What do you think will become of the USA when leftist regain full control?

I think that you are dead wrong on this issue. If you want to go back to the originalist position, and read what the framers of the constitution wrote, you will see that it was intended to be a living document, to be reinterpreted with changing times. There was the argument; that people of the past had no right to impose their will on the people of the future.

 

Do you think the Framers intended that the "living document" be amended to increase freedom such a giving full citizenship rights to women and minorities, or to decrease freedom by empowering the Federal government to impose upon citizens "what is for their own good"?

 

You clearly watched the wrong video

Actually meeting a promise takes time. Obama made the same promise but quickly failed miserably to deliver.

 

But that assumes the judiciary will follow the law, which often they do not.

 

Educated, career orientated, health conscious, civic minded, cares about the environment and the human condition, physically active, supportive of their children and their children's interests, non-religious, forward looking, scientific worldview....

Most creatives are liberals as are most scientists.

Liberals advocate for more rights and freedoms, which is why people living in Democratically dominated states tend to have more rights and freedoms than people living in Republican dominated states. One is more likely and go to jail in a red state than a blue one. More likely to be victimized in a red state than a blue one.

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Tesla, Intel, their leaders, and most of their rank and file, lean liberal.

As I like to point out, if it weren't for liberals, there would be no electricity, no electronics, no transistors, no integrated circuits, no CPUs (Central Processing Units), no computers, no Internet, and you would not be reading this.

And, of course, you can be sure, that those who designed the machine, that will one day take your job, are liberal leaning. The sharing the wealth theme, is looking out for you too.

 

And when do you think that will happen?

 

I think there is more discernment than you imply, especially from conservatives. I am conservative and recognize a major difference between the radical left Democrats and the massive base of mainstream Democrats, though it is a problem that the radicals make up most of the Democrat power base. When Hillary talked of deplorables she meant every single person -- all 60 or so million -- that supported Trump.

 

HUH?!?! You might be confused by the labels: those with a conservative bent today were called liberal in the 1800s and early 1900s.

 

If we need to flee to bygone days, when did Obama ever promise "something terrific!" healthcare that covers "everybody!" at "lower cost!"?

Returning to current matters, how is Trump's promise coming along?

 

I take the liberal side which is to increase freedom. Wanting to use the Federal government to impose one's will upon the people is a conservative thing. Poll after poll shows somewhere around 70% of the people think that abortion should be legal and accessible. Yet Republican legislators keep passing laws restricting abortion. The courts overturn them and voter initiatives overturn them, yet they keep coming back with legislation most people do not want.

I am pretty sure that the current plan is to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade so that religious zealots, who make up less than 30% of the population, can dictate to the other 70%.

 

We can look forward to Honduras and Brazil level violence as the new norm, and there may be another genocide against Christian whites like there was in the Soviet Union. The same group will be the perpetrators and nobody will be allowed to talk about it.

 

For me, it has nothing to do with womanizing. The thing that I find so abhorrent is his blatant disregard for truth, or the manipulation of it for his own purposes. His tweets yesterday regarding the GDP and unemployment statistics/rates are a great and current example - they were provably false. But as many of his followers regard his twitter account as their source of 'news', it will be eaten up as truth.

My other problem is his attack on the media. To call them 'the enemy of the people' is irresponsible. He may not like what they have to say, and may not like that the vast majority does not like him, but he would be better served to address inaccuracies head on - prove the falsehoods that are being printed and reported - rather than lazily spewing 'fake news'.

 

In your delusions.

Liberals, intellectual liberals, which are what we are talking about here, in the 1800's, made as much fun of religious people, as modern day intellectual liberals, like myself, make fun of religious people.

Liberalism grew out of seeing the world from a scientific point of view. Modern day liberals, like myself, have a scientific worldview.

In the 1800's, intellectual liberals embraced the concepts of evolution, just as modern day intellectual liberals do.

A driving force within liberal thought, is that through scientific understanding and technological innovation, that we can continuously improve the human condition. It is no mere coincidence, that all of our great innovators, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, and the like have all been liberal leaning.

 

Essentially the crowd that denies evolution and global warming. Those who let their beliefs win out over their lying eyes. I'm pretty sure that the deplorables comment was more satisfying to Bernie's base than to Hillary's.

 

Henry Ford hated communists. He wrote a pretty infamous book about it. How could that be if he was such a liberal?

 

As long as they halfway follow the Constitution, and keep separation of powers, etc., it's just a cyclical thing. This country goes a bit left for a while, then a bit right for a while.

 

The fundamental distinction of liberal from conservative relates to government. Prior to the early 1900s a conservative supported strong centralized government and liberals supported decentralized government. They switched in the early 1900s where today's liberals support strong centralized government and conservatives support decentralized republics. A scientific bent had nothing to do with it, though there was some overlap with religion where conservatives favored strong religious hierarchies and liberals favored looser religion establishments. However the religion distinction did not switch as did the political distinctions. Martin Luther was a religious liberal, and would still be today.
Defining liberals as all the good guys is not particularly helpful.

 

You do not have the faintest idea how many of the 60 million Trump supporters deny evolution or believe evolution; same with global warming. Why you think this is what Hillary was thinking when she called them all deplorables escapes all reason.

 

Not all men who enjoy the pleasures of women are the same. Looking at Trumps' behavior, on this account, shows him to be of a poor character, resorting to bottom feeder tactics.

Take for instance, his comments with Billy Bush and Howard Stern, have him bragging about grouping women and stealing kisses from them. This is not the behavior of a man, women are attracted to. Sure enough, even with the models and porn stars, there seems to have been financial transactions. There is even talk that his marriage to his wife, was in part hastened to secure her residency status and speed her citizenship?

A real man, a man that attracts women does not need to resort to Trump's tactics.

A real man draws them in, just by being.

 

Words have meanings, and connotations. There's the dictionary definition, and then there's what the word implies. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. We've determined by connotation, the founders said "men," but meant "mankind," not simply males. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, not 3/5 of equal treatment under the law. If we don't have laws concerning a man's control of his body, then equal treatment under the law means we don't have laws concerning a woman's control of her body. The government's position has to treat them equally, even if individuals feel differently. It's the government's role to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When a group of people has been unequally treated by the law, and against the Constitution, then we may decide we need to level the playing field to make up for past injustices committed by the government.

This is not a country of blood and soil, but rather a country of ideas- most importantly equality, freedom, and inalienable rights. We aren't guaranteed any particular outcome, but we can expect to have equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.

 

This conservative doomsday scenario seems, at best, like something you would see in the movies.

Despite the false notions here of what the left would do gaining control, there’s nothing the left could do to make our country worse than it has been with Trump. How are we supposed to get worse after we have been headed by a reckless authoritarian, almost an autocrat, in an uber-nationalistic government that has embarrassed our allies abroad? All in less than two years.

I’m quite tired of the Venezuela strawman argument, think more like Canada or Sweden that have single payer yet are capitalist countries.

Your fears here are exaggerated.

 

The last time the government was conservative right was in the 80s and the establishment and the media hated it. We are again now leaning conservative right, though to a lesser degree than in the 80s, and the establishment and media hate it even more -- so much so they are willing to burn the constitution to get rid of it. In the small probability that they succeed, we will never again have conservative right in power.

I use "conservative" or "conservative right" because simply "right" is such a conglomeration it loses meaning.

 

Are you insinuating that JFK and LBJ were quite gentlemanly in the accostings? Really????

 

"equal protection of the laws" means that everybody has to be treated the same within the judicial system. It does not mean that every law has to apply to everybody equally.

 

You are missing the bigger picture. In the grand scheme of things, liberals are those forward looking individuals who pull society forward, whereas conservatives are those who pull society backwards. It is that back and forth tug that is politics.

I highly suspect that you are confusing party affiliation with the liberal conservative divide. Lincoln was a liberal and Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

During the Civil War, it was liberals in the Northeast vs conservatives in the South, just as it is today.

After the Articles of Confederation failed, it was a liberal of the day, Madison, who wrote most of the constitution, and was presented as the need for a strong central government to hold the country together. During the Civil War the liberal Lincoln used the power of the state to end slavery and force the South back into the fold. Teddy Roosevelt used the power of the state to improve the lives of average people. When the right-wing (rule by the well born, wealthy, and well connected) took over the Republican Party, the liberals/progressives switched to the Democratic Party, where Wilson and FDR continued and expanded what Teddy had begun.

Then came LBJ who used the power of the government to expand civil liberties and to help the poor. Obama's extension of health care benefits, was just another in the long line of the liberal goal of continuing to improve the human condition.