Man, y'all letting Doofy act like his posting is legitimate? Just laugh at him like Mikesez and move on. Otherwise he'll keep pretending his posts have meaning.

I'll give him one more shot. If he doesn't address my points, I'll move on. I have better things to do than feed trolls.

I'll start with the premise that left/right is not an accurate paradigm to adequately measure anything but preservation of tradition, and it's widely misused by political novices and rhetoricians. It's an arbitrary measure based on the political leanings of the French during their revolution. In its purest sense, the right has come to be associated with tradition and the left change. However, the left-right paradigm loses almost all of its value when you start trying to clump multiple ideals into a simple, horizontal axis. It's just absurd to do such a thing. We don't measure anything else this way. To suggest that the American right favors tyranny is about an absurd an idea as one could have.

The left-right paradigm is only useful when it's defined in a clear way, and in the context of the traditions a group is trying to preserve. In this regard ONLY, I agree the NAZIs were right wing. That doesn't make them comparable to the American right, because they are attempting to hold onto different values. For every similarity between the American right and the German right you list, I can find differences. It's a fool's errand to try to link entire groups to other groups because it lacks nuance and understanding. 

TDS, you and your ilk are so inconsistent in your values. If I tried to say how American blacks are just like American whites (of which there are far more similarities than dissimilarities), you would yammer on about the importance of identity and multiculturalism. Yet, when it's convenient, you disparage entire clusters of people if you think it gives you a political advantage. It's gross. And if you really believed what you preached, you would be so quick to swallow that bukkake.

I don't know why you believe my characterization of pre-WWII Germany is inaccurate (since your replay was read a book), but it's pretty spot on, if not oversimplified. I have been one of the most conciliatory posters on this board when it comes to acknowledging the similarities between Germany and the US, especially as it pertains to cultural resistance to leftist ideas. I think the conditions do favor an authoritarian offering to abuse the powers of the state on behalf of the people. That's what Hitler did. That said, you either aren't honest enough or bright enough to see what's causing this, which is too much change being ushered in by the radicals on the left.

---

Man, y'all letting Doofy act like his posting is legitimate? Just laugh at him like Mikesez and move on. Otherwise he'll keep pretending his posts have meaning.

I'll give him one more shot. If he doesn't address my points, I'll move on. I have better things to do than feed trolls.

I'll start with the premise that left/right is not an accurate paradigm to adequately measure anything but preservation of tradition, and it's widely misused by political novices and rhetoricians. It's an arbitrary measure based on the political leanings of the French during their revolution. In its purest sense, the right has come to be associated with tradition and the left change. However, the left-right paradigm loses almost all of its value when you start trying to clump multiple ideals into a simple, horizontal axis. It's just absurd to do such a thing. We don't measure anything else this way. To suggest that the American right favors tyranny is about an absurd an idea as one could have.

The left-right paradigm is only useful when it's defined in a clear way, and in the context of the traditions a group is trying to preserve. In this regard ONLY, I agree the NAZIs were right wing. That doesn't make them comparable to the American right, because they are attempting to hold onto different values. For every similarity between the American right and the German right you list, I can find differences. It's a fool's errand to try to link entire groups to other groups because it lacks nuance and understanding. 

TDS, you and your ilk are so inconsistent in your values. If I tried to say how American blacks are just like American whites (of which there are far more similarities than dissimilarities), you would yammer on about the importance of identity and multiculturalism. Yet, when it's convenient, you disparage entire clusters of people if you think it gives you a political advantage. It's gross. And if you really believed what you preached, you would be so quick to swallow that bukkake.

I don't know why you believe my characterization of pre-WWII Germany is inaccurate (since your replay was read a book), but it's pretty spot on, if not oversimplified. I have been one of the most conciliatory posters on this board when it comes to acknowledging the similarities between Germany and the US, especially as it pertains to cultural resistance to leftist ideas. I think the conditions do favor an authoritarian offering to abuse the powers of the state on behalf of the people. That's what Hitler did. That said, you either aren't honest enough or bright enough to see what's causing this, which is too much change being ushered in by the radicals on the left.

Actually, I agree that the radicals on the left have been ushering in too much change at one time, which has pushed those right of center further right, to the point that they begin to resemble the old Nazi/fascist right.

I also agree that the left/right paradigm is an inadequate measure. However, I'm not a big identity Democrat or someone focused in the extreme on multiculturalism. You're oversimplifying, too.

There's a huge difference between being attached to traditional hierarchy and forging toward equality without forcing an end to hierarchy by merit. But money isn't merit, and neither is traditional hierarchy. Time only goes in one direction, and it favors eventual progressive social values and more egalitarian distribution of wealth, even though there may be small reactionary turns.

You argue that it is important to place historical events in a contextual perspective and compare them to alternatives from that time. Saying that Nazism developed as a reaction to the threat of communism is partially correct, but it does not explain why the Nazis themselves adopted ideas that were deeply authoritarian and anti-individualistic. It is also misleading to call these "leftist ideas" simply because the state played a central role.

Let us not forget that it was conservatives who brought Hitler to power and supported him in becoming Chancellor. Socialists, on the other hand, were his main opponents, and once he consolidated power, he imprisoned them. Many prominent socialist figures were executed, and even "ordinary" socialists without political influence were arrested. My grandfather was one of them.

---

Man, y'all letting Doofy act like his posting is legitimate? Just laugh at him like Mikesez and move on. Otherwise he'll keep pretending his posts have meaning.

I'll give him one more shot. If he doesn't address my points, I'll move on. I have better things to do than feed trolls.

I'll start with the premise that left/right is not an accurate paradigm to adequately measure anything but preservation of tradition, and it's widely misused by political novices and rhetoricians. It's an arbitrary measure based on the political leanings of the French during their revolution. In its purest sense, the right has come to be associated with tradition and the left change. However, the left-right paradigm loses almost all of its value when you start trying to clump multiple ideals into a simple, horizontal axis. It's just absurd to do such a thing. We don't measure anything else this way. To suggest that the American right favors tyranny is about an absurd an idea as one could have.

The left-right paradigm is only useful when it's defined in a clear way, and in the context of the traditions a group is trying to preserve. In this regard ONLY, I agree the NAZIs were right wing. That doesn't make them comparable to the American right, because they are attempting to hold onto different values. For every similarity between the American right and the German right you list, I can find differences. It's a fool's errand to try to link entire groups to other groups because it lacks nuance and understanding. 

TDS, you and your ilk are so inconsistent in your values. If I tried to say how American blacks are just like American whites (of which there are far more similarities than dissimilarities), you would yammer on about the importance of identity and multiculturalism. Yet, when it's convenient, you disparage entire clusters of people if you think it gives you a political advantage. It's gross. And if you really believed what you preached, you would be so quick to swallow that bukkake.

I don't know why you believe my characterization of pre-WWII Germany is inaccurate (since your replay was read a book), but it's pretty spot on, if not oversimplified. I have been one of the most conciliatory posters on this board when it comes to acknowledging the similarities between Germany and the US, especially as it pertains to cultural resistance to leftist ideas. I think the conditions do favor an authoritarian offering to abuse the powers of the state on behalf of the people. That's what Hitler did. That said, you either aren't honest enough or bright enough to see what's causing this, which is too much change being ushered in by the radicals on the left.

I think this is a good post, and you had me until the last sentence. This is not a recent problem and it's not entirely a left problem either.

I think there are different arenas in society: there is business, there is culture, there is family, and there is politics. Business, culture, and family are always naturally changing, and politics has to naturally change to keep up with them. So the right-left dichotomy is more correctly understood as "as little change as possible, favor tradition" vs "as much change as possible".

The left, starting around 2015, is clearly pushing through radical changes with transgenderism, but thats mainly in culture and family, much less political. It took them about 25 years to get us to accept gay marriage, and after that victory they wanted us to accept transgenderism right away. That's a big change, but it's not the big change.

We've been ripe for an authoritatarian much longer than you think.  The basic problem is not enough change is occurring in the political arena while change continues apace in the other arenas. We try to regulate immigration with laws that haven't been updated since 1987. We try to regulate internet service and social media providers with laws that haven't been updated since 1994. Business and labor regulations are still being used at trials today, that date back over a hundred years with no update.  

All of this dates back to the 90s. Parties always try to draw lessons from their losses.  The lesson the Republicans drew from losing the 1996 election was that they shouldn't have passed anything Clinton would sign while they had control of Congress.  Letting him sign off on their work made him look pragmatic and capable.  It took Democrats about 10 years to learn the same lesson, but they've learned it. So a party in Congress doesn't see it as advantageous to pass anything, unless they also control the White House, and even then, the other party will be so hostile that they will need their party to be nearly unanimous to get it done. Of course no one talks this way in the Capitol building, they always have slimy excuses for why their votes have changed and why they no longer want to work on an issue that they were so passionate about 2 years ago. Even 2 weeks ago. But the people see through this and have lost all faith in Congress, it is by far the least popular of the three branches.

So with the legislative branch barely functioning at all, the people naturally look to the judicial and executive branches to become more authoritarian, because at least something's getting done that way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'll give him one more shot. If he doesn't address my points, I'll move on. I have better things to do than feed trolls.

I'll start with the premise that left/right is not an accurate paradigm to adequately measure anything but preservation of tradition, and it's widely misused by political novices and rhetoricians. It's an arbitrary measure based on the political leanings of the French during their revolution. In its purest sense, the right has come to be associated with tradition and the left change. However, the left-right paradigm loses almost all of its value when you start trying to clump multiple ideals into a simple, horizontal axis. It's just absurd to do such a thing. We don't measure anything else this way. To suggest that the American right favors tyranny is about an absurd an idea as one could have.

The left-right paradigm is only useful when it's defined in a clear way, and in the context of the traditions a group is trying to preserve. In this regard ONLY, I agree the NAZIs were right wing. That doesn't make them comparable to the American right, because they are attempting to hold onto different values. For every similarity between the American right and the German right you list, I can find differences. It's a fool's errand to try to link entire groups to other groups because it lacks nuance and understanding. 

TDS, you and your ilk are so inconsistent in your values. If I tried to say how American blacks are just like American whites (of which there are far more similarities than dissimilarities), you would yammer on about the importance of identity and multiculturalism. Yet, when it's convenient, you disparage entire clusters of people if you think it gives you a political advantage. It's gross. And if you really believed what you preached, you would be so quick to swallow that bukkake.

I don't know why you believe my characterization of pre-WWII Germany is inaccurate (since your replay was read a book), but it's pretty spot on, if not oversimplified. I have been one of the most conciliatory posters on this board when it comes to acknowledging the similarities between Germany and the US, especially as it pertains to cultural resistance to leftist ideas. I think the conditions do favor an authoritarian offering to abuse the powers of the state on behalf of the people. That's what Hitler did. That said, you either aren't honest enough or bright enough to see what's causing this, which is too much change being ushered in by the radicals on the left.

Actually, I agree that the radicals on the left have been ushering in too much change at one time, which has pushed those right of center further right, to the point that they begin to resemble the old Nazi/fascist right.

I also agree that the left/right paradigm is an inadequate measure. However, I'm not a big identity Democrat or someone focused in the extreme on multiculturalism. You're oversimplifying, too.

There's a huge difference between being attached to traditional hierarchy and forging toward equality without forcing an end to hierarchy by merit. But money isn't merit, and neither is traditional hierarchy. Time only goes in one direction, and it favors eventual progressive social values and more egalitarian distribution of wealth, even though there may be small reactionary turns.

You argue that it is important to place historical events in a contextual perspective and compare them to alternatives from that time. Saying that Nazism developed as a reaction to the threat of communism is partially correct, but it does not explain why the Nazis themselves adopted ideas that were deeply authoritarian and anti-individualistic. It is also misleading to call these "leftist ideas" simply because the state played a central role.

Let us not forget that it was conservatives who brought Hitler to power and supported him in becoming Chancellor. Socialists, on the other hand, were his main opponents, and once he consolidated power, he imprisoned them. Many prominent socialist figures were executed, and even "ordinary" socialists without political influence were arrested. My grandfather was one of them.

This is also a pretty good post, but I marked it's major error in bold. 

In physics, time only moves forward.  But in politics, time can move any direction for any amount of time.  It won't ever move precisely backwards, as if decades and centuries past could be recreated and relived in hi-fi, but it can angle strongly towards that direction.

The main enduring appeal of Marx is also one of his main errors: he thought he could predict the future. He thought Germany would broadly become a capitalist and bourgeois democracy as the UK and France had, and he thought the UK and France would inevitably be the first to become dictatorships of the proletariat, with every other nation in the world inevitably following that pattern.

There's more we could say about this, but it's enough to point out that Democrats, and you, embrace this today.  That way, every time you lose, you haven't really lost for good, it's just your eventual victory has been delayed.  It's quasi religious pap for people who have rejected or been disappointed by traditional religion.

And it's dangerous! The good stuff we have today, the wide distribution of wealth and power, the permissive social values, we have to fight to keep that, if we want to keep it. It does not inevitably grow. In fact, if anything in political economy is inevitable, it is that the powerful and wealthy today will attempt to make their power and wealth permanent, they will pull up the ladder behind them. We have to resist that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Who says time moves only one direction?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Who says time moves only one direction?

TDoss (quoted and bolded above) and John Kerry and Kamala Harris and Karl Marx.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

While conveniently missing (or ignoring) his point of the word Nazi being an acronym from the words National Socialist thereby debunking your (and Mikesez's) belief that Nazis are conservatives. 

You must have great flexibility considering how much you have to stretch to make your narrative seem plausible.

Really? See post #72 and challenge it if you can But nevermind your here to troll and have no idea about anything being discussed.

Funny how you keep calling our very well established posters “trolls” when you are the new guy on here lobbing your troll bombs with wild abandonment.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Really? See post #72 and challenge it if you can But nevermind your here to troll and have no idea about anything being discussed.

Funny how you keep calling our very well established posters “trolls” when you are the new guy on here lobbing your troll bombs with wild abandonment.

Wild abandonment. Yet you lie and say stuff without any real research. 

"Joe bIDEn HaS OpENEd the BORderS wiDe Open" Herp Derp.

---

Funny how you keep calling our very well established posters “trolls” when you are the new guy on here lobbing your troll bombs with wild abandonment.

Wild abandonment. Yet you lie and say stuff without any real research. 

"Joe bIDEn HaS OpENEd the BORderS wiDe Open" Herp Derp.

There was absolutely no lie in what I said. 15 million people didn’t cross the border cuz it was locked up like a drum. You can try this disingenuous argument style of yours on someone else.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Well, that's an hegelian idea. Marx was just ripping off Hegel. Rather, I should say he was screwing up Hegel. I like Hegel, and I even have similar spiritual philosophies, but there's no way I'm going to treat a philosophical idea as fact. I'll respond to these posts further when I have more time.

---

Actually, I agree that the radicals on the left have been ushering in too much change at one time, which has pushed those right of center further right, to the point that they begin to resemble the old Nazi/fascist right.

I also agree that the left/right paradigm is an inadequate measure. However, I'm not a big identity Democrat or someone focused in the extreme on multiculturalism. You're oversimplifying, too.

There's a huge difference between being attached to traditional hierarchy and forging toward equality without forcing an end to hierarchy by merit. But money isn't merit, and neither is traditional hierarchy. Time only goes in one direction, and it favors eventual progressive social values and more egalitarian distribution of wealth, even though there may be small reactionary turns.

You argue that it is important to place historical events in a contextual perspective and compare them to alternatives from that time. Saying that Nazism developed as a reaction to the threat of communism is partially correct, but it does not explain why the Nazis themselves adopted ideas that were deeply authoritarian and anti-individualistic. It is also misleading to call these "leftist ideas" simply because the state played a central role.

Let us not forget that it was conservatives who brought Hitler to power and supported him in becoming Chancellor. Socialists, on the other hand, were his main opponents, and once he consolidated power, he imprisoned them. Many prominent socialist figures were executed, and even "ordinary" socialists without political influence were arrested. My grandfather was one of them.

This is also a pretty good post, but I marked it's major error in bold. 

In physics, time only moves forward.  But in politics, time can move any direction for any amount of time.  It won't ever move precisely backwards, as if decades and centuries past could be recreated and relived in hi-fi, but it can angle strongly towards that direction.

The main enduring appeal of Marx is also one of his main errors: he thought he could predict the future. He thought Germany would broadly become a capitalist and bourgeois democracy as the UK and France had, and he thought the UK and France would inevitably be the first to become dictatorships of the proletariat, with every other nation in the world inevitably following that pattern.

There's more we could say about this, but it's enough to point out that Democrats, and you, embrace this today.  That way, every time you lose, you haven't really lost for good, it's just your eventual victory has been delayed.  It's quasi religious pap for people who have rejected or been disappointed by traditional religion.

And it's dangerous! The good stuff we have today, the wide distribution of wealth and power, the permissive social values, we have to fight to keep that, if we want to keep it.  It does not inevitably grow.  In fact, if anything in political economy is inevitable, it is that the powerful and wealthy today will attempt to make their power and wealth permanent, they will pull up the ladder behind them.  We have to resist that.

The only people who even worry about Karl Marx anymore are conservatives. Most liberals have moved into a wanting a mixed model economy, stepping out of the old paradigm altogether.

It’s largely been this way since Keynes.

---

This is also a pretty good post, but I marked it's major error in bold. 

In physics, time only moves forward.  But in politics, time can move any direction for any amount of time.  It won't ever move precisely backwards, as if decades and centuries past could be recreated and relived in hi-fi, but it can angle strongly towards that direction.

The main enduring appeal of Marx is also one of his main errors: he thought he could predict the future. He thought Germany would broadly become a capitalist and bourgeois democracy as the UK and France had, and he thought the UK and France would inevitably be the first to become dictatorships of the proletariat, with every other nation in the world inevitably following that pattern.

There's more we could say about this, but it's enough to point out that Democrats, and you, embrace this today.  That way, every time you lose, you haven't really lost for good, it's just your eventual victory has been delayed.  It's quasi religious pap for people who have rejected or been disappointed by traditional religion.

And it's dangerous! The good stuff we have today, the wide distribution of wealth and power, the permissive social values, we have to fight to keep that, if we want to keep it.  It does not inevitably grow.  In fact, if anything in political economy is inevitable, it is that the powerful and wealthy today will attempt to make their power and wealth permanent, they will pull up the ladder behind them.  We have to resist that.

The only people who even worry about Karl Marx anymore are conservatives. Most liberals have moved into a wanting a mixed model economy, stepping out of the old paradigm altogether.

It’s largely been this way since Keynes.

1) exactly, I'm a conservative.
2) you might not think you're following Marx, and maybe in many ways you aren't, but when you make comments about time moving in one direction and positive changes being inevitable, you are.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Who says time moves only one direction?

TDoss (quoted and bolded above) and John Kerry and Kamala Harris and Karl Marx.

My guess is Kerry and Harris said it because they were told to by someone else, Marx stole it from others writings. TD, because he believes it is fashionable.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

The only people who even worry about Karl Marx anymore are conservatives. Most liberals have moved into a wanting a mixed model economy, stepping out of the old paradigm altogether.

It’s largely been this way since Keynes.

Marx is still highly influential, although I agree that conservatives typically overstate his impact on modern leftist policies. What the right calls "Marxism" is not Marxism in the original sense; it’s a mixed economy. I have studied progressive ideology for years, and while Marx was instrumental in creating a movement, his ideas are not really the gold standard. However, I probably have different reasons for this claim.

It's not the leftists that bother me; most of them are uninformed dreamers. It's the political rhetoricians and billionaires with a god complex who use these ideas to advance their own agendas. I can look at Elon Musk or Trump and see how they can game the system to create distinct advantages for themselves, yet most leftists deny that George Soros plays any role in the political landscape, even though he admits to playing god and has amassed his fortune in underhanded ways. Whether it's Jaime Diamond, or the Koch Brothers, or Soros, or Gates... it doesn't matter. they are playing a different game than us.

I believe billionaires use the cultural subversive tactics born out of social justice to enforce compliance. When you look at organizations like the WEF, you see a system that essentially divides the potential earnings among the companies fortunate enough to have gotten in early. They largely regulate competition through artificial barriers to entry and control of the means of production. They push a form of socialism onto the working class that ensures basic needs are met but also come with limitations that prevent people from achieving higher levels of success or upward mobility.

---

I'll give him one more shot. If he doesn't address my points, I'll move on. I have better things to do than feed trolls.

I'll start with the premise that left/right is not an accurate paradigm to adequately measure anything but preservation of tradition, and it's widely misused by political novices and rhetoricians. It's an arbitrary measure based on the political leanings of the French during their revolution. In its purest sense, the right has come to be associated with tradition and the left change. However, the left-right paradigm loses almost all of its value when you start trying to clump multiple ideals into a simple, horizontal axis. It's just absurd to do such a thing. We don't measure anything else this way. To suggest that the American right favors tyranny is about an absurd an idea as one could have.

The left-right paradigm is only useful when it's defined in a clear way, and in the context of the traditions a group is trying to preserve. In this regard ONLY, I agree the NAZIs were right wing. That doesn't make them comparable to the American right, because they are attempting to hold onto different values. For every similarity between the American right and the German right you list, I can find differences. It's a fool's errand to try to link entire groups to other groups because it lacks nuance and understanding. 

TDS, you and your ilk are so inconsistent in your values. If I tried to say how American blacks are just like American whites (of which there are far more similarities than dissimilarities), you would yammer on about the importance of identity and multiculturalism. Yet, when it's convenient, you disparage entire clusters of people if you think it gives you a political advantage. It's gross. And if you really believed what you preached, you would be so quick to swallow that bukkake.

I don't know why you believe my characterization of pre-WWII Germany is inaccurate (since your replay was read a book), but it's pretty spot on, if not oversimplified. I have been one of the most conciliatory posters on this board when it comes to acknowledging the similarities between Germany and the US, especially as it pertains to cultural resistance to leftist ideas. I think the conditions do favor an authoritarian offering to abuse the powers of the state on behalf of the people. That's what Hitler did. That said, you either aren't honest enough or bright enough to see what's causing this, which is too much change being ushered in by the radicals on the left.

Actually, I agree that the radicals on the left have been ushering in too much change at one time, which has pushed those right of center further right, to the point that they begin to resemble the old Nazi/fascist right.

I also agree that the left/right paradigm is an inadequate measure. However, I'm not a big identity Democrat or someone focused in the extreme on multiculturalism. You're oversimplifying, too.

There's a huge difference between being attached to traditional hierarchy and forging toward equality without forcing an end to hierarchy by merit. But money isn't merit, and neither is traditional hierarchy. Time only goes in one direction, and it favors eventual progressive social values and more egalitarian distribution of wealth, even though there may be small reactionary turns.

You argue that it is important to place historical events in a contextual perspective and compare them to alternatives from that time. Saying that Nazism developed as a reaction to the threat of communism is partially correct, but it does not explain why the Nazis themselves adopted ideas that were deeply authoritarian and anti-individualistic. It is also misleading to call these "leftist ideas" simply because the state played a central role.

Let us not forget that it was conservatives who brought Hitler to power and supported him in becoming Chancellor. Socialists, on the other hand, were his main opponents, and once he consolidated power, he imprisoned them. Many prominent socialist figures were executed, and even "ordinary" socialists without political influence were arrested. My grandfather was one of them.

To drill into this a bit further: of course, I am oversimplifying to some degree. It's difficult to distill entire concepts into a message board post.

I was simply saying that identity is a huge part of the platform of the American left. Yet, they (if not you) are quick to dismiss conservative identity in favor of power. They do this because they see conservatives as the oppressors and feel justified in destroying conservative identity. However, the truth is that the political left has massive power and doesn't mind using the state to enforce its ideology. They don’t hesitate to use the power of institutions to do this.

People feel this and do not want to change. When you destroy their identity to force it, you will be met with resistance. It's almost ironic to me how quickly the American right has aligned itself with minorities as they have begun to share similar experiences. It’s also why these groups are growing together, not apart, despite what the political left is saying. It mirrors what was happening in Germany and Italy. The disenfranchised traditionalists (right) rise up against the agents of change (left). When one group is levying the power of the state, the other group has to follow suit or lose the culture war. The only important factor is what values are being preserved. 

The idea that we will always push toward freedom and egalitarianism is Hegelian. Historically speaking, it's not true, but I think we at least see that trajectory in liberal societies, as long as freedom, competition, and individualism are present. Societies rise and fall. Freedom comes and goes. It's an idea that needs to be preserved. This can only be done by creating a set of values and holding onto them. Traditionalist, if you will.

There is a significant part of the right that is pushing for more liberalism. It’s why you see people like Tulsi Gabbard, Dave Rubin (whom I’m not a fan of), and Joe Rogan more and more aligning with the right. If you got everything you ever wanted in a society tomorrow, you would become a right-winger. That change is also inevitable because it's impossible for any one person to know all of the needs of others.

There are also the Trump sycophants who would see him as king. That’s a minority of people, but I think you’re not wrong to call them out for being authoritarian. I do think you're wrong to cast blanket accusations against the right, though. There are American values that need preserving, including the idea that the President is not a king and the people should have power.

---

TDoss (quoted and bolded above) and John Kerry and Kamala Harris and Karl Marx.

My guess is Kerry and Harris said it because they were told to by someone else, Marx stole it from others writings. TD, because he believes it is fashionable.

As L2L said, Marx borrowed from Hegel, but with original (often incorrect, but original) insights.

Kerry and Harris said it at their concession speeches, as a way to comfort their faithful followers, like a pastor at a funeral.  

Again, it's dangerous.  To the extent that the left is actually fighting to preserve democracy, that's a good fight.  Some people will hear Harris's words and say "great! I'm going to stay engaged and fight!" That's good.  Others will hear her words and say, "oh we're going to win regardless? Then I don't need to fight!". Of course Harris was also asking her faithful to fight for other causes that are less righteous, but that's besides my point.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Good he needs to go away

---

Wild abandonment. Yet you lie and say stuff without any real research. 

"Joe bIDEn HaS OpENEd the BORderS wiDe Open" Herp Derp.

There was absolutely no lie in what I said. 15 million people didn’t cross the border cuz it was locked up like a drum. You can try this disingenuous argument style of yours on someone else.

Please back to what you said.

So, let’s try again:

When did he open it? What was the date, and what policy opened it? Be specific.

---

There was absolutely no lie in what I said. 15 million people didn’t cross the border cuz it was locked up like a drum. You can try this disingenuous argument style of yours on someone else.

Please back to what you said.

So, let’s try again:

When did he open it? What was the date, and what policy opened it? Be specific.

I know exactly what I said. If you think Joe didn’t open up the border wide open, you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought you were…and that’s saying something. He didn’t have to make a “policy” to open it up, he just had to make sure none of the policies already in place to keep people out were followed. Like I said, you are very disingenuous.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Please back to what you said.

So, let’s try again:

When did he open it? What was the date, and what policy opened it? Be specific.

 he just had to make sure none of the policies already in place to keep people out were followed. 

Source?

---