Select to expand quote
cammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
.
In Western societies this generation is the first in many that looks like its standard of living will not be as good as the one before it. This is happening at the same time Western societies move more and more to the left.
That's not true. Tax rates have moved to the right, by favouring high earners. Differentials between the affluent and the average wage earner have increased dramatically - CEOs income compared to the average has increased by ten times since the post-war economic boom.
I notice that you make statements but run shy of providing evidence or any mention of objective measures - almost certainly because they will prove you wrong.
If you are such an expert why didn't you understand and recognise how far to the left the Republican Party platform of 1956 is compared to that of today? One doesn't expect you to pick up the exact facts, but the fact that you obviously had no idea of the way things used to be shows that you have no real knowledge of how they have changed.
Can't believe I didn't pick up on the 1956 Republican policy platform, you walked me straight into that trap, touche
The point was not to trap anyone per se - but to show how that your claims about others and history were untrue, to show how far the pendulum has swung to the right, and to show that Philn was perfectly consistent in being "Progressive" (which in US terms arguably means returning to 1950s Republican values) and in voting Democrat.
The period after WW2 when even "conservatives" often had values that seem left wing today saw huge advances in health, wealth and society in the western world. It's perfectly reasonable for Philn to want to return to that.
In many ways today's "conservatives" seem to be modelling their ideals on the period before WW1, and certainly before the Great Depression and WW2. That's arguably more regressive than it is conservative.
I call BS, no way would 1950's republicans support modern democrat values like
Transgender ideology like letting men pretend they are women, or assisting kids to mutilate their bodies
or
Open borders allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country
or
not prosecuting thieves and criminals if they didn't steal over $950
or
abortion on demand
or
DEI actions
as a few examples
1- I said old Republicans "often" had values that seem left wing today. "Often" does not mean always. You can't have so totally missed the point that even the right wing used to care more about economic equality and social security than they do today, and yet you chose to zero in on a minority of issues as if I had said old-school Republicans always had values like that of the left wing today.
As far as transgender adults go, the right wing ethos used to be about freedom. Why, then, are you so keen on reducing a person's freedom when it comes to their own body?
2- You are simply incorrect that the old-school Republicans did not favour DEI-style actions. For example that same 1956 Republican party platform included an increase in "the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity."
The Republicans were proud that "Great progress has been made in eliminating employment discrimination", proudly claimed an "impressive record of accomplishment in the field of civil rights" and referred to the fact that "the many Negroes who have been appointed to high public positions have played a significant part in the progress of this Administration." They "concur(red) in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that its decision directing school desegregation should be accomplished with "all deliberate speed" locally through Federal District Courts." The old-school Republicans spoke of their "enlightened policy" to assist Native Americans and even praised the Democrat's "progressive programmes" which the Reps promised to extend.
These are all "DEI-style" actions of the sort you claim did not happen. You are wrong.
How do you just ignore facts that no reasonable person can dispute?
3- Sure, illegal immigration wasn't happening in such big numbers. The old Rep position was for INCREASED intake of refugees and displaced people and it supported "an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples" so they were NOT against immigration in general.
Oh, and when did the highest number of illegals come into the USA? In 2003, when the Republicans were in power (and starting wars). And what happened when there was bipartisan support for a bill to address illegal immigration this year? Trump blocked it TWICE. How do you blame the left for a problem that was at its worst under the right, and where the right recently opposed a solution?
How do you just ignore facts that no reasonable person can dispute?4- The old-school Republicans also had a platform of conservation to "safeguard our precious soil and water resources for generations yet unborn" which included programmes to prevent wind erosion; they were expanding science; they affirmed their support for the UN and collective security; reducing barriers to international trade; and aid to developing nations. Those policies helped take the USA into the greatest period of economic growth ever known. They were the sort of policies that many of us were to benefit from when we were kids. It's perfectly reasonable to wish they still existed.
Trump isn't a conservative of the 20th and earlier 21st century type - he is if anything a throwback to the 1800s when life expectancy was short, economic inequality was extreme, and lynching and other crime was rampant. You may like the policies that lead to such outcomes but it's perfectly reasonable that not all of us do.
5- You haven't told us how California, with the 5th best employment rates and the 5th best crime rates out of 50 states, can be seen as "a mess" compared to most of the right wing states. Those are facts.
How do you just ignore facts that no reasonable person can dispute?