YoungRepublican wrote:
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.

What I long to see is more of a roadmap based on principle, rather than just a list of the various causes each side supports. Liberal and conservative come to represent two polarities, but it's unclear whether some of the causes are backed by belief or simply by the passions of the moment. We seem to have more of a cultural divide with liberal vs. conservative, than one centered in principle.

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.

Again, if Trump says he supports some things the right does, he can be acting from political expediency rather than principle. Where is his core conservatism? In important ways, he diverges from conservative principle, especially on free trade, piling up government debt, and centralizing power in the hands of one person--and his supposedly conservative supporters go along with him.

Everything you've said sounds reasonable to me. The one thing I would question is your word 'corruption' in the title. Now, that may be in order to sell books, which is a common enough thing to do. But if you really mean that liberals are corrupt, rather than just wrong, I hope you've been able to back up a pretty extraordinary charge.

DWill wrote:
Again, if Trump says he supports some things the right does, he can be acting from political expediency rather than principle. Where is his core conservatism? In important ways, he diverges from conservative principle, especially on free trade, piling up government debt, and centralizing power in the hands of one person--and his supposedly conservative supporters go along with him.

Everything you've said sounds reasonable to me. The one thing I would question is your word 'corruption' in the title. Now, that may be in order to sell books, which is a common enough thing to do. But if you really mean that liberals are corrupt, rather than just wrong, I hope you've been able to back up a pretty extraordinary charge.

I think that you've made some very valid points. However, with regards to fiscal conservatism, conservatives often do support free trade. In terms of government debt, one of Trump's promises to the American public was that he would eliminate the government debt within 8 years. Now that the COVID-19 pandemic has struck, that seems very unlikely. He didn't have much of a choice when it came to this issue as special circumstances called for an increase in spending. I don't think that Trump has centralized a lot of power in himself. Could you provide an example?

My book exposes how liberal ideology is damaging, but it also talks about the corruption behind many liberal figures, institutions, and the media. Thus, the title is not misleading in any way and is an accurate representation of the subject matter.

YoungRepublican wrote: I think that you've made some very valid points. However, with regards to fiscal conservatism, conservatives often do support free trade.

Yes, that's right, conservatives have traditionally favored free trade, and I meant that Trump has gone against that with trade protectionism in the form of tariffs.

In terms of government debt, one of Trump's promises to the American public was that he would eliminate the government debt within 8 years. Now that the COVID-19 pandemic has struck, that seems very unlikely. He didn't have much of a choice when it came to this issue as special circumstances called for an increase in spending.

But Trump's signature legislation, the 2017 tax cut in the middle of a healthy economy, reduced tax revenue, thus increasing the federal debt substantially. I don't know of any plans his administration had to attack the debt that were derailed by the pandemic. In any case, the tax cut put spending reduction behind the eight ball.

I don't think that Trump has centralized a lot of power in himself. Could you provide an example?

Fortunately, there have been checks on his authoritarian impulses, but his intent is quite clear. Remember "I alone can fix it"? His recent response to protests, especially in Washington DC where he has the power to wield federal law enforcement, is reminiscent of dictators. He wants Antifa labeled a terrorist organization, but has no authority to do that. Black Lives Matter is a "symbol of hate." He asserts that the presidency gives him power to do anything he wants; he claims to be not subject to investigation, much less prosecution. He threatens to stifle the free press and labels it "the enemy of the people," a la Joseph Stalin. Conservatives should rebel at this stuff, and many have.

DWill wrote:
Fortunately, there have been checks on his authoritarian impulses, but his intent is quite clear. Remember "I alone can fix it"? His recent response to protests, especially in Washington DC where he has the power to wield federal law enforcement, is reminiscent of dictators. He wants Antifa labeled a terrorist organization, but has no authority to do that. Black Lives Matter is a "symbol of hate." He asserts that the presidency gives him power to do anything he wants; he claims to be not subject to investigation, much less prosecution. He threatens to stifle the free press and labels it "the enemy of the people," a la Joseph Stalin. Conservatives should rebel at this stuff, and many have.

Trump's desire to protect federal buildings and small businesses from looters is not "authoritarian." Presidents have the authority to deploy the national guard to areas where local law enforcement fails to control the situation at hand. Furthermore, just because he wants Antifa to be labeled a terrorist organization, whether or not he has the authority to do so, does not make him an "authoritarian" per say, unless he were to seize the power necessary to do that. Trump, just like everyone else is subject to investigation, but only if there is sufficient reason to believe he has committed wrong. When Obama spied on his campaign in 2016, that was illegal and unfair. Trump had the right to criticize that. The so-called "investigation" into Russian collusion was a ploy to damage the Trump administration and his future campaign. With regards to the press, Trump calls them out and labels them the "enemy of the people" because of their false reporting. Often times, they make inaccurate claims or report things without evidence. Look what they did to the Covington Catholic students and Kavanaugh. By lying to the American public, they have made themselves the enemy of the people.

Look what they did to the Covington Catholic students and Kavanaugh. By lying to the American public, they have made themselves the enemy of the people.

Good example of disinformation.

For some reason this quote from the movie "Grease" sprang to mind....

If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.

brian douglas wrote:For some reason this quote from the movie "Grease" sprang to mind....

If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.

You referring to my comment?

No, we posted near the same time.

YoungRepublican wrote:

DWill wrote:
Fortunately, there have been checks on his authoritarian impulses, but his intent is quite clear. Remember "I alone can fix it"? His recent response to protests, especially in Washington DC where he has the power to wield federal law enforcement, is reminiscent of dictators. He wants Antifa labeled a terrorist organization, but has no authority to do that. Black Lives Matter is a "symbol of hate." He asserts that the presidency gives him power to do anything he wants; he claims to be not subject to investigation, much less prosecution. He threatens to stifle the free press and labels it "the enemy of the people," a la Joseph Stalin. Conservatives should rebel at this stuff, and many have.

Trump's desire to protect federal buildings and small businesses from looters is not "authoritarian." Presidents have the authority to deploy the national guard to areas where local law enforcement fails to control the situation at hand. Furthermore, just because he wants Antifa to be labeled a terrorist organization, whether or not he has the authority to do so, does not make him an "authoritarian" per say, unless he were to seize the power necessary to do that. Trump, just like everyone else is subject to investigation, but only if there is sufficient reason to believe he has committed wrong. When Obama spied on his campaign in 2016, that was illegal and unfair. Trump had the right to criticize that. The so-called "investigation" into Russian collusion was a ploy to damage the Trump administration and his future campaign. With regards to the press, Trump calls them out and labels them the "enemy of the people" because of their false reporting. Often times, they make inaccurate claims or report things without evidence. Look what they did to the Covington Catholic students and Kavanaugh. By lying to the American public, they have made themselves the enemy of the people.

I see you are a Trump Republican. That's not an accusation, just something I didn't pick up from your response to my question earlier about your political home. I guess your moniker makes it obvious, but I thought you could be out to remake the Republican party--much needed in my opinion. Presumably, Mr. Trump isn't for you one of the conservative politicians you say also can be corrupt.

If you'll listen to any advice from an old fart, "most politicians are corrupt" isn't the best base for anyone who wants to be a political analyst, even one with a partisan view. It may seem to have a nice non-partisan ring to it, but it's a non-supportable generalization. And who is a politician, so likely to be corrupt? Is it the mayor of my small town or the commissioner of the revenue? Is it whoever is appointed ambassador to Sweden? Just by virtue of being elected or appointed the person becomes overwhelmingly subject to corruption, in a manner that, say, a new CEO of a business would not be?

George Bush split the Republican party in half with the Patriot Act.

But you are correct, there is enough corruption to go around for all parties.