiscally conservative is a great indicator among classical liberals about whether they are to the left or to the right.

I could see how if you still think in the narrow context of like 1980s American politics or something, you would think that this is the most important issue because both the Left & Right agree that two gay guys getting married is pretty much completely out of the question.

But now the differences between the mainstream left and right are fundamentally more different.

"Pro-life" and "generally against divorce and feminism" are new points you're only just introducing. But the right wing is not generally against divorce; Reagan divorced and remarried, and Trump did so twice. There's plenty of divorce among right wingers. Hardly any right wingers care about it. "Pro-life" (ie anti-abortion, not "against the death penalty") is a very common position among American RWers, and fairly common among those in other countries, but I don't think The Economist talks about it much; if it did, I'd expect it to take a libertarian position - it should be legal, but not funded from taxpayer revenue (this article seems to have the line of wanting it "safe, legal and rare", which is centrist).

Is this just the same message you posted before, that I already replied to?

Of course there are hypocritical Republicans on the issue of divorce. But let us also remember that "socialists" regularly vote for multi-millionaires to be their representatives in Congress as well.

While Americans became more liberal on divorce earlier, it was traditionally greatly frowned upon, and in the community that I came from, it was still highly criticized and thought of as a great flaw. A personal flaw, but a great flaw nonetheless.

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches, we do not endorse any kind of no fault divorce, and in most Christian churches in general, divorce is frowned upon. Social conservatives all frown on divorce.

... I do not know how you would think that you could be pro-choice as a publication and have it count as a "right wing" position potentially because it is "libertarian."

... So if you are pro-choice, it is a sign of being a left winger; and the Republicans are just as likely to endorse pro-choice candidates because they are super-Libertarians. That's just not how the world works.

This is a really fabulous excerpt that shows exactly why your words on this topic are written out of either legitimate ignorance or totally disingenuous posturing:



You and I both know when we are talking about anti-feminism we are not talking about, say, first wave feminism in general, but we are talking about the more recent developments in feminism, and there is not a single serious Republican who would look over the pages of Jezebel and say oh yeah, this is stuff I generally disagree with minus the socialism.

I wonder: are you some guy who has just never been in a room full of conservatives and has no idea what they believe, or are you just really trying to blow smoke up our recti?



Potentially, in a purely classical liberal understanding, yes. But that does not describe reality.

It is possible to be, say, fiscally conservative, pro-life, against LGBTQ stuff, etc., and then subsequently not be particularly nationalist and really emphasize the free market and be a conservative, but it is hard to imagine calling some gay guy in a bowtie who supports abortion, considers himself a feminist, believes monogamy is a delusion and that borders are artificial and nations don't really exist a conservative because he thinks mega-corporations are good.

You can't be serious.



So it is bigoted to be against the gay agenda? OK, that's a bad take.

If, in your reply, you note to me, a conservative, that there is no gay agenda -- it's just equal rights! and that REEEEEELLLLLL conservatives know that, I will even consider clicking "Like" on your post in honor of your conman's wit.



So the only axis for understanding a political stance that matters is the economic one.

This is quite rich for someone who has posted their political compass results on their profile :lol: .
#15027474
Drlee wrote:More or less. It means being socially traditional which in the American experience ASPIRES to being socially permissive. This does not mean that conservatives of all but the last two decades were libertines. It means that they believed in keeping the government out of our bedrooms.

Goldwater (author of "The Conscience of a Conservative" ) in his 1964 presidential nomination acceptance speech:


So being a conservative reeeaaallllyyy means being a social liberal.

So we are, again, just talking about this from the perspective of classical liberals who think that their definition of conservative is the only valid one.

On the political compass, then, classical liberalism is basically a philosophy that is entirely to the Left, would you agree?

We would also then have to say that there are two kinds of American conservatives: classical liberals who are leftists, like Barry Goldwater, and thus only conservaive in terms of their classical liberalism, and those who are actually God-believing Christians that do not believe entirely in a classically liberal model, right?

No. As you can see. Anti-LGBTQ and anti feminism are NOT socially conservative positions. They have been labeled that by modern, for lack of a better term, fascists (or if you prefer neo-cons) but these are NOT traditionally conservative positions. The conservative embraces the Bill of Rights. ALL of these are recent developments among American neocons.


So, in the classical context, every American politician has always approved of things likemen privately sodomizign each other, gay marriage, etc., and they have all been fundamentally supportive of women's liberation on every possible front.

It was just that America was run by Fascists for a 150+ years (in terms of feminism) and 200+ years (in terms of gay marraige), and conservatism did not come into existence in America until Goldwater.

Is that proper analysis?

Honestly, how do you look at history? :?:

These are very, very, very convenient definitions for a politician lying to an ignorant buffoon who pays attention to politics once every 4 years when it is the Presidential election, but do you actually plan on trying to make that fly?

No again. We are criticizing people who have appropriated the term "conservative" and who are quite comfortable in oppressing others for....what? Certainly not for the good of the country. There is no reasonable case to be made for opposing feminism except a very narrow and very tenuous religious one. These dog-whistle issues are designed to cob together a coalition of single issue voters under the banner of so called "conservatism".


That's right, folks: if you are not legally allowed to marry another man/woman and force a Christian baker to make the cake for you, you are oppressed. :excited:

These are just "dog-whistle" issues to Fascsits, right? REEEEELLLL conservatism is about the government out of my bsuiness -- let me bugger the boys in the bath house.

Your grandpa & grandma aren't conservatives, right: they are actually Fascists & bigots. Get the proper terminology right, you neanderthal!

Note on Goldwater. He is the very archetypal American conservative writ large. He was the face and voice of American conservatism (along with Buckley) for a very long time.


Buckley, the never-Trumper, and Goldwater, are the face of American conservatism. :lol:

You guys have really, really bought the idea that after the fiscal conservative Neocons purged the party of Pat Buchanan types they truly inherited the ability to utterly destroy the legacy of paleo-conservatism :lol: .

Why don't you let actual conservatives determine what is conservative or not, and stop defining conservatism as what appeals to you about conservatism as a liberal, and calling everyone else a bigot? It's simply ridiculous.

So much of this post is just a repeat of what I went through with Prosthetic Conscience. Let me be more discerning in what I respond to.

+++

I suggest Verve that you truly look at what you WOULD change if you could. Not through personal preference but by law. For example. Would you ban same sex marriage by law or allow it to be a personal choice grounded on personal ethics or religious belief?


Of course I would ban it by law. :lol:

Do you think I am a complete retard lost in my own arguments?

Real conservatives would take the position that the only time the central government should impose its will on the states is when there is a compelling national interest to do it.


Yeah, like 140 years ago when this was still a relevant discussion in American politics.

I do not know how "state's rights" is now some relevant position in the year 2019 we need to go to to talk about conservatism, as if that isn't a ship that left the harbor long ago.

Can we talk about the Civil War, too?

Both the far left and the far right are dangerous,[…]

September 18, Wednesday General Albert Sydney J[…]

https://www.fastcompany.com/90404556/this-personal[…]

90 Scientists: Global Warming Is a Total Hoax J[…]