Jump to content

A Study of the CURRENT State of Liberal and Conservative Ideologies


Nationalist

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Okay be stupid if you must...Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al - but what really pisses me off is when you people compare me to Trudeau.

Like I said there's really only one response.

OK so...Stalin was a monster. Hitler was too. Pol pot apparently too but admittedly I don't know much about him.

Who compared you to Trudeau? Did I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So you didn't read the links...OK.

 

I read your links. If Congress has evidence of wrongdoing by the president, they can submit it to the DOJ. The pdf you cited only states they found illegal activity. But, just like the jan6th commission found Donald responsible for inciting an insurrection, we'd still need to see the evidence once the DOJ moves to indict . 

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

Which brings us to another interesting difference between liberal and conservative. I need to ask, how do liberals manage to completely disregard their own senses?

My senses tell me that I haven't seen all the evidence, so unlike you and your "hang em first, make sure they were guilty later" mob mentality, I don't jump to conclusions. It's called having matured emotionally enough to be able to discern fabrications from facts. You, having both a  gullible and obstinate personality, you lack that quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK so...Stalin was a monster. Hitler was too. Pol pot apparently too but admittedly I don't know much about him.

Who compared you to Trudeau? Did I?

If you associated Trudeau with Hitler or Stalin you may as well have associated me along with them - I suspect they'd be rightly pissed off too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I read your links. If Congress has evidence of wrongdoing by the president, they can submit it to the DOJ. The pdf you cited only states they found illegal activity. But, just like the jan6th commission found Donald responsible for inciting an insurrection, we'd still need to see the evidence once the DOJ moves to indict . 

My senses tell me that I haven't seen all the evidence, so unlike you and your "hang em first, make sure they were guilty later" mob mentality, I don't jump to conclusions. It's called having matured emotionally enough to be able to discern fabrications from facts. You, having both a  gullible and obstinate personality, you lack that quality. 

Question: Do you still think Trump colluded with Russia in 2016?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If you associated Trudeau with Hitler or Stalin you may as well have associated me along with them - I suspect they'd be rightly pissed off too.

That's got you upset? And how is it calling you either one of them?

Dude...this is a bit silly...don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Question: Do you still think Trump colluded with Russia in 2016?

I know that Donald had business dealings in Russia for decades. I've also read that his campaign colluded with Russia, but not Donald personally? So, logically, since he's been doing business in Russia one could assume. But I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That's got you upset? And how is it calling you either one of them?

Dude...this is a bit silly...don't you think?

It got silly decades ago - where have you been?

Anyway it's definitely the silliness. And it's not like you don't know.  That gets a little nauseating too, the disingenuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Well, there are the conservatives that existed before Trump, and then there's the MAGA movement which Trump didn't necessarily invent, but certainly took advantage of. Trump's campaign was willing to abandon a huge chunk of traditional conservatives in exchange for stitching together some of the ugliest constituencies in America. He said ugly things. He did ugly things. And the uglier it got the more his new base loved it. It became professional wrestling. From an electoral perspective, it seems to have been successful. But the consequence of embracing those diverse flavors of far-right radicalism is that the conversation focuses a lot more on hate and spite than on actual values. Suddenly the most Republican Republicans are being called RINOs and Obama and Clinton should be executed for treason and PWN the LIBS! It's why the Republican party hasn't formalized a platform in ages. The party doesn't collectively stand for anything anymore except beating the Democrats.

 

This is interesting.

Its quite true that the Republican party has changed. Its also true that the Democrat party has changed. I noted that in my first post. But which caused which?

Its also true that Trump said some rather off-colour stuff. Its also true though that Biden has said some rather off-colour stuff.

So what are we left with? Two factions moving further and further away from each other. That makes bi-partisanism a bit difficult. There's very little cooperation between the two sides anymore. Making concessions seems out the door.

BTW...Obama and Clinton are not the only ones people have called for treason or execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It got silly decades ago - where have you been?

Anyway it's definitely the silliness. And it's not like you don't know.  That gets a little nauseating too, the disingenuity.

What I know is you can't possibly be like Stalin or Hitler.

I also know Justin is certainly not like either. I don't know if its because he can't...or he won't go that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

This is interesting.

Its quite true that the Republican party has changed. Its also true that the Democrat party has changed. I noted that in my first post. But which caused which?

Its also true that Trump said some rather off-colour stuff. Its also true though that Biden has said some rather off-colour stuff.

So what are we left with? Two factions moving further and further away from each other. That makes bi-partisanism a bit difficult. There's very little cooperation between the two sides anymore. Making concessions seems out the door.

BTW...Obama and Clinton are not the only ones people have called for treason or execution.

Well, the Democrats ran the exact same people who have been in public service for 40 years in the last two election cycles. The Republicans ran a reality TV star and WWE heel turned political heel.

I don't think there's much question about which party is radically moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I know that Donald had business dealings in Russia for decades. I've also read that his campaign colluded with Russia, but not Donald personally? So, logically, since he's been doing business in Russia one could assume. But I don't know.

His campaign? Are you referring to that poll thing?

But ok so you don't know. But can't rule it out.

Adversely...you should not be able to rule out the possibility that all this fuss over that laptop, could quite well be true and Joe Biden has made some very shady deals. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Well, the Democrats ran the exact same people who have been in public service for 40 years in the last two election cycles. The Republicans ran a reality TV star and WWE heel turned political heel.

I don't think there's much question about which party is radically moving.

Have you listened to AOC or her squad lately? How about Bernie Sanders, who's all of the sudden a big Democrat star?

They've both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Great. Let me know when she's a presidential candidate.

So its important to you that a POTUS has years and years of political experience, working within the existing system?

Isn't that sort of redundant? Take Old Joe for instance. This is a person who's well versed in "The Swamp".

Are you saying you want more of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far we've learned that its generally the Liberal contingent who begin the "mud slinging" in discussions, that apparently some Liberals find it important for a POTUS to be a seasoned Washington politician while most Conservatives today want nothing to do with these seasoned veterans, and that when reasoned with, Liberals can admit that there may be something to the idea that the Biden family has abused Joe's power for monetary gain.

But there's a lot of residual hatred and focus on Trump still within the Liberal camp.

One thing I don't think we've explored is the notion of MAGA. Of Nationalist ideals.

Is it wrong for a POTUS to act solely in the interest of the nation he or she leads?

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So its important to you that a POTUS has years and years of political experience, working within the existing system?

Isn't that sort of redundant? Take Old Joe for instance. This is a person who's well versed in "The Swamp".

Are you saying you want more of that?

Well, yes a president should be knowledgeable, experienced and qualified. But that wasn't the point.

A party's presidential nominee is the survivor of the primary and ostensible leader and representative center of the party. So it's pretty easy to look at the last two election cycles and see which party has radically shifted.  There's no mystery to unpack. 

 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Well, yes a president should be knowledgeable, experienced and qualified. But that wasn't the point.

A party's presidential nominee is the survivor of the primary and ostensible leader and representative center of the party. So it's pretty to look at the last two election cycles and it's not really a mystery which party has radically shifted. 

 

I think that's a rather narrow viewpoint. Exhibit A,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/19/rachel-levine-transgender-biden-hhs-pick/

Rather...radical...no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I think that's a rather narrow viewpoint. Exhibit A,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I think that's a rather narrow viewpoint. Exhibit A,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/19/rachel-levine-transgender-biden-hhs-pick/

Rather...radical...no?

21/01/19/rachel-levine-transgender-biden-hhs-pick/

Rather...radical...no?

How so? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

His campaign? Are you referring to that poll thing?

But ok so you don't know. But can't rule it out.

Adversely...you should not be able to rule out the possibility that all this fuss over that laptop, could quite well be true and Joe Biden has made some very shady deals. Right?

How could I possibly rule it out? We don't know. That's my point. You and your moronic brethren act like your speculation is a confirmed truth..... It's not..... And repeating your opinion as fact over and over doesn't change a thing. I've told you pinheads a hundred times, Stop trying to sell your gossip as gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "radical" though...

Did you hear Biden made that freak Levine some sort of special Admiral? That's not just radical, it's an insult to real admirals. 

I thought opening the border to 5 million invaders was kind of radical.

As is the new "woke" military. More affirmative action, minority generals. More women. More trannies. I can see China quaking in its boots.

The radical over reaction to the pandemic stopped being understandable at a point and started to look more like a radical attempt to see how far they could go to reshape society. The data trickled out showing they were making mistakes and they didn't just ignore it, they censored it. That was radical.

Government working with social media to censor news that might favor the opposition was radical. Illegal even.

There's more radical, globalist-left, crazy-think, of course but that's enough to make the point. I'd love to tell you why pushing global warming as an existential threat is radical politics not science but off we'd go down that rabbit hole with the climate cultists who want to call all heretics to their new religion "deniers."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...