There is no republican party platform. Its all about Trump.

Sorry you are so consumed by the situation. Missing the point, missing the rationality- or lack of it in the case of the dems, who's "character" and values blow around to something different whenever the political winds shift. That's not a "platform", it's not knowing what the F to do, so you try anything.

 

The riots are not the result of Floyd George or anyone else like him- those are just the excuses for uncivilized people to avoid responsibility to express the anger with life, the disappointment with themselves that is always inside them. They are mentally different than mature people, in that their minds don't functions logically or properly. They are incapable of coping as adults, even though they are physically adults.

You might start by asking yourself how any civilized person can justify burning you out because he was angry over the death of a career criminal he didn't know, nor does he know you..... but finds pleasure in destroying what you may have worked for all your life.

Only small, spoiled and poorly raised children think that way; that unless somebody makes me happy, I punish everybody- and if they do make me happy they owe me more. The license to be abgry never stops in such people, because it's always somebody elses fault- just need something or something or someone to blame the asshat attitude on.

And if nobody straightens them out, they grow into large, spoiled children- who continue do just that.
No legitimate base to blame for their personal disaster in life, so they punish anybody and everybody.
They are the people you excuse. They are the people the democrats not only excuse, but encourage.
Try recognizing truth sometime. painful, but helpful if you want to save your own future.

 

Since I make no comment on modern liberalism - What on earth are you talking about. How can you say I have a complete misunderstanding of "modern Liberalism" - when I have not said a thing about it.

Classical Liberalism is not Modern Liberalism - and thus -it is you who is in a state of complete misunderstanding.

Your misguided opening statement is however followed by some sensible commentary - (not that I agree with all of it but it is sensible) which I appreciate.

I disagree that classical liberalism is as simplistic as you say but regardless - even if this were the case - this is no reason for throwing some of the basic principles into the garbage can.

Classical Liberalism - like Republicanism - seeks to limit the power of Gov't. It does not favor Totalitarianism and seeks to put in safeguards to prevent totalitarianism by having the authority of Gov't come from "we the people" - consent of the governed.

The above is partly correct but needs fine tuning. The Founding principles were founded on classical liberalism - as per the DOI. The DOI gives the principles by which law and the constitution are to be interpreted.

Classical liberalism was not so much a reaction to Monarchial rule as it was a reaction against the authority of Gov't coming from God -"Divine Right" - which of course can not be challenged.

So where does modern liberalism go wrong ? The DOI deals with the concept of "Legitimacy of Authority" - in particular what is "NOT" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The DOI puts essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't (ensure you have a solid understanding of what "essential liberty" means -as many think this applies to all liberty - which it does not)

This does not mean that the Gov't can not mess with essential liberty. It just can not do so of its own volition -in other words - it needs to apply for a change to the Social contract - construct by which the people give authority to the Gov't.

In other words .... if Gov't wants to make "Pot" illegal.. it must hold a referendum. The bar however is not 50+1 - or Simple Majority Mandate (SMM) -that some elected official claims the authority to mess with essential liberty on the basis of being elected.

The above is referred to in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority"

The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at lest 2/3rd's ... in the case of change to the constitution 75% of states are required. NOT - 50+1.

Modern Liberalism has abandoned the founding principles... The new justification for law is "Utilitarianism" - as the sole basis for law - law justified on "what will increase happiness of the collective"

This justification for law allows for an end run abound the safeguards put in place by the founders to protect essential liberty - and give's Gov't way too much power - near unlimited - and allows for Trampling on the founding principles and is a move towards totalitarianism.

 

The reality is there is no GOP platform because there are no ideas to put into one. Its all about the cult leader.

 

The lack of an actual document leads to blowing around, not the creation and documentation of one. "Winging it" is what the GOP are prepared to do for their cult leader.

 

Except for more of the same. Degrade the environment, degraded bedrock institutions, violate norms, lie, align with despots, exude bigotry, fear monger, lie, explode the debt, fail to respond to a health crisis, set policies that favor the rich, hire unqualified staff, lie,................................................

 

"There is no republican party platform. Its all about Trump."

it's sad, not sure what happened to the Republican party

 

what, lol, Trump talks about how great he is, that is about all Trump does, no policy, no plans, no nothing, just lies

 

If you actually believe any of this, you have my sympathy.

Uncivilized people. Yep, like that ain't a bright red beacon.

 

First off, you wrote "Blue hates principles of classic liberalism."

Right there I have an issue with you because the word 'hate' is a propaganda term. As a liberal, I do not 'hate' any 'principle', because in my universe 'disagree' does not equal 'hate' and so I resent the characterization. If you continue to use that would, I will have no choice but to dismiss anything you say or write because it has the tone and tenor of propagandistic writing. I would accept 'disagree' or something that reflects a sensible opinion.

so, would you care to rewrite what you wrote? Please do, and then I will address your comment. But, rather than wait for you do to that, I'll assume you have enough character to understand it's an inappropriate word (you are forgiven), and you choose to use 'disagree' instead. If you don't, then discard the rest of this comment and I will place you on the ignore list.

Okay, there are aspects of classic liberalism, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and economic freedom, etc, free markets, that liberals uphold. But, because today's society is far more complex, the classic liberalism whereupon 'total economic freedom' and 'total' this or that was appropriate in nation's incipient stages is no longer workable. Why? Because society is much much larger and consequently far more complex, a government's responsibilities have increased, and the need for taxation is now reality. Clarification on 'free speech' was necessary, (for example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is, indeed, a fire, so 'freedom' has limitations ). So, taxation monitors 'economic freedom' to the extent of taxation. Given that large corporations, no longer pay people what is needed to live on, they must be regulated to force them to do so, and so on. The CPA was the cop on the beat in the finance arena, and so forth ( though it has been emasculated under Trump )

So, the complexities and realities of the world are such that regulations are needed, and a more complex government, reflecting the more complex society it governs, is needed such that freedoms upheld by classic liberalism must clarified, fair and just limitations, etc, are needed. . Can we go too far with regulations? Sure, and I agree with this, but wholesale repeal of regulations without considering their necessity isn't right, either. A thorough review of regulations, discarding the ones that do more harm that good, etc., is warranted. It's not about 'big government' it's about right government, and liberals and conservatives do disagree on what this should, and should not, be.

All of the rights in the bill of rights still exist, but SCOTUS has ruled that rights have limits. Isn't this correct?

Now, where conservatives and liberals disagree is on what, and what not, the government should be responsible for.

Conservatives want government out of education, welfare, social security, blah blah blah, well the voters have decided and have disagreed.

But, where conservatives are wrong, is that they

1. Accuse liberals of hate ( of one kind or another, such as 'freedom', 'democracy', 'free markets' , etc ). This is false.
2. Accuse liberals of wanting 'big government'. This is an unjust accusation, because it implies that liberals want a government that is bigger than needed, which isn't true.
But, we do believe government should be involved with certain things that conservatives believe we should not. But conservatives use of the term 'liberals love big government' is a propaganda term. I find it amusing that they accuse liberals of propaganda when they relish in it.

Also, note that on #2, conservatives pay lip service to it, because they want to impose government on woman's reproductive rights, etc.

Additionally, and traditionally, conservatives espoused that a government should be fiscally responsible, which was achieved in a bipartisan fashion during Clinton.

But, when Bush came along, conservatives tossed their own principle in the trash can, and even more so with Trump.

And now republicans are acting totally irresponsibly and accusing liberals of being communists. The president has called democrats communists, I see it more and more on this forum.

So, with that kind of language, all it is going to do it put people at each others throats. Now, more than ever, I see people in families at each others throats, it's evident on debate forums, on face book, it's everywhere.

So, where is it all coming from? Well, there's an old saying, a fish rots from the head down.

Yes, the president sets the tone for the nation. This president is unprecedented in his failure at leadership. It is he who is the prime mover of all this hatred.

During WWII we have FDR and his fire side chats, and what they did is calm the nation down, and reinvigorate a nation's resolve.

This president does the opposite, he foments anger, resentment, and hatred among Americans, causing people like you to cavalierly toss the word 'hate' around, and he is tearing the nation apart, emasculating it's institutions, reducing America's status in the world.

So, if Trump is where classic liberalism has taken the country, I want no part of it.

 

The republican party platform is what the president has been doing for the past 4 years. There is no democrat party platform. It is all about Trump.

 

Where is the document of your intent preceding your post?

 

CHINER and COVID are the real criminals in all this money spending!

 

what has Trump done?

 

Knock it off.

 

So?

 

OH Stop it - so I hyperbolized a bit .. but not much- and that is a problem. Further - I justified my claim - so I hope you get to that part at some point.

I understand all of the above - none of which addresses the justification I presented unfortunately. I am not on the extreme end of any spectrum - and am not painting a black vs white paradigm - or inferring that in any way. Quite the reverse.

Just because society is more complex - does not mean simple principles do not apply - the question is still where are the boundaries .. and you have made no attempt to define those boundaries other than to state the extremes...

I used specific legal terms "Legitimacy of Authority" ... of course society is more complex - how does this impact the legitimacy of authority issues I presented ?

and if not by the founding principles laid out in the DOI - then what ? Utilitarianism ? and who gets to decide where the line is and on what basis.

All of these question are addressed in my post - and await your response.

No idea what you are trying to get at here and you keep warping out into generalization -- yes rights have limits. but we are not talking about "rights in general" -we are discussing a specific set of rights - referred to as "essential Liberty" - and I wrote a note in my previous post on this term - This did not seem to land .. ?

There is no disagreement between Red and Blue Establishment on this issue. Red Establishment hates the principles of Republicanism and Blue Establishment hates the principles of Classical liberalism.

In perfect union they are on this issue.

If you want to find the Devil my friend .. look not to where Red and Blue Establishment disagree - look to where they agree.

I very much dislike Red Establishment - you are preaching to the Choir.

So you did not address the justification for why I believe that Blue is an anathema to Classical Liberalism. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "Blue Establishment" rather than Blue... so that is now the claim on the table.

Blue Establishment is an anathema to Classical Liberalism - just as Red Establishment is an anathema to the principles of Republicanism.

You are missing something in the mix here.

Try this question - Do you believe in limits to Gov't power, as opposed to totalitarianism/dictatorship/ absolute Monarchy - everyone answers "Yes Yes Yes" - we don't want totalitarianism.

Assuming your answer was Yes ... Try this question much harder than the first.

OK - if you think Gov't power should be limited .. what then should it be limited to ? and on what basis ... or in legaleze "What is the Legitimate Authority of Gov't"

I have put forward specifically where these limits are - and on what basis - as per the DOI and Classical Liberalism.

If you wish to suggest something different - Now is your turn.

 

Everybody is entitled to their own view of reality- but if you have it wrong, you only hurt yourself.

 

You get to guess at it.