Why is this board so liberal?

[Marvin the Martian]

No, Obama and his media sycophants killed Romney. Romney did his share by listening to consultants which exposed his poor campaigning skills. but in the end Romney was trashed by a campaign showing him to be a heartless corporate rich guy who kept women in a notebook, gave up on 48% of the people who wouldn't vote for him, and even had an elevator for vehicles in his two-story garage. Obama is probably the best campaigner we had, better than WJC, and mobilizing and exciting people to vote. He was so good at it, that is how he governed. Everyone gripes about negative campaigning, but it works. In a sense Obama and Trump are two sides of the same coin, but Obama is much more elegant with his trash talking.

Oh and you can stop with your Romney would have been a good president baloney. I agree, he had demonstrated considerable skills and knowledge that placed him way ahead of his 2012 opponent, but you never believed that.

Romney had some self-inflicted wounds. I was very interested him in the GOP debates. But everything Romney said in the primary was "Forget all those things I did as governor, I will not do any of them as president. As president I want to slash taxes and spending and I'll never talk to a demoCRAT". That wasn't his MA story. He know "yep, what I did by cooperating and seeking a balanced approach worked and I'll do it as president" would lose him the primary. So he made a choice that hurt him in the general.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Good grief. This is what you think is reality? No wonder you come across as a monster.

This is the Crusader mentality. You think you have God on your side. I hope you do some serious introspection.

If that were true then African American evangelicals and White evangelicals would be on the same page politically. Their theology is identical when it comes to the nature of mankind. The nature of mankind question is irrelevant.

Where you hit the nail on the head is with your second point on the constitution. The division goes back to the founding. Liberals (prior to 1960s the GOP was the liberal party, afterwards the Democrats) believe in civil rights for all and equal protection for all. Conservatives don't.

We had a civil war on this ground. We passed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution including the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause only by passing the reconstruction act to overcome the resistance of the southern states by, essentially, taking over their state governments. The court decisions that allowed Jim Crow laws and the resulting disenfranchisement of African Americans was a central part of this struggle that defined our politics through the 1960s. The fight over the courts today is largely about these issues still. The Robert's court jettisoning of voting rights oversight of southern states has led to a massive increase in suppression of voting rights for African Americans and Hispanics. The fight over the Supreme Court is critically about whether suppression of minority voting will be tolerated of not. The fight is the same as it ever was. On one side are those who support equal rights for all...on the other side are those who support rights but for only a smaller set.

So it is today as it ever was.

Both of you need to take a breath and understand and think about what Lagoda said. He is exactly right. Ranger, he didn't say anything about God.

Conservatives believe in an enduring moral order of mankind. This takes two forms, an individual moral order and one that encompasses the society. Ideally, if the moral order is sound, and a sovereign or government reflects the will of the people, it will also be sound. Classical liberalism reflects this also.

Modern liberals don't see this. They see government as the source of the moral order. This is why you can say only liberals believe in civil rights. The problem is that this view of moral order and the role of government has transformed the society into a society of moral ambiguity and has made us into a society intent upon gratification of wants and desires. It has led us to a point where people see government as their source of gratification instead of themselves serving that role. This is particularly conspicuous in the minority communities where, I believe, modern liberalism has largely stripped minorities of individualism and has turned them into a group who sees more government as the way forward. And this not only applies to minorities and to those in poverty, but it also applies to people like Ellon Musk who has glommed onto the government largesse more than any individual in the history of the United States and also to others who enjoy crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

This view of government was never more apparent as when the Democrats tried to figure out Trump voters in terms not including some reference to deplorable. The Democrats often said the Trump voters feel as though their government abandoned them! In other words, more government will make their lives better so they would not be Trump voters.

We have crossed the Rubicon. Like Obamacare, I think our government and the way it sees the governed has put us into a death spiral.

Yes, Lagoda is exactly right when he talks about one of the chief differences between conservatives and liberals is how we see mankind, or, in my words, how government sees the governed and how the governed sees government.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Both of you need to take a breath and understand and think about what Lagoda said. He is exactly right. Ranger, he didn't say anything about God.

Conservatives believe in an enduring moral order of mankind. This takes two forms, an individual moral order and one that encompasses the society. Ideally, if the moral order is sound, and a sovereign or government reflects the will of the people, it will also be sound. Classical liberalism reflects this also.

Modern liberals don't see this. They see government as the source of the moral order. This is why you can say only liberals believe in civil rights. The problem is that this view of moral order and the role of government has transformed the society into a society of moral ambiguity and has made us into a society intent upon gratification of wants and desires. It has led us to a point where people see government as their source of gratification instead of themselves serving that role. This is particularly conspicuous in the minority communities where, I believe, modern liberalism has largely stripped minorities of individualism and has turned them into a group who sees more government as the way forward. And this not only applies to minorities and to those in poverty, but it also applies to people like Ellon Musk who has glommed onto the government largesse more than any individual in the history of the United States and also to others who enjoy crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

This view of government was never more apparent as when the Democrats tried to figure out Trump voters in terms not including some reference to deplorable. The Democrats often said the Trump voters feel as though their government abandoned them! In other words, more government will make their lives better so they would not be Trump voters.

We have crossed the Rubicon. Like Obamacare, I think our government and the way it sees the governed has put us into a death spiral.

Yes, Lagoda is exactly right when he talks about one of the chief differences between conservatives and liberals is how we see mankind, or, in my words, how government sees the governed and how the governed sees government.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. - Daniel Webster

That to me is the left/right divide in this country in a nutshell.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Romney had some self-inflicted wounds. I was very interested him in the GOP debates. But everything Romney said in the primary was "Forget all those things I did as governor, I will not do any of them as president. As president I want to slash taxes and spending and I'll never talk to a demoCRAT". That wasn't his MA story. He know "yep, what I did by cooperating and seeking a balanced approach worked and I'll do it as president" would lose him the primary. So he made a choice that hurt him in the general.

Well, one must win the nomination in order to run for president. And if you recall, many GOP firebrands won some of the primaries and Romney came in second. That is the system. But the Democrats, and it sounds like you included, didn't, or refused, to understand why Romney ran that way. I looked at Romney as governor, head and savior of the SLC, Olympic committee, and his business acumen. I knew he would be an excellent president. Campaigning camouflaged his qualities.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, one must win the nomination in order to run for president. And if you recall, many GOP firebrands won some of the primaries and Romney came in second. That is the system. But the Democrats, and it sounds like you included, didn't, or refused, to understand why Romney ran that way. I looked at Romney as governor, head and savior of the SLC, Olympic committee, and his business acumen. I knew he would be an excellent president. Campaigning camouflaged his qualities.

What you describe is the failure of the two-party system. How can I trust someone will stand up to Putin if they won't stand up to the power brokers in this country? This problem impacts both parties. Heck, if Trump had been sane I may well have voted for him on these grounds. I understand why people found the concept of someone going off the beaten path appealing. Its the sanity question that he failed.

I don't want a D sycophant any more than an R. It was a major reason I wanted Sanders over Clinton. But if both sides are just going to trot out "yeah, me too" candidates, I'm just going to have to have to take them at their words. Romney's words were "I'm as conservative as anyone in America" so not being as conservative as anyone in America, I had to trust him.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How can I trust someone will stand up to Putin if they won't stand up to the power brokers in this country?

I don't see running in a primary to become POTUS as remotely similar to "standing up" to Putin. The former is a process that depends on marshaling millions of people to vote for you. The latter isn't. One doesn't (or shouldn't) govern the way they campaign, they are two different skill sets. Unfortunately the last 2 POTUS's don't and didn't get this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Maybe so. Mitt lost me when he backtracked from all the good he has done in Massachusetts. Had it been in 2008 it might've been a different story.

Mitt was a victim of the Tea Party at the height of its rampage. He lost because he had to cater to those know-nothings. They still haven't gone away, they've just multiplied.

No, Mitt was a victim of people like you. He had a clear and easy to see track record of how he governed and how effective he was in business and at the Olympics. The negative campaign against him was well planned, well executed and very effective. The so-called backtrack is part of that. This is what the democrats do well. Negative campaigning works. Mitt was our last clear chance for a professional, experienced, and effective POTUS.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't see running in a primary to become POTUS as remotely similar to "standing up" to Putin. The former is a process that depends on marshaling millions of people to vote for you. The latter isn't. One doesn't (or shouldn't) govern the way they campaign, they are two different skill sets. Unfortunately the last 2 POTUS's don't and didn't get this.

So you are saying we need to ignore what candidates say, it doesn't mean anything. My long standing belief is to trust what people say (it is a corollary to a point I make about leaders, if a Hitler says he's going to kill you - believe him). If Romney says he is going to govern as Newt, I will take him at his word. Again, it may be the failure of the system. But we are electing LEADERS, not followers. If an R or a D can't get people to move in their (the leader's) direction and instead shift their direction, what sort of leader are they?

Again, the system is horribly broken. But we do need people who speak what they think is the truth even if it is unpopular. Heck, we need people who speak the truth ESPECIALLY if it is unpopular. We aren't going to be fixed by "me too".

 

[iu_a_att]

No, Obama and his media sycophants killed Romney. Romney did his share by listening to consultants which exposed his poor campaigning skills. but in the end Romney was trashed by a campaign showing him to be a heartless corporate rich guy who kept women in a notebook, gave up on 48% of the people who wouldn't vote for him, and even had an elevator for vehicles in his two-story garage. Obama is probably the best campaigner we had, better than WJC, and mobilizing and exciting people to vote. He was so good at it, that is how he governed. Everyone gripes about negative campaigning, but it works. In a sense Obama and Trump are two sides of the same coin, but Obama is much more elegant with his trash talking.

Oh and you can stop with your Romney would have been a good president baloney. I agree, he had demonstrated considerable skills and knowledge that placed him way ahead of his 2012 opponent, but you never believed that.

Romney did not demonstrate skills and knowledge that put him ahead of Obama...but he could have been a more effective campaigner had he been able to showcase his actual virtues. I don't think he would have won though.

Obama was a great campaigner both because he eloquently spoke to values that resonate with a broad swath of America and because this message combined with his African American heritage to make a powerful statement about our country. Many on the center and left believe that the arc of the moral universe may be bent towards justice. Romney simply could not compete with that narrative.

Obama's central problem governing is a common one on the left. He truly believes that, if one is eloquent or patient enough, the values that won him the election will win out. Our truly great politicians do not harbor such illusions. Certainly Republicans have no such illusions. They understand themselves to be a culture war that is not won by patience or eloquence but by raw political power.

You could not be more wrong about Obama and Trump being opposite sides of the same coin. There is no coin that has Trump on one side and any Democrat or Republican politician on the other. Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally motivated by different moral values. They are different sides of the same coin. Trump has no moral values beyond his own narcissism. He doesn't belong on any coins.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So you are saying we need to ignore what candidates say, it doesn't mean anything.

That is one way of looking at it. And if you want to rely on campaign rhetoric, that is okay with me. But when you do, you just prove that you are right about the two party system*. I kinda understand what goes on at campaign rallies so I put my priority on experience and a demonstrated record of accomplishments. Romney was way above his opponents in the 2012 campaign and would have been in the 2016 campaign, including all Democrats.

*There are millions of people like you. This phenomena is what cost Hillary the 2008 nomination when she lost to a nobody with no accomplishments. He was a good campaigner and Hillary wasn't.

 

[iu_a_att]

No, Mitt was a victim of people like you. He had a clear and easy to see track record of how he governed and how effective he was in business and at the Olympics. The negative campaign against him was well planned, well executed and very effective. The so-called backtrack is part of that. This is what the democrats do well. Negative campaigning works. Mitt was our last clear chance for a professional, experienced, and effective POTUS.

InRanger is a moderate guy who always voted for Republicans in the past...he is not some dupe of negative campaigning by Democrats. And Hillary was professional, experienced and effective...but you preferred Trump.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Obama's central problem governing is a common one on the left. He truly believes that, if one is eloquent or patient enough, the values that won him the election will win out.

You are absolutely correct. Which is a huge problem, not a virtue. Obama couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't, meet with anybody who strongly disagreed with him in an effort to come to a mutual solution. I often thought if Obama had met with Wayne Lapierre and the GOP leadership, we'd have some gun legislation in place today. Obama couldn't do that. He couldn't expose himself to a compromise. He just couldn't' because he thought he was right.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

InRanger is a moderate guy who always voted for Republicans in the past...he is not some dupe of negative campaigning by Democrats. And Hillary was professional, experienced and effective...but you preferred Trump.

Hillary definitely was not effective. Just listen to her sworn testimony about how she operated the Department of State and you'd see that in a nanosecond. I have a lot of questions about her professionalism also, given how she blew off protocols about record keeping and security, and then lied about why she did it.

 

[hoosboot]

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. - Daniel Webster

That to me is the left/right divide in this country in a nutshell.

IMHO, you miss some key points. I don't think that is a left/right divide. And when it comes to governing, it's not WHETHER they mean to be masters, it is WHAT they intend to be master over. You're fooling yourself if you think that the "right" doesn't believe in government control.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That is one way of looking at it. And if you want to rely on campaign rhetoric, that is okay with me. But when you do, you just prove that you are right about the two party system*. I kinda understand what goes on at campaign rallies so I put my priority on experience and a demonstrated record of accomplishments. Romney was way above his opponents in the 2012 campaign and would have been in the 2016 campaign, including all Democrats.

*There are millions of people like you. This phenomena is what cost Hillary the 2008 nomination when she lost to a nobody with no accomplishments. He was a good campaigner and Hillary wasn't.

Let's use a specific case, Romney said that he believed the federal government did not have the power to create a Romneycare. In your view, I should have trusted that was code for "let me in and I'll create Romneycare"? I think your view is what led to Trump. People were certain that no matter what Trump said, they could trust he would do something entirely different.

 

[iu_a_att]

You are absolutely correct. Which is a huge problem, not a virtue. Obama couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't, meet with anybody who strongly disagreed with him in an effort to come to a mutual solution. I often thought if Obama had met with Wayne Lapierre and the GOP leadership, we'd have some gun legislation in place today. Obama couldn't do that. He couldn't expose himself to a compromise. He just couldn't' because he thought he was right.

Hogwash...Obama tried over and over to meet with the GOP...they were under strict orders not to collaborate under any circumstances. The GOP base doesn't want compromise they want victory. Their approach to the debt ceiling in 2011 indicated they are willing to tank the country to get what they want. There is a good chance they will tank the country. Your statement about a compromise on gun legislation is about the biggest pile of hooey too. The gun lobby has gotten so much of their agenda that they are reduced to asking that certifiably insane people be allowed to purchase guns. Congress will go along. They have no need or interest in compromise.

 

[IUCrazy2]

IMHO, you miss some key points. I don't think that is a left/right divide. And when it comes to governing, it's not WHETHER they mean to be masters, it is WHAT they intend to be master over. You're fooling yourself if you think that the "right" doesn't believe in government control.

They absolutely do believe in control. I view the quote thusly, no matter who you pick they intend on being your master. So do everything you can to diminish that which they are able to do that over you...i.e. small government.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Hogwash...Obama tried over and over to meet with the GOP...they were under strict orders not to collaborate under any circumstances. The GOP base doesn't want compromise they want victory. Their approach to the debt ceiling in 2011 indicated they are willing to tank the country to get what they want. There is a good chance they will tank the country. Your statement about a compromise on gun legislation is about the biggest pile of hooey too. The gun lobby has gotten so much of their agenda that they are reduced to asking that certifiably insane people be allowed to purchase guns. Congress will go along. They have no need or interest in compromise.

LOL. Ted Cruz didn't publicly call Mitch McConnell a liar because McConnell refused to compromise. You have no idea how to negotiate anything if you think inviting an opponent into the Oval Office for s sit down about an issue of mutual concern is a waste of time. This is why you are an Obama sycophant because he thinks like you do.

 

[iu_a_att]

Conservatives believe in an enduring moral order of mankind. This takes two forms, an individual moral order and one that encompasses the society. Ideally, if the moral order is sound, and a sovereign or government reflects the will of the people, it will also be sound. Classical liberalism reflects this also.

These are the dreams of elites. These are all irrelevant abstractions divorced from the feelings that actually move people to the voting booths and move their hands once they have arrived. Conservatives want to protect unearned and undeserved privilege and status. Liberals want equal protection and due process. The rest is just high falutin ex post rationalizin.

 

[hoosboot]

Well, one must win the nomination in order to run for president. And if you recall, many GOP firebrands won some of the primaries and Romney came in second. That is the system. But the Democrats, and it sounds like you included, didn't, or refused, to understand why Romney ran that way. I looked at Romney as governor, head and savior of the SLC, Olympic committee, and his business acumen. I knew he would be an excellent president. Campaigning camouflaged his qualities.

So, the Democrats are to blame for Romney losing? So much for the party of personal responsibility. Romney was so ineffective as a leader, he lost to Obama and then lost the party to Trump.

Romney said and showed how he was going to govern and the public rejected it. That's all it was. It wasn't some grand conspiracy against him. He ran a terrible campaign and was too ineffective as a leader to bring together the votes necessary to win.

And if more people would listen to what candidates actually say, maybe we wouldn't have Trump.

 

[iu_a_att]

This is why you are an Obama sycophant because he thinks like you do.

If he thinks like I do isn't he the sycophant? I disagree with Obama when it comes to the exercise of power. My hero is LBJ.

 

[Ladoga]

Good grief. This is what you think is reality? No wonder you come across as a monster.

This is the Crusader mentality. You think you have God on your side. I hope you do some serious introspection.

You're mixing politics with philosophy. I did not say that you'd be a Republican or Democrat in either circumstance. I said that those two things are pretty much the dividing line between conservative and liberal as a general proposition.
Of course there are exceptions. I did not mention God's name. Would you and the rest of these people who fancy themselves as oh so smart get the hell down of your high horses, stop insulting and being condescending and engage in discussion with people. Don't make it me, just try to be a decent human once a day on this board. So calendar has no days marked off. Maybe its just how liberals act.

I got a nickel says you can't even understand and explain in two short sentences what I meant by noting the divide at the "nature of man kind".

 

[hoosboot]

They absolutely do believe in control. I view the quote thusly, no matter who you pick they intend on being your master. So do everything you can to diminish that which they are able to do that over you...i.e. small government.

Okay...I guess I was confused by when you followed that quote with:

"That to me is the left/right divide in this country in a nutshell."

What you say in your second post doesn't comport with that.

 

[dahldc]

You're mixing politics with philosophy. I did not say that you'd be a Republican or Democrat in either circumstance. I said that those two things are pretty much the dividing line between conservative and liberal as a general proposition.
Of course there are exceptions. I did not mention God's name. Would you and the rest of these people who fancy themselves as oh so smart get the hell down of your high horses, stop insulting and being condescending and engage in discussion with people. Don't make it me, just try to be a decent human once a day on this board. So calendar has no days marked off. Maybe its just how liberals act.

I got a nickel says you can't even understand and explain in two short sentences what I meant by noting the divide at the "nature of man kind".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Conservatives want to protect unearned and undeserved privilege and status

BS. I always love it when a liberal tries to tell me what a conservative believes. Go read some Burke, Kirk, and Hayek.

 

[Ladoga]

If that were true then African American evangelicals and White evangelicals would be on the same page politically. Their theology is identical when it comes to the nature of mankind. The nature of mankind question is irrelevant.

Where you hit the nail on the head is with your second point on the constitution. The division goes back to the founding. Liberals (prior to 1960s the GOP was the liberal party, afterwards the Democrats) believe in civil rights for all and equal protection for all. Conservatives don't.

We had a civil war on this ground. We passed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution including the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause only by passing the reconstruction act to overcome the resistance of the southern states by, essentially, taking over their state governments. The court decisions that allowed Jim Crow laws and the resulting disenfranchisement of African Americans was a central part of this struggle that defined our politics through the 1960s. The fight over the courts today is largely about these issues still. The Robert's court jettisoning of voting rights oversight of southern states has led to a massive increase in suppression of voting rights for African Americans and Hispanics. The fight over the Supreme Court is critically about whether suppression of minority voting will be tolerated of not. The fight is the same as it ever was. On one side are those who support equal rights for all...on the other side are those who support rights but for only a smaller set.

So it is today as it ever was.

My comment on the Constitution had nothing at all to do with civil rights, the Civil War, 14th amendment, minority rights, race, voting or any of the things you listed. But thanks for the compliment, anyway. It has to do with how folks believe the meaning of the Constitution should be determined within some proper role of the Supreme Court.
Edit - typo

 

[IUCrazy2]

Okay...I guess I was confused by when you followed that quote with:

"That to me is the left/right divide in this country in a nutshell."

What you say in your second post doesn't comport with that.

I was not clear enough in the first post. I mean the rank and file. The GOP and the Democrats are all about control. I mean the divide between us regular Joe's.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

They absolutely do believe in control. I view the quote thusly, no matter who you pick they intend on being your master. So do everything you can to diminish that which they are able to do that over you...i.e. small government.

Control is a government thing, not a political philosophy thing. I know some "staunch" or "arch" conservatives who hold local office and believe in government doing more and different things. No matter who is in government, they feel the need for doing more. But as a philosophy, I think there is a clear difference in how liberals and conservatives view the role of governemnt.

 

[Ladoga]

BS. I always love it when a liberal tries to tell me what a conservative believes. Go read some Burke, Kirk, and Hayek.

Reminds me of atheists lecturing Christians on what the Bible says.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

BS. I always love it when a liberal tries to tell me what a conservative believes. Go read some Burke, Kirk, and Hayek.

And again, I'm calling BS. Hayek practiced and taught classic liberalism, which you've commandeered as a proxy for conservatism. You can't have it both ways.

You can certainly say that you believe in Hayek's messaging and philosophies, but you don't get to label them conservative because of it.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Reminds me of atheists lecturing Christians on what the Bible says.

Most atheists I know are atheists because they know exactly what the Bible says.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

I would like to see liberal posters and conservative posters each tell everyone what they do for a living on this board. I could bet without reservation we know which posters are self employed/blue collar and which ones work or have worked in the public sector or within a union environment.

 

[iu_a_att]

BS. I always love it when a liberal tries to tell me what a conservative believes. Go read some Burke, Kirk, and Hayek.

The feeling is mutual I'm sure. But you are dancing, as you say. Do you believe that Burke, Kirk and Hayek have any relevance outside elite discussions in oak paneled clubrooms?

I would bet that I will do a better job of talking with you about Burke et al than, say, Sarah Palin. As ex post rationalizations for the basic conservative impulse you and those guys make pretty shining sausage casings. But all that stuff is a thin intellectual veneer on something that really deserves to be called visceral. We should be interested in the visceral and not the veneer.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I would like to see liberal posters and conservative posters each tell everyone what they do for a living on this board. I could bet without reservation we know which posters are self employed/blue collar and which ones work or have worked in the public sector or within a union environment.

And what would that show, in your hypothetical estimate?

 

[iu_a_att]

My comment on the Constitution had nothing at all to do with civil rights, the Civil War, 14th amendment, minority rights, race, voting or any of the things you listed. But thanks for the compliment, anyway. It has to do with how folks believe the meaning of the Constitution should be determined within some proper role of the Supreme Court.
Edit - typo

Almost nobody has any idea about how they think the meaning of the Constitution should be determined within some proper role of the Supreme Court. Moreover, nobody really gives a flying F about any of that except the con law specialists and they agree much more than they disagree. People don't care about technicalities...they care about whether they are going to be able to get a legal abortion, whether they will be allowed to vote, whether they will be treated the same as everyone else, whether a legislature can vote to take away their stuff, whether a court can tell them they have to do business and live with people they don't like, whether they can beat their kids or their wife, whether they can shoot their guns,...they care about real stuff. If they can get what they want with a court that "strictly adheres to the constitution" then they like that, if they need a court that believes in a "living constitution" then they are for that. From their perspective those labels are all pointy headed intellectual BS anyway.

 

[meridian]

Wage and price controls was a total takeover of the US economy. His 1974 plan for health care reform looked very much like Obama's. He created the EPA. He expanded the powers of the EEOC. He went to China (think Obama going to Cuba as a comparison). Nixon supported and signed a 40% raise in the minimum wage. He created the Alternative Minimum Tax. He was just considered conservative because the Democrats were further left. That is how far America has moved right.

I've never heard of depicting Nixon as far left, until now that is.

 

[dahldc]

Reminds me of atheists lecturing Christians on what the Bible says.

Almost like Christians lecturing scientists on science...

 

[dahldc]

I would like to see liberal posters and conservative posters each tell everyone what they do for a living on this board. I could bet without reservation we know which posters are self employed/blue collar and which ones work or have worked in the public sector or within a union environment.

Ok try me.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I've never heard of depicting Nixon as far left, until now that is.

I've had the thought, and posted it here, for a while. I can find others who subscribe to the thought, like John Fund at National Review.

Wage and price controls were so far left I doubt Sanders would back them.

 

[HoosierCountry]

And again, I'm calling BS. Hayek practiced and taught classic liberalism, which you've commandeered as a proxy for conservatism. You can't have it both ways.

You can certainly say that you believe in Hayek's messaging and philosophies, but you don't get to label them conservative because of it.

Seems like you're playing the same game of semantics....classic liberalism is very different from liberalism today.