Trump gets another SCOTUS appointment?

PeterZ wrote:Dude, progressives have spent decades making the most rediculous claims about conservatives and their other political opponents. Over that period the MSM have embraced the most vile accusations and assertions as either fact or as serious rumors to be repeated as often as possible.

Because of that, I doubt I would believe anything a proggy says is fact. I won't support any position a proggy believes is right or just. I will by conscious choice support whatever proggies believe is wrong or is bad.

I will be wrong at times but right more often than not. The more virulently you deride anything, the more likely that something is a good choice for non-proggies. I tryly don't care what you think of how I come to this view, I truly don't. We agree on nothing and hold no common values. That means the values you use to come to your conclusions don't move me at all and I am sure vice versa.

Your low opinion of me and those I have agreement with is a validation that we are not too far wrong in our beliefs and views. That the rest of our country including minorities are growing more supportive of those views makes me more confident that proggy influence is waning: 40% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics support trump and his brand of populism. I wish all you foreign proggies well and am growing happier that our domestic proggies are growing less potent.

smr wrote:When someone is working with the President of the United States of America, they are subject to most extensive background that the Federal government can do. Remind me again what was Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh previous job in the Bush Administration. Most people are not aware of extensive background checks people must endure when working in sensitive positions within the government and Kavanaugh endured them 7 times.

In the beginning, I questioned Ford's testimony but felt like something happened to her. Later, discussing this with my wife, she convinced me that Mrs. Ford was lying.

Their is no evidence of the alleged event.

PeterZ wrote: I won't support any position a proggy believes is right or just. I will by conscious choice support whatever proggies believe is wrong or is bad.

noblehunter wrote:Care to list the things you support because "proggies" find them to be wrong or bad? I'd do it, but I'm pretty sure it'd violate forum rules.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote: I won't support any position a proggy believes is right or just. I will by conscious choice support whatever proggies believe is wrong or is bad.

And here we see the unwitting confession of a conservative that their positions are arrived at out of blind reactionary rejection of anything their political opponents say, instead of by rational thought.

And it is declared proudly. The modern GOP in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen.

PeterZ wrote:Kavanaugh, Trump, bilateral trade agreements rather than these orver arching multilateral treaties like the WTO. The Second Ammendment, due process rather than acting on uncorroborated accusations. The premise that US sovereignty lies in the hands of the citizenry rather than our elected officials in government. They act using sovereignty we lend them within the limits the constitution defines.
Finally, the firm belief that socialism will degrade the standard of living of any country that adopts it.

noblehunter wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Kavanaugh, Trump, bilateral trade agreements rather than these orver arching multilateral treaties like the WTO. The Second Ammendment, due process rather than acting on uncorroborated accusations. The premise that US sovereignty lies in the hands of the citizenry rather than our elected officials in government. They act using sovereignty we lend them within the limits the constitution defines.
Finally, the firm belief that socialism will degrade the standard of living of any country that adopts it.

What about the all the other things "proggies" believe are wrong or bad?

And it's a fairly specific definition of progressive if include supporting WTO and omni-free trade agreements. You may need to support those as well if you want to react to the beliefs of a wider range of progressives.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And here we see the unwitting confession of a conservative that their positions are arrived at out of blind reactionary rejection of anything their political opponents say, instead of by rational thought.

And it is declared proudly. The modern GOP in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen.

LOL! You are a san check after we consider the information. If we agree(proggies and the sane), then something MUST be wrong

so double checking the conclusion is a good idea. Checking agreement with you is a good quick check.
Blind reactionary rejection? Nonsense! When a proggy believes in some policy and enacts it, it will fail. That has been proven over and over. Obummer care, anyone?

Socialism anyone?

PeterZ wrote:What is the sine qua non of progressivism? I would assert that progressives are much more driven by the acquisition of power than any unchanging principles. Many liberals would not qualify as progressives because they do not discard those views in pursuit of power.

Alan Dershowitz is the best example I can name. The man is a liberal Clinton supporter that holds true to his principles. He is not a Trump supporter and I doubt will ever vote for a republican, yet he holds to his views of civil liberties despite how those views mandate supporting the President against the Dems that act against those principles.

I would rejoice if Professor Dershowitz becomes the AG and can live with whatever comes from his being in that position, even the impeachment of the President. His is the sort integrity we need in government. I don't agree with much of his political views but whole heartedly agree with his views of civil liberties. I would trust his application of the powers of the AG office in ways I don't for progressive politicians.

So, rather than broadening the defintion of progressive, let's see if the essential qualities can be enumerated first.

gcomeau wrote:

so double checking the conclusion is a good idea. Checking agreement with you is a good quick check.
Blind reactionary rejection? Nonsense! When a proggy believes in some policy and enacts it, it will fail. That has been proven over and over. Obummer care, anyone?

It marginally slowed cost growth and increased coverage... show me the fail part.

It was wholly inadequate to actually fix the train wreck that is the US health care/insurance system since it refused to address the root cause of the problem, insane levels of reliance on the private sector in an industry that is the textbook example of what NOT to let a free market loose on, but as the band aid it was constructed as it did its job. At least in the states it was allowed to do its job in instead of being actively sabotaged by GOP state governments.

Socialism anyone?

All the Democratic Socialist countries topping the global standard of living lists, well above the United States anyone?