What Type of Political Ideologies Do You Believe In?

[Exaltist Ethan]

You mean fascism is all bad?

There's a reason why RF doesn't have a "Nationalist Only" "Fascist Only" "Authoritarian Only" in political sub-forums. It would get rather minimal traffic and most of it would be destructive.

 

[Secret Chief]

There's a reason why RF doesn't have a "Nationalist Only" "Fascist Only" "Authoritarian Only" in political sub-forums. It would get rather minimal traffic and most of it would be destructive.

It could have reasonable traffic, based on the current active membership, as long as they came out of the closet. And if it was a DIR, they could be safely vile amongst themselves.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Did you vote for Biden? Biden is a centrist but Harris is a bit of a progressive. Trump on the other hand...

I did. Not my favorite, but at least not crazy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

What does centrism mean to you?

Being generally for freedom but with a nice safety net. It depends on the issue. Moderate.

 

[Valjean]

What' scary is that they're global this time. It won't be just the U.S. democracy that falls and succumbs into fascist plutocracy. Other major nations will follow suit because they are subjects of the same giant corporate entities. It's sad to me that we can see it coming and yet are still to foolish and distracted to protect ourselves from it.

I’m a constitutionalist, I value the free market (Capitalism without all the gov back room deals). I value conservativism to a point. I used to be in the Libitarian party unti Johnson threw religious liberty under the bus.

In short all people should be free to live as they see fit as long as they don’t harm others. Zero government does not work. Minimal government is a goal of mine.

We've tried free-market capitalism before, and it doesn't result in safety, liberty or prosperity.

So, you want to revive a Guilded Age of unregulated, dog-eat-dog capitalism; the free market that gave us the Great Depression and the 2008 mortgage crisis.

You want to resurrect the Robber Barons and 'economic royalists'. You're fine with stagnant wages and increasing, 'trickle up' income inequality.
You want to do away with health and safety regulations, workplace safety regulations, environmental regulation, child labor regulation, banking and stock market regulation, &al.

You would eliminate Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, eight hour days and any social safety net.

You're advocating a Dickensian social stratification, with a huge underclass living in squalid poverty, a handful middle class businessmen and technicians, and a tiny, élite, aristocratic class controlling almost all the wealth and power.

Historically, this has been the result of an unregulated Free Market. Regulations exist for a reason. They're there to protect the public -- from exploitation and corporate domination.
Free market (unregulated) capitalism results in stagnant wages, monopoly, multinational corporations with allegiance to noöne, and government capture.

 

[Valjean]

Apparently Mussolini got the trains to run on time.

LOL! -- Touché

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@Valjean I remember in history class after we learned about the horrors of slavery in the American south we learned the atrocities that the corporations had on society in the north, and for the most part most people were living in slavery. How do you earn money? Get a job. How do you get a job? By becoming a slave for some massive corporation, earning record profits. And the funniest thing about it is that in our day and age working for many of these companies didn't really mean anything because the technology is now antiquated. The train track became the roads we know today, and hardly anyone uses trains anymore...

My point is, the conservatives think one way, the liberals think the other way, yet neither are making compromises to really move America forward in the right direction. I only call myself a conservative because I call myself a liberal too, and I do value capitalism and libertarianism more than the alternatives, but our country has become from a sovereign state where both sides could agree to now a nation where 50% is enough. It isn't. When the other side wins they're going to reverse everything you just did and claim it was for progress.

Doesn't make any sense coming from any side of the aisle. Honestly, I'd rather have a nation where abortion is decided by the national congress either completely outlawing it or completely accepting it. Cutting it in half will only **** off both sides. America in general is starting to decline and become controlled under the mob rule that our Founding Fathers warned us about.

 

[Truth in love]

We've tried free-market capitalism before, and it doesn't result in safety, liberty or prosperity.

So, you want to revive a Guilded Age of unregulated, dog-eat-dog capitalism; the free market that gave us the Great Depression and the 2008 mortgage crisis.

You want to resurrect the Robber Barons and 'economic royalists'. You're fine with stagnant wages and increasing, 'trickle up' income inequality.
You want to do away with health and safety regulations, workplace safety regulations, environmental regulation, child labor regulation, banking and stock market regulation, &al.

You would eliminate Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, eight hour days and any social safety net.

You're advocating a Dickensian social stratification, with a huge underclass living in squalid poverty, a handful middle class businessmen and technicians, and a tiny, élite, aristocratic class controlling almost all the wealth and power.

Historically, this has been the result of an unregulated Free Market. Regulations exist for a reason. They're there to protect the public -- from exploitation and corporate domination.
Free market (unregulated) capitalism results in stagnant wages, monopoly, multinational corporations with allegiance to noöne, and government capture.

free markets do a ton for wealth, safety is iffy, a free market with zero moral code for the rich is scary, but given the alternatives of mass starvation, whole sale mass murder etc that we are in nations that go commie it’s a vastly better risk to take

 

[Revoltingest]

Being generally for freedom but with a nice safety net. It depends on the issue. Moderate.

That seems a good flavor of it.

 

[Valjean]

Did you vote for Biden? Biden is a centrist but Harris is a bit of a progressive. Trump on the other hand...

Conservative, Centrist, Progressive, Radical -- I never know what these mean anymore.

The policies of Democrats and Republicans were not that far apart when I was a wee'un. Those policies (both parties) now resemble those of the Sanders-style "Democratic Socialists," and are considered beyond the Pale by the mainstream.

The Democratic party has abandoned its historical, working and middle middle class base, in an effort to glean support from the wealthier technical class. It's shifted to the Right.

The Republicans has moved far, far to the right of what was previously mainstream, and are advocating Neo-liberal, free market Capitalism and "small government."
At least they were -- now they seem to border on Neo-Fascism.

So.... when Democrats and Republicans talk of 'moderates', what do they mean? Where, on the political spectrum, are they pointing?

I've noticed that when Republicans talk of radicals or extremists, they're referring to what would be considered mainstream Republicanism in the '60s, and '70s. Nixon, by today's standards, was a radical liberal.

I can't make heads nor tails of political labels anymore.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I can't make heads nor tails of political labels anymore.

Conservatives value liberty. Libertarians value freedom. Liberals value equality. Liberty can only exist because of a government. Freedom only exists without any government regulation. It takes a lot of government intervention to value equality. Neo-liberalism is the furthest you can get on the conservative spectrum, and neo-liberalism is not fascism of any kind. Fascism is straight up authoritarian - Nazis were National Socialists, not advocating for any type of real value modern American conservativism, or liberalism for that matter. Trump and Pence are by no means fascists. And while you see our nation going to the right I see our nation going to the left.

TrumpCare is rebranded ObamaCare. Trump passed a lot of criminal reform bills that makes it easier to correct and atone for past behavior. And we still have pretty much all the liberal bills that passed in the past. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Clean Air Act. If anything I see most Presidents in the past being either more conservative than we are now, or essentially moderate. Obama himself tried to appoint Republicans to his economic panel and they made a huge fuss over it. And socially we're moving to the left with ideas that would never pass in the past, such as gay marriage.

The only thing that seems to me to be a huge red flag for American conservativism and both parties is our out of control spending in the military. In every passing generation of Presidents the military becomes massively larger and we seriously need to cut some spending in that field. A lot of the discretionary spending that Democrats pass gets cut by the Republicans after awhile but Democrats usually don't cut the spending of the military, making me think that it is the Democrats who not only want their socialist discretionary spending spree but also their nationalistic military spending too - National Socialism.

Of course, this is going too far, and I don't think either party by a LONG SHOT is actually fascist. And honestly, I believe that if most of the Presidents took the Political Compass quiz, including Trump, they would be probably be labeled as left-libertarians because that quiz puts almost everybody who actually takes it there, then screams at politicians by pretending they're more right-wing authoritarian than the actually are. Isn't it funny that 90% of the people who take that quiz are either fascists (authoritarian-right) or Marxists (libertarian-left)? The modern Libertarian Party and Ben Shapiro are labeled as moderates when it comes to social issues whilst taking the quiz. Give me a break.

 

[Valjean]

Conservatives value liberty. Libertarians value freedom. Liberals value equality.

Liberals value liberty -- and equality. Libertarians value anarchy. Conservatives value convention and the status quo. They fear change and the unfamiliar.

Fascism is straight up authoritarian - Nazis were National Socialists, not advocating for any type of real value modern American conservativism, or liberalism for that matter. Trump and Pence are by no means fascists. And while you see our nation going to the right I see our nation going to the left.

Do any of these look familiar? https://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php

What left wing features do you see in today's society? What are the values of the left?

TrumpCare is rebranded ObamaCare. Trump passed a lot of criminal reform bills that makes it easier to correct and atone for past behavior. And we still have pretty much all the liberal bills that passed in the past. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Clean Air Act.

No. The Republicans decimated the social safety net, severely restricting eligibility and reducing benefits. They enabled corporations to anonymously give essentially unlimited political contributions to their supporters. They gutted the Sherman Act, deregulating banks and leading to the 2008 mortgage crisis. They eliminated the Fairness Act, enabling unopposed, Right-wing talk radio. I could go on for hours....

There is no TrumpCare. ObamaCare is tweaked RomneyCare. It originated as a Republican initiative. Mit Romney is not a Democrat. https://obamacarefacts.com/romneycare-romneyhealthcare/

If anything I see most Presidents in the past being either more conservative than we are now, or essentially moderate. Obama himself tried to appoint Republicans to his economic panel and they made a huge fuss over it. And socially we're moving to the left with ideas that would never pass in the past, such as gay marriage.

Does this look conservtive? 1956 Republican Platform
This Republican platform would be considered radically liberal by today's standards.

Of course, this is going too far, and I don't think either party by a LONG SHOT is actually fascist. And honestly, I believe that if most of the Presidents took the Political Compass quiz, including Trump, they would be probably be labeled as left-libertarians because that quiz puts almost everybody who actually takes it there, then screams at politicians by pretending they're more right-wing authoritarian than the actually are. Isn't it funny that 90% of the people who take that quiz are either fascists (authoritarian-right) or Marxists (libertarian-left)? The modern Libertarian Party and Ben Shapiro are labeled as moderates when it comes to social issues whilst taking the quiz. Give me a break.

I'd love to see a true Political Compass outcome for today's major party leaders. Both parties have moved far to the Right.
"Marxists are Libertarian Left?" Explain, please.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Liberals value liberty -- and equality.

But the vast majority of them support equality at the cost of liberty - high taxes.

Libertarians value anarchy.

Liberty, freedom and equality are all certain qualities that don't make any sense when you use the word "anarchy." That's like saying conservatives value "capitalism" and liberals value "socialism". Anarchy, capitalism and socialism are all the systems these groups create - not at the core of their actual values. I reject that all Libertarians "value" anarchy, whatever that means.

Conservatives value convention and the status quo. They fear change and the unfamiliar.

Some of the most innovative changes happen because of conservative think tanks. As you say later, TrumpCare is ObamaCare is RomneyCare, ultimately it boiled down to conservative think tanks. As well, I could pin point things like the tax payer bill of rights and school choice as other modern conservative legislation that would have strengthen the nation instead of what you are implying.

I feel like I'm talking to a Bill Maher talking clone or something...

Do any of these look familiar? https://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php

https://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php

Some of those things I say could exist without the need to call it "fascist", some of those points I'd relate closer to Democrats, and some I would say lean more Republican. However if you throw around that word, like the word racist, I am not going to take you seriously. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents are not fascist in any real sense of the word.

What left wing features do you see in today's society? What are the values of the left?

http://justice-everywhere.org/distribution/what-are-the-values-of-the-left/

Out of those six values I would contend that liberals only support equality. With inflation taking its toll I'm not too sure that they value that - even if Biden is a centrist/liberal.

No. The Republicans decimated the social safety net, severely restricting eligibility and reducing benefits. They enabled corporations to anonymously give essentially unlimited political contributions to their supporters. They gutted the Sherman Act, deregulating banks and leading to the 2008 mortgage crisis. They eliminated the Fairness Act, enabling unopposed, Right-wing talk radio. I could go on for hours....

The 2008 mortgage crisis happened because the repel of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law, calling it an outdated piece of legislation. It just took a decade before that repel would cause what is now known as the great recession.

I live in a swing state, Wisconsin, and I live on the social safety net. I get about $10,000 a year per my disability, but I also live in decent Section 8 housing, have Foodshare and subsidized utilities. I receive little help from my parents and I am able to pay all my debts and actually gain a little every month with the welfare I receive. I realize that my case isn't usual. Most people on welfare cheat the system, sell their Food Stamps, buy drugs, alcohol and cigarettes and don't have wealthy parents to help them. I realize that... For me, however, my head is just above water, just like it should be with someone in my position.

Unfortunately equality and liberty tend to be opposites. The liberty of deregulating and lowering taxes often means the ones who need both of those things will be stuck without. If you play by the rules, if you do good for other people and yourself, the vast majority of people can gain from the system - whether they work or not.

People like you seem to think that there is no free will. That money is the only that matters and if you don't have it, there must be a problem with the system rather than the individual. People can change their lives around. I am a prime example of that. I may not work, but I do everything I can to help myself and the people I care about. While I gain a little wealth every month I don't exploit the system like many people on welfare do. In many ways I'm much more responsible and take care of myself more than most people who work.

There is no TrumpCare. ObamaCare is tweaked RomneyCare. It originated as a Republican initiative. Mit Romney is not a Democrat. https://obamacarefacts.com/romneycare-romneyhealthcare/

https://obamacarefacts.com/romneycare-romneyhealthcare/

If RomneyCare is a Republican initiative what does it say about your claim that conservatives "fear" change? They don't. In my home state of Wisconsin one of the Republican running for governor is promising school choice statewide and a parents bill of rights. These are just blind talking points for anyone on the left who do not understand how conservatives want to change society. Society in the past just happens to have more liberty than what we have now.

Does this look conservtive? 1956 Republican Platform

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1956-republican-platform/

1956? Back then Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives. Not on all issues, but on a significant portion of them they were different. Lets not forget that modern Republicanism comes from the Whigs, which came from the Federalists. Federalists (such as myself) would be viewed today in many aspects of life as the liberals. Weak interpretation of the Constitution, strong federal government, supporting large businesses and banks, and support in large cities. Doesn't this conservative party sound exactly what the Democratic Party has become?

This Republican platform would be considered radically liberal by today's standards.

That website was a few bullet points and did not explain their whole position anyways. Historically Republicans were more liberal than Democrats, and up until the recent past blacks supported the Republican Party. The Republican Party was known as the Party that freed the slaves and united the Union, remember? But that's when they were more liberal!

I'd love to see a true Political Compass outcome for today's major party leaders. Both parties have moved far to the Right.

That's a myth that the Political Compass wants you to believe. The Political Compass wants to poise every politician that isn't a socialist or Marxist as a neo-fascist conservative-authoritarian, when it's not like that at all. I don't trust the Political Compass. I put more trust into the quiz I Side With, which allows a better representation of issues. And on that I get about 60% Republican, 60% Libertarian and 40% Democrat. The Political Compass is too vague and most people would get tricked into supporting arguments they don't fully understand. Such as rating this statement, "Each according to his need, each according to his ability is fundamentally a good idea." That's a direct quote from Marx that most people don't understand.

"Marxists are Libertarian Left?" Explain, please.

Marx essentially believed that the worker, the individual, should produce all the fruits of their labor. It was anti-government, anti-business, it was anti-everything-except-the-individual. Left libertarians weakness is relying too much on the individual to provide everything he or she needs rather than a collective to work for a greater goal. Marxism is essentially political Satanism, and if someone held both beliefs their political and religious worldviews would be unusually well-aligned.

 

[Valjean]

But the vast majority of them support equality at the cost of liberty - high taxes.

High taxes give you prosperity and security. They provide essential services, infrastructure, education, healthcare and a social safety net -- at wholesale, non-profit prices.

Liberty, freedom and equality are all certain qualities that don't make any sense when you use the word "anarchy." That's like saying conservatives value "capitalism" and liberals value "socialism".

But this is largely true. Historically, liberals have promoted pro-social policies like civil rights, workplace safety, minimum wage, an eight hour day, Workmans' Compensation, the right to organize, women's suffrage, Social Security, Medicare, &c. Consevatives have actively opposed all these.

Anarchy, capitalism and socialism are all the systems these groups create - not at the core of their actual values. I reject that all Libertarians "value" anarchy, whatever that means.

That means an unregulated free-market. No organized health or safety rules. No food or water inspection. No pollution or conservation regulations. No building codes. No social safety net; everyone free to do as he wills, ie: Libertarianism, as a subset of conservatism.

Some of the most innovative changes happen because of conservative think tanks. As you say later, TrumpCare is ObamaCare is RomneyCare, ultimately it boiled down to conservative think tanks.

Despite his promises, there never was a TrumpCare, and Romney was not part of a conservative think tank. Some consider him a RINO.

Even after ObamaCare passed, conservatives did their best to undermine it and drive up insurance prices. Remember the Risk Corridor brouhaha?

As well, I could pin point things like the tax payer bill of rights and school choice as other modern conservative legislation that would have strengthen the nation instead of what you are implying.

"School choice? Magnate schools and vouchers undermine free public education. The School Privatization Movement’s Latest Scheme to Undermine Public Education - In These Times

I feel like I'm talking to a Bill Maher talking clone or something...

LOL --You're talking to someone who's actually studied US and world political and economic history, and takes note when the same mistakes are made, over and over.

Some of those things I say could exist without the need to call it "fascist", some of those points I'd relate closer to Democrats, and some I would say lean more Republican. However if you throw around that word, like the word racist, I am not going to take you seriously. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents are not fascist in any real sense of the word.
Out of those six values I would contend that liberals only support equality. With inflation taking its toll I'm not too sure that they value that - even if Biden is a centrist/liberal.

Study more history.

The 2008 mortgage crisis happened because the repel of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law, calling it an outdated piece of legislation. It just took a decade before that repel would cause what is now known as the great recession.

The crisis couldn't have happened if conservatives hadn't finally destroyed the Glass-Steagall Act and other banking regulations.

I live in a swing state, Wisconsin, and I live on the social safety net. I get about $10,000 a year per my disability, but I also live in decent Section 8 housing, have Foodshare and subsidized utilities. I receive little help from my parents and I am able to pay all my debts and actually gain a little every month with the welfare I receive. I realize that my case isn't usual. Most people on welfare cheat the system, sell their Food Stamps, buy drugs, alcohol and cigarettes and don't have wealthy parents to help them. I realize that... For me, however, my head is just above water, just like it should be with someone in my position.

So, if Republicans had their way, you'd be f***ed.

Unfortunately equality and liberty tend to be opposites. The liberty of deregulating and lowering taxes often means the ones who need both of those things will be stuck without. If you play by the rules, if you do good for other people and yourself, the vast majority of people can gain from the system - whether they work or not.

Interesting that little countries like Denmark, with a tiny fraction of America's wealth, can afford both equality and liberty.

People like you seem to think that there is no free will. That money is the only that matters and if you don't have it, there must be a problem with the system rather than the individual. People can change their lives around. I am a prime example of that. I may not work, but I do everything I can to help myself and the people I care about. While I gain a little wealth every month I don't exploit the system like many people on welfare do. In many ways I'm much more responsible and take care of myself more than most people who work.

"People like me?" Unreconstructed '70s Hippies? Commune dwellers? No, I don't think that money is the only thing that matters.
Good on you for not abusing the system. Me, I'm a supporter of a system and safety net that would enable people to 'change their life around'.

If RomneyCare is a Republican initiative what does it say about your claim that conservatives "fear" change? They don't. In my home state of Wisconsin one of the Republican running for governor is promising school choice statewide and a parents bill of rights.

Republicans did their best to sink RomneyCare, after it became ObamaCare, and "school choice" undermines the public education system.

These are just blind talking points for anyone on the left who do not understand how conservatives want to change society. Society in the past just happens to have more liberty than what we have now.

I understand very well how Republicans want to change society.
Read the text, it's not that long: The Lewis Powell Memo: A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy
Reading through it, it sounds remarkably like what you seem to be advocating, here.

1956? Back then Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives. Not on all issues, but on a significant portion of them they were different. Lets not forget that modern Republicanism comes from the Whigs, which came from the Federalists. Federalists (such as myself) would be viewed today in many aspects of life as the liberals. Weak interpretation of the Constitution, strong federal government, supporting large businesses and banks, and support in large cities. Doesn't this conservative party sound exactly what the Democratic Party has become?

Back when both parties were liberal, with the exception of civil rights, and not that far apart.

That website was a few bullet points and did not explain their whole position anyways. Historically Republicans were more liberal than Democrats, and up until the recent past blacks supported the Republican Party. The Republican Party was known as the Party that freed the slaves and united the Union, remember? But that's when they were more liberal!

Good points. Civil rights has always been the third rail both parties were afraid to touch.
After signing the '64 Civil Rights Act, or, possibly the '65 Voting Rights Act, (the incident is poorly documented) Johnson remarked to an aide something like: “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

That's a myth that the Political Compass wants you to believe. The Political Compass wants to poise every politician that isn't a socialist or Marxist as a neo-fascist conservative-authoritarian, when it's not like that at all. I don't trust the Political Compass. I put more trust into the quiz I Side With, which allows a better representation of issues.

Political Compass isn't a validated political test, though it is interesting. I'm not familiar with Side With... OK, Googled, quiz taken. Top three: 95%Transhumanist (???) 94%Green, 94% Socialist. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the results, though since I added "other stance', personal opinions to half of them.
But I am a registered Green.

And on that I get about 60% Republican, 60% Libertarian and 40% Democrat. The Political Compass is too vague and most people would get tricked into supporting arguments they don't fully understand. Such as rating this statement, "Each according to his need, each according to his ability is fundamentally a good idea." That's a direct quote from Marx that most people don't understand.

OK, not unexpected.

Marx essentially believed that the worker, the individual, should produce all the fruits of their labor. It was anti-government, anti-business, it was anti-everything-except-the-individual. Left libertarians weakness is relying too much on the individual to provide everything he or she needs rather than a collective to work for a greater goal. Marxism is essentially political Satanism, and if someone held both beliefs their political and religious worldviews would be unusually well-aligned.

Political Satanism?! You'll have to explain more about that. Marx advocated self-managed, worker owned communes, after a period of socialism.
Socialism adds the collective responsibility you say Left Libertarianism (?) lacks.

Aside: I enjoy discussion with someone who actually has reasoned opinions about issues. Thought provoking and educational. Kudos.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 1 of 2)

High taxes give you prosperity and security. They provide essential services, infrastructure, education, healthcare and a social safety net -- at wholesale, non-profit prices.

Except at the cost of high wait times on the phone and a large bureaucracy. They still have to pay the people who work at social security offices something. Wholesale doesn't exist either in the private or the public sector.

But this is largely true. Historically, liberals have promoted pro-social policies like civil rights, workplace safety, minimum wage, an eight hour day, Workmans' Compensation, the right to organize, women's suffrage, Social Security, Medicare, &c. Consevatives have actively opposed all these.

You forget that in most cases, conservatives don't like to change the law once it is written. Most modern conservatives are for all the things you suggest now, BUT, they don't want to move the goal post even further. The only exception to this is abortion (for good reasons). Liberals change the law, conservatives strengthen the laws that already exist.

That means an unregulated free-market. No organized health or safety rules. No food or water inspection. No pollution or conservation regulations. No building codes. No social safety net; everyone free to do as he wills, ie: Libertarianism, as a subset of conservatism.

By no means is Libertarianism a subset of conservatism. In fact, when Libertarianism as a concept was being invented, it was actually a subset of socialism. Libertarianism is a large political philosophy that sprawls between many ideals, the only consistent thing all Libertarians believe in is less government and more freedom for the people. True Libertarians don't believe in liberty the same way conservatives take it to mean so both concepts in some ways are diametrically opposed against each other.

Despite his promises, there never was a TrumpCare, and Romney was not part of a conservative think tank. Some consider him a RINO.

Nonetheless Trump tried to pass the American Health Care Act of 2017 and failed. What I am trying to say, overall, is that even had Trump passed his version of healthcare, most of ObamaCare still would have survived the changes. And ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, still exists and people can sign up for "affordable" insurance if they need to. Republicans did not repel ObamaCare, and if they did they'd replace it with something like the American Health Care Art of 2017.

Even after ObamaCare passed, conservatives did their best to undermine it and drive up insurance prices. Remember the Risk Corridor brouhaha?

Excuse my ignorance, I don't know what the "Risk Corridor" is and I don't feel like Googling every accusation you make.

"School choice? Magnate schools and vouchers undermine free public education. The School Privatization Movement’s Latest Scheme to Undermine Public Education - In These Times

Because they offer better school at lower prices? Because the students at charter schools receive a better education overall than ones in public schools which spend crazy amounts of money per each kid and most of that money goes to overpaid teachers and other staff who doesn't give a **** about their students? Because for a good part of COVID many public schools were closed for no good reason and students couldn't receive the education they needed while teachers taught from home? There is definitely a failure in public education, and by no means is public education "free". It has nothing to do with charter schools.

LOL --You're talking to someone who's actually studied US and world political and economic history, and takes note when the same mistakes are made, over and over.

You sound like those people who proclaim they are a self-made genius. Doesn't help your actual credibly at all. "Well I read Wikipedia articles." Doesn't make me any more or less smart than you.

Study more history.

I study enough to understand the issues that lie out before me. Both the concepts of liberalism and conservativism meant different things - this is why we have modern llberalism and classical liberalism. There's even neo-conservativism, modern conservativism AND classical conservativism too!

The crisis couldn't have happened if conservatives hadn't finally destroyed the Glass-Steagall Act and other banking regulations.

That was Clinton not the Republicans who ultimately did that.

So, if Republicans had their way, you'd be f***ed.

Let me tell you something ... you are partially right. When Scott Walker was the governor of Wisconsin he passed a law making it so everybody on SSI would need a HMO. The HMO is free but offers less insurance overall than Straight Title 19. Straight Title 19 offers more options for dental and vision. My vision provider changed and my dental plan no longer covers crowns, something which I actually need right now. If I want a crown I now have to pay $750 out of pocket, something that I never will actually be able to do. However, there are other dental schools in Wisconsin that might be able to provide the service for a cheaper cost.

As far as SSI payments go, when the Republicans are in office nothing changes regarding that. I get the same amount of money (adjusted with inflation) whether it's Trump or Biden, or Walker or Evers. The vast majority of my benefits are supported even when conservative Republicans who "say" they want to take it away in reality don't. My money at this point is more guaranteed than someone who has to work for a living. SSI/SSDI is essentially a conditional UBI at this point.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 2 of 2)

Interesting that little countries like Denmark, with a tiny fraction of America's wealth, can afford both equality and liberty.

I don't really know anything about Denmark, but I tend to agree with you here.

"People like me?" Unreconstructed '70s Hippies? Commune dwellers? No, I don't think that money is the only thing that matters.

Neither do i - neither does really anyone honestly.

Good on you for not abusing the system. Me, I'm a supporter of a system and safety net that would enable people to 'change their life around'.

We have government programs out there like that, services that have become imbedded into American culture, such as DVR - the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Giving people more money is not "changing their life around" but giving them a job will.

Republicans did their best to sink RomneyCare, after it became ObamaCare, and "school choice" undermines the public education system. I understand very well how Republicans want to change society.
Read the text, it's not that long: The Lewis Powell Memo: A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy

How about explaining it to me yourself instead of giving me hypertext?

Reading through it, it sounds remarkably like what you seem to be advocating, here.

I am a liberal conservative and a federalist. I support what I support. If you don't like that then tough. I'm not going to change your mind, you aren't going to change mine.

Back when both parties were liberal, with the exception of civil rights, and not that far apart.

Yeah, because the 50's and before then were known as the time where America was more liberal than it is now! Give me a break.

Good points. Civil rights has always been the third rail both parties were afraid to touch.
After signing the '64 Civil Rights Act, or, possibly the '65 Voting Rights Act, (the incident is poorly documented) Johnson remarked to an aide something like: “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

The South became Republican because they became less racist and started to support industry, plus the Democratic Party started to abandon the common agricultural farmers that dominated the South. And the Dixiecrats went from conservative on social issues to conservative on economic issues and became Blue Dog Democrats. And what conservativism and liberalism means now is not the same as what it meant in the past. The KKK has no value in the modern American left or right in fact.

Political Compass isn't a validated political test, though it is interesting. I'm not familiar with Side With... OK, Googled, quiz taken. Top three: 95%Transhumanist (???) 94%Green, 94% Socialist. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the results, though since I added "other stance', personal opinions to half of them.
But I am a registered Green.

This is not surprising to me. You talk like a leftist. The Transhumanist, Green and Socialist Parties are all parties moving us to the left in their own way - although some advocate that Transhumanist is rebranded "new" conservativism, especially when they advocate for positions such as "artificial wombs" for aborted fetuses.

Political Satanism?! You'll have to explain more about that. Marx advocated self-managed, worker owned communes, after a period of socialism.

The world over has become more socialist and less Marxist. Socialism is not Marxism. In fact, I would say in most cases, socialism is the OPPOSITE of Marxism. Socialism is the belief that society should take care of itself, its communitarian and it doesn't matter if that society takes care of each other from either the government doing so or corporations doing it. Socialism is a collectivist authoritarian concept. When you combine socialism with nationalism you get the National Socialists - Nazis.

I see socialism falling in between communism and capitalism, offering solutions from both. For example, Norway has nationalized their oil industry and they use that money to pay for their expensive social programs to help their society. Conservatives would never want to do that, because conservatives want all profits to remain in the private sector. But true socialism doesn't care either way if society supports itself from the public or private sectors - it just wants people to have enough positive liberty to live their goals and aspirations. America ls a mixed-economy, offering some services that are socialist in nature while allowing the capital of those services to land back into the private sector.

Socialism adds the collective responsibility you say Left Libertarianism (?) lacks.

That's because left libertarianism is essentially Marxism, and socialism is a communitarian concept, falling somewhere between centrism and authoritarianism. Our society has become more socialist and less Marxist over time, and I really don't see any way where the average person could literally build their own house, put everything they need in it and live comfortably without the support of other people or capital to do it.

Aside: I enjoy discussion with someone who actually has reasoned opinions about issues. Thought provoking and educational. Kudos.

I'm trying! But really, I do like talking about these issues, but man you are really biased towards the left...