MSGID: 2:221/360.0 5eceb626   
   REPLY: 3:770/100 3345a659   
   PID: JamNNTPd/OS2 1.3 20200418   
   TID: GE/2 1.2   
   CHRS: CP437 2   
   TZUTC: 0300   
   Hello Dan,   
      
   >AT>DC>way, you shouldn't use the word "we" when talking about   
   >AT>DC>conservatives, since you aren't one if you support Trump.   
   >AT> AT>I've heard this before; people don't know what is meant by   
   > conservative   
   >AT>vs liberal. I took World Politics 101, and the course taught me that   
   >AT>conservatives don't want to waste money, and they put the USA first,   
   >AT>while liberals do want to waste money, and they want to be governed by   
   >AT>international law.   
   >   
   >Wow, your "World Politics 101" professor wasn't very good.   
   >   
   >What you're describing is nationalism.   
      
   White nationalism.   
      
   "I am a nationalist." ~Donald J. Trump   
      
   The term "nationalist" today is a dog whistle, a term meaning   
   white nationalist used freely by those affiliated with groups such   
   as the KKK. These are the kinds of people who comprise his "base".   
      
   >Classically, a Liberal is someone who believes in the   
   >perfectibility of humans: that is, that we can be greater   
   >than that that are.   
      
   The term means different things at different times in different   
   parts of the world. In Europe, the term Liberal means "conservative"   
   or "libertarian" - not anything like what the US version would be.   
      
   >A conservative, by contrast, is one who believes that we   
   >are fundamentally corruptible and must be placed into a rigid   
   >structure to curb our baser instincts, for our own good.   
      
   FDR was a fiscal conservative. The first thing he did in office   
   was declare a bank holiday - a period of 10 days in which he closed   
   all the banks, restructured the banking industry, and allowed only   
   those banks that were solvent to re-open. One-third of all banks   
   remained shut permanently. It was his economic policies that got   
   us out of the great depression in the 1930s. And it is the same   
   type of policies that this country needs today.   
      
   >Liberals favor freedom and work for the common good.   
   >Conservatives favor structure and limiting the individual   
   >for the common good.   
      
   There are no conservatives in the US today. What we have is   
   some wild version of libertarianism. If one can call it that.   
   Trump is not a conservative of any kind. An isolationist, yes.   
   But not a conservative.   
      
   >This has morphed, of course; now, Liberals are still about   
   >freedom, but also about using the state as an apparatus to   
   >support that as well as provide for general equity.   
   >Generally, liberals want to see society evolve to be more   
   >inclusive and egalitarian.  They do not feel fettered by   
   >the confines of tradition as a motivator, or adherence to   
   >a rigid social structure.   
      
   Labels do not define a group, as liberals in one place mean   
   something totally different than liberals in another place.   
   Your definition is not a one-size-fits-all.   
      
   >Conservatives are about limiting the role of the state, and   
   >slowing the rate of social change.  They see tradition as   
   >the model for future growth, favoring individual discovery   
   >of better ways of being by working within the confines of   
   >a existing, strongly proscribed social order.   
      
   Again, your definition is not a on-size-fits-all.   
   Not for liberalism. Not for conservatism.   
      
   >There is much to be admired in this _true_ conservative   
   >ideal.  Certainly, being careful and introspective with   
   >sweeping social change is, on its face, laudable.  Limiting   
   >the role of government in lives is useful as an aspiration,   
   >as well.   
      
   If you want to talk about political economy, start talking sense.   
      
   >Unfortunately, classic conservatism has been usurped by   
   >right-wing forces that favor authoritarianism and want to   
   >halt, not just slow, social change.  Liberals have long   
   >recognized that the fundamental problem with the conservative   
   >approach is that, very often, there's just not all that much   
   >that's good in those rigid social structures and traditions:   
   >too often, they exist to maintain a status quo in which one   
   >group dominates another to the enrichment of the former and   
   >great detriment (including, yes, loss of freedom) of the   
   >latter.  True conservatives can recognize this and discuss it   
   >rationally and acknowledge that, yes, these corrupted traditions   
   >should be discarded wholesale: the right-wing, however, sees   
   >them as an opportunity to gain power and enrich itself.   
      
   What you are describing is a grifter. Has nothing to do   
   with ideology, or liberalism/conservatism.   
      
   >So ... that's what you really are: a right-winger, not a   
   >conservative.  Don't believe me?  Well, you support Trump:   
   >remember that one of his campaign planks was to pump a   
   >trillion dollars into the economy to build up our infrastructure?   
   >Since when is government funding on such a massive scale a   
   >conservative ideal?  And that's just One example.   
      
   Grifters come in all shapes and sizes. They are all after   
   the same thing. Doesn't matter if they call themselves a liberal   
   or a conservative. Or some other thing. A grifter is a grifter   
   is a grifter.   
      
   >AT>I used to be a college kid. I wanted to see limits on greenhouse gases,   
   >AT>and I wanted to be friends with all the nice Islamic people. But then I   
   >AT>graduated & got a feel for the real world and noticed that the USA is   
   >AT>wasting tons of money on crap like the WHO, losing tons of money on crap   
   >AT>like the Paris Accord, opening itself up for attacks by foreign   
   >AT>extremists, and letting career politicians fool weak-minded people with   
   >AT>propaganda.   
   >   
   >Seems like you're the one who's weak minded and bought the   
   >propaganda.  When I see extremism in this country, I mostly   
   >see its own citizens, particularly the right-wingers.  Who   
   >shows up to rallies with guns and all tac'ed out like some   
   >third-rate SPECOPS wannabes, or maybe just a bunch of   
   >never-served losers doing military cosplay with ARs?  These   
   >are the same people who "prep" by buying a bunch of cheap   
   >Baofeng UV-5r HTs and stuffing them into Pelican cases, but   
   >who have no idea to maintain them after they break the first   
   >time they drop them.  What a bunch of posers.   
      
   The Louisiana legislature just passed a law allowing people   
   to bring their guns to church. Does that mean that all state   
   legislators are extremists? Even though two-thirds of them   
   in The Pelican State are Republicans, that does not make it so.   
      
   >It's funny that you think we "lost" a bunch of money to the   
   >Paris Accord.  How so?  Seems to be that there were 4x as   
   >many people working in clean energy (solar etc) when Trump   
   >came into office as were working in coal, but what'd he double   
   >down on?  We _could_ have opened new markets and become the   
   >world's leader on something that is clearly going to be hot:   
   >instead, under our "conservative" leadership, we went in for   
   >something that was already getting its ass kicked in the market   
   >on its own lack of merits.  Really smart.  We just handed that   
   >market to China while we cling to our dying assets.   
      
   The Dutch have windmills. And dikes. Louisiana has oil. And levees.   
   Louisiana legislators went to the Netherlands to learn how to build   
   dikes. And presumably also how to build windmills. But nobody could   
   figure out how the Dutch drilled for oil. So the idea was scratched   
   and all the legislators went back home. This was during the Blanco   
   administration.   
      
   >The WHO was giving us an inside look into COVID-19 early this   
   >year via its backchannels; we should have gotten ready, instead   
   >Trump ignored it and downplayed it while he golfed, tweeted,   
   >and held rallies.  He's so dumb he even retweeted a picture   
   >of himself fiddling, alluding to Nero fiddling as Rome burned.   
   >But that's what you get when you elect a president who doesn't   
   >read and doesn't listen to actual experts.   
      
   Bill Gates warned us, in 2015, about what would happen in a pandemic.   
   He also said the US had time to prepare, and prevent it from being the   
   disaster we all know it has become. This was when Barack Obama was   
   president. While the Obama administration did have a team in place in   
   order to deal with such a crisis, it was underfunded. And then, in   
   2018, the Trump administration did away with it, and refused to replace   
   it with anything else. Not only that, but the Trump administration   
   gutted the funding for the CDC, leaving us incapable of dealing with   
   this current public health crisis.   
      
   >And I noticed you again ignored my question: what has Trump   
   >done for you, specifically, that's so great?  What are his major   
   >accomplishments as you see them?   
      
   He proved governing while black is not a crime.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --    
   The more you play with it the harder it gets   
   --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb   
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 80/1 88/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 120/340 123/131   
   SEEN-BY: 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 6 360 226/30 227/114 229/101   
   SEEN-BY: 229/424 426 700 1016 1017 240/1120 5832 249/206 317 261/38   
   SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 282/464 1038 288/100 292/854 8125 301/1 113   
   SEEN-BY: 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 396/45 423/81 120 712/848 770/1   
   SEEN-BY: 801/188 197 202 900/100 106 108 902/6 7 25 26 27 920/1 2452/250   
   SEEN-BY: 5058/104   
   PATH: 221/360 1 280/464 292/854 301/1 80/1 902/27 90/1 229/426