Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:Liberal policies ultimately fail..

How long until these liberal countries fail:

Iceland
Finland
Sweden
Norway
New Zealand

apples to oranges.

more precise I should have been..
myopic you are

(my inner yoda schooling your ass)

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:Liberal policies ultimately fail..

How long until these liberal countries fail:

Iceland
Finland
Sweden
Norway
New Zealand

This is the same old but fallaciously dumb argument bleeding heart liberals use as a "Gotcha"

It's simply fallaciously dumb to use tiny, Nordic countries as a one size fits-all model of success with a country as large and incredibly racially diverse as the United States..

As if Finland with a population of 5.5 million (my gosh, Dodger Stadium attracts more than 5 million people in about 3 seasons. There are about 2 million people living in an East Los Angeles zipcode alone!) is a good likeness for the USA.

Nordic white cultural/historical values grafted onto the United States historical / cultural histories.
Hey! The shoe fits! Wear it!!

It's simply fallaciously dumb to use tiny, Nordic countries as a one size fits-all model of success with a country as large and incredibly racially diverse as the United States..

The thing is, I truly don't think it's Liberalism that's failing. Liberalism can and does work. Regardless of any variable you can come up with why the nordic countries like New Zealand are successful in spite of your groupthink arguments against... they work.

What's failing in our country is something tangential to both sides. It's the power that rich people have over our government. Conservative policies make that worse, like those embodying trickle down economics and corporate welfare.

I'm genuinely curious what impact race has against the efficacy of liberal policies.

Groupthink?

It is you who's groupthink is showing with that ridiculously common "what about Scandanavian/Nordic utopias" that is really a very poor categorical error.


Let's consider Denmark's "progressive tax rate"
Income is taxed at 60% when an individual's salary reaches the equivalent of 60K US dollars.

Consider a 3rd generation Mexican American, who's grandparents migrated from Mexico because they had nothing, and worked their asses off to raise a family making next to nothing, and had little tangible comforts to show for it, but lived with the dream their children, and grandchildren would have more than them.

Their children made slightly more, but lacked the education necessary to earn that much more than their parents.

THEIR children were able to be more prosperous in the job market and earn over 60K.

At family gatherings the family reminisces how their grandparents came from, had nothing, and remember their parents worked 16 hours a day to provide advantages for their kids they never had.

Do you think 3rd generation Hispanics, particularly middle aged Hispanics, would be okay giving up 60% of their income so as to send them back to what their parents earned jointly?

Are Hispanic Americans, or Black Americans supposed to favor the progressive tax rates of Nordic whites who live thousands of miles away and have had socialist policies baked into their DNA for generations?


Consider me a true example of the 3rd Gen Hispanic above.
Why should I favor progressive, white liberal socialistic Scandinavian tax policies because someone like you says what's good for Nordics is good for Americans of all colors and backgrounds?
I don't agree. I am just as American as you but likely come from entirely different background.

Your white privilege is showing badly here.

See what you started, Young Republican ? I hope you'll excuse me for not reading your book, but what are the core problems you see with what you're calling liberalism? I would encourage you to look into the historical roots of conservatism, because there you'll see a belief in the liberal world order. Confusing, huh? Not so surprising, though, since 'liberal' equates to liberty and freedom. If I'm not mistaken, it's loss of individual freedom that is the big complaint of conservatives against present-day liberals.

Problem is, when conservatives, so-called, move toward support of authoritarianism, they are perverting conservatism. That explains why many conservatives of the old school have objected, and backed away from Donald Trump, a would-be authoritarian.

I don't see a strong case for Trump as a conservative. How about you?

It is you who's groupthink is showing with that ridiculously common "what about Scandanavian/Nordic utopias" that is really a very poor categorical error.

Nothing you said proves that liberal policies always fail.

Your argument instead morphed into something about how the policies will always fail, but only in America and only because you aren't used to them. And New Zealand isn't nordic.

DWill wrote:... If I'm not mistaken, it's loss of individual freedom that is the big complaint of conservatives against present-day liberals.

Yet conservatives easily accept the Patriot Act which has the capability to bypass all those freedoms.

Interbane wrote:

It is you who's groupthink is showing with that ridiculously common "what about Scandanavian/Nordic utopias" that is really a very poor categorical error.

Nothing you said proves that liberal policies always fail.

Your argument instead morphed into something about how the policies will always fail, but only in America and only because you aren't used to them. And New Zealand isn't nordic.

Fair enough.

Just as long as you understand it would be stupid to brag about how good people in Denmark or Sweden have it when discussing US policies.

Don't know how permanent liberal policies are in Scandinavian countries.

Liberal policies are not entirely dominant and more of a blend with soft capitalism

These are precisely the things Medicare for All would abolish. It’s intriguing that while socialists in America would rush to nationalize the health care system, Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes are all gradually increasing their use of private health insurance.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/13/ ... alth-care/


I don't think liberal policies are entirely successful in the context you pointed too.

DWill wrote:See what you started, Young Republican ? I hope you'll excuse me for not reading your book, but what are the core problems you see with what you're calling liberalism? I would encourage you to look into the historical roots of conservatism, because there you'll see a belief in the liberal world order. Confusing, huh? Not so surprising, though, since 'liberal' equates to liberty and freedom. If I'm not mistaken, it's loss of individual freedom that is the big complaint of conservatives against present-day liberals.

Problem is, when conservatives, so-called, move toward support of authoritarianism, they are perverting conservatism. That explains why many conservatives of the old school have objected, and backed away from Donald Trump, a would-be authoritarian.

I don't see a strong case for Trump as a conservative. How about you?

I think that most of the discussion here is very productive, and I'm very impressed by it.

Although you make some good arguments, modern liberalism is completely different than classical liberalism. Yes, classical liberalism was all about liberty and freedom, but modern liberalism is about embracing new ideas over past ones and aligning with some set standpoints on issues. For example, liberals often support abortion, higher taxes, gun control, and more government regulation. Conservatives, on the other hand, are often pro-life, support lower taxes, prefer less gun control, and endorse less government regulation in general. However, you're right; the lines can get blurred as many individuals support ideas from both sides. With that being said, I believe that there is a valid argument for those that claim modern liberalism is limiting some of our individual freedoms. As far as Trump goes, he's not really a politician (he's more of a businessman). I would say that he does support a lot of conservative ideology, therefore he could be considered one.