blantant corruption= the new normal.

[Necrosis]

Who was up in arms over this?

Where were the getlibbers whining about Bidens budget?

Guess the hypocrites?

You see no difference in Trumps running up of debt vs bidens? serious question, no troll.

[Dos Equis]

You aren't understanding what I am saying or are confused as to what I mean here, the word republican is likely to blame. I was saying the left as in it's budding in consciousness  (worldly speaking), the historicity of it as a movement/force. The idea of personal rights, women's emancipation, equality etc.. this is a factual thing in philosophy and history. The left generally poise new positions while the right has traditionalist views. Both are required. For example, trans rights, gender fluidity, all new ideas in the collective consciousness. I am referencing deleuze, foucault, gerber etc.. with my statement.

My usage of republican likely threw you off. I am speaking in more of the philosophy of politics sense and worldly sense.

To my mind-although I think it's impossible to tell you what my true ideas are as we all absorb what we read so much so that ourselves and the other becomes an admixture-the right is slow and the left fast. That's incredibly reductionistic as the idea of speed in a virilio or dromological sense isn't confined to the left, but it's certainly it's defining feature in juxtaposition. The left tends to race off and often achieves escape velocity, this results in stupid ideas and trials of novel ways of living, being etc.. The right are slow, they prefer stability, order and have stances that have not changed dramatically, hence the religious angle etc.

If it wasn't for the right the left would untether into self-destruction and if it wasn't for the left the right would go extinct in the sense of no new modes of being. This is where good sense comes into play, you need authority but too much and it devolves. The issues with a sense is that it's intuitive and being so is essentially pre-reflective and pre-conceptual so delimiting it is impossible as defining it is caricature as it's prior to the thing you are using to define it- language.

Thinking like children was harsh, being more of a centrist I can buy the black and white thinking, I just know it's a fiction. Being a dolorist I often think you have to work hard- that's helpful are a heuristic for effort output but it's not true on reflection, at least not all the time. That weird place where it is and it isn't is where I tend to be.

You were talking about American politics.  You didn’t know that the Republican party was formed before the Democrat party.  And trying to say you were actually talking about some non-American esoteric political philosophy is not believable, but whatever.
 
The American left “in it’s [sic] budding consciousness” was oppressive and racist.  American slavery originated with and was embraced by the political left in America.  The Republican party was actually formed as an abolitionist (i.e., anti-slavery) party.  We had an entire war about it.  Ordinarily, I would give someone who doesn’t know American history the benefit of the doubt.  But not you.  Lol
 
And you clearly don’t understand conservativism and liberalism in America.  Actual conservativism is a solid political philosophy, particularly economic conservatism.  The problem in America is we don’t have many true conservatives.  Republicans run as conservatives and govern as liberals.  And liberalism is a proven failure.  As I’ve said many times on the board, the Democrat party is intellectually bankrupt and has been for many years, and the only reason they survive is because the Republican party sucks.  A bunch of dishonest politicians.
 
People who actually follow American politics know that the left doesn’t run on policy. They run on emotion.  They demonize an opponent, try and get people angry or afraid of something, and rely on low voter turnout from the other side.  Or they rely on the courts, because they cannot get many of their policies through the normal legislative process.
 
So your statement that “Conservatism will always fail as progress and evolution are a rule” is not only nonsensical, but is absolutely false as it relates to the greatest country on earth.

[Necrosis]

You were talking about American politics.  You didn’t know that the Republican party was formed before the Democrat party.  And trying to say you were actually talking about some non-American esoteric political philosophy is not believable, but whatever.
 
The American left “in it’s [sic] budding consciousness” was oppressive and racist.  American slavery originated with and was embraced by the political left in America.  The Republican party was actually formed as an abolitionist (i.e., anti-slavery) party.  We had an entire war about it.  Ordinarily, I would give someone who doesn’t know American history the benefit of the doubt.  But not you.  Lol
 
And you clearly don’t understand conservativism and liberalism in America.  Actual conservativism is a solid political philosophy, particularly economic conservatism.  The problem in America is we don’t have many true conservatives.  Republicans run as conservatives and govern as liberals.  And liberalism is a proven failure.  As I’ve said many times on the board, the Democrat party is intellectually bankrupt and has been for many years, and the only reason they survive is because the Republican party sucks.  A bunch of dishonest politicians.
 
People who actually follow American politics know that the left doesn’t run on policy. They run on emotion.  They demonize an opponent, try and get people angry or afraid of something, and rely on low voter turnout from the other side.  Or they rely on the courts, because they cannot get many of their policies through the normal legislative process.
 
So your statement that “Conservatism will always fail as progress and evolution are a rule” is not only nonsensical, but is absolutely false as it relates to the greatest country on earth.

I said it followed after the right in HISTORY, I was referencing the left as in the global movement in history.

I am talking about the ideas related to leftism. The left historically is associated with equality, namely during things like the french revolution. The US is a very recent phenomenon. I am not sure why you decided to rebut an argument I didn't make.

I stand by what I said, it's factual, accepted by historians and is a clear picture of how the left and right play as a dialectical throughout history.

The last sentence is factually as well. They require each other, you are missing the point of my post. Your demonizing of one side of this dialectic indicates you don't understand what I am saying. I am not sure you are even trying to understand, are you or are you just outright dismissing what I am saying prior to processing it. For conservatism to win it would have to be moving history in a vector, conservatism is more scalar, it's stationary in terms of it's ideas. No new god is coming for christianity, the values laid out will always be the same etc. they are not moving in any new direction. The only direction would be more of the same. It conserves, retains, keeps steady and delimits--- hence the name.

The left, being progressive produces new ideas (I don't mean only in political practice, solutions to problems can be creative on both sides), I mean as ideologies. The right can have solutions to things like immigration etc, these can be new ideas in iterations. The left produce mutations, many of which are bad. The right anchors the left and without it you would now have your dick cut off. Obviously nothing exists as pure conservative or leftist though, so we get amalgams and chimeras which don't neatly fit the above dichotomy. I am speaking in ideality, in actuality its much more messy.

It has no base per se, it's moving conservatism slowly away from itself, IE progressing it. It cannot hold as humans evolve, things change and what we are seeing now is attempts to increase humanities overall fitness. Inclusion as they call it.

[Dos Equis]

I said it followed after the right in HISTORY, I was referencing the left as in the global movement in history.

I am talking about the ideas related to leftism. The left historically is associated with equality, namely during things like the french revolution. The US is a very recent phenomenon. I am not sure why you decided to rebut an argument I didn't make.

I stand by what I said, it's factual, accepted by historians and is a clear picture of how the left and right play as a dialectical throughout history.

The last sentence is factually as well. They require each other, you are missing the point of my post. Your demonizing of one side of this dialectic indicates you don't understand what I am saying. I am not sure you are even trying to understand, are you or are you just outright dismissing what I am saying prior to processing it. For conservatism to win it would have to be moving history in a vector, conservatism is more scalar, it's stationary in terms of it's ideas. No new god is coming for christianity, the values laid out will always be the same etc. they are not moving in any new direction. The only direction would be more of the same. It conserves, retains, keeps steady and delimits--- hence the name.

The left, being progressive produces new ideas (I don't mean only in political practice, solutions to problems can be creative on both sides), I mean as ideologies. The right can have solutions to things like immigration etc, these can be new ideas in iterations. The left produce mutations, many of which are bad. The right anchors the left and without it you would now have your dick cut off. Obviously nothing exists as pure conservative or leftist though, so we get amalgams and chimeras which don't neatly fit the above dichotomy. I am speaking in ideality, in actuality its much more messy.

It has no base per se, it's moving conservatism slowly away from itself, IE progressing it. It cannot hold as humans evolve, things change and what we are seeing now is attempts to increase humanities overall fitness. Inclusion as they call it.

Just to be clear, despite your earlier attempt to comment on American politics, you are saying your comments are in fact unrelated to American politics.  Ok.  I guess you have to say that now, because your comments about liberalism and conservativism are completely inaccurate as they relate to American politics. 

In America, the left's embracement of "equality" is very recent.  Historically, as I indicated, they were oppressive.  In terms of individual liberty and "equality," that originated with the Republican party.  In addition to abolition, all of the major early civil rights legislation originated with "the right" in America.  In fact, it was Democrats who opposed and filibustered things like the 64 Civil Rights Act.  That was after they literally fought to the death to preserve slavery (i.e., oppression). 

So you if you want to wax eloquent about the left vs. the right outside of America, including the French Revolution, that's fine.  But if you're going to talk about American politics and political history, you need a better understanding of our history.   

[chaos]

Just to be clear, despite your earlier attempt to comment on American politics, you are saying your comments are in fact unrelated to American politics.  Ok.  I guess you have to say that now, because your comments about liberalism and conservativism are completely inaccurate as they relate to American politics. 

In America, the left's embracement of "equality" is very recent.  Historically, as I indicated, they were oppressive.  In terms of individual liberty and "equality," that originated with the Republican party.  In addition to abolition, all of the major early civil rights legislation originated with "the right" in America.  In fact, it was Democrats who opposed and filibustered things like the 64 Civil Rights Act.  That was after they literally fought to the death to preserve slavery (i.e., oppression). 

So you if you want to wax eloquent about the left vs. the right outside of America, including the French Revolution, that's fine.  But if you're going to talk about American politics and political history, you need a better understanding of our history.   

No matter how wrong, he'll never concede.

[Necrosis]

Just to be clear, despite your earlier attempt to comment on American politics, you are saying your comments are in fact unrelated to American politics.  Ok.  I guess you have to say that now, because your comments about liberalism and conservativism are completely inaccurate as they relate to American politics. 

In America, the left's embracement of "equality" is very recent.  Historically, as I indicated, they were oppressive.  In terms of individual liberty and "equality," that originated with the Republican party.  In addition to abolition, all of the major early civil rights legislation originated with "the right" in America.  In fact, it was Democrats who opposed and filibustered things like the 64 Civil Rights Act.  That was after they literally fought to the death to preserve slavery (i.e., oppression). 

So you if you want to wax eloquent about the left vs. the right outside of America, including the French Revolution, that's fine.  But if you're going to talk about American politics and political history, you need a better understanding of our history.   

Yes, its clear from my post that's what I was referencing. You continue to argue against a strawman of your own making. I wasn't talking about US history per se, it's really not that hard to understand. The left vs right dichotomy exists outside of the states and is almost the same everywhere and has existed long before the states were created.

I would say my comments if taken out of context aren't as incorrect as you are asserting in general. That would be the key word. Those ideas aren't in line with traditional leftist ideology.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

The left/liberalism has traditionally fought against slavery.

The right underwent a pretty big shift (american) since there creation

https://politifact.com/article/2024/jan/09/did-democrats-want-expansion-of-slavery-while-repu/

I wouldn't pretend to know more about american history than you, I don't. I am not american. History is a big of a lacuna if I am being honest, it's not something I am keenly interested in but do read on for well-roundedness.

[Necrosis]

Just to be clear, despite your earlier attempt to comment on American politics, you are saying your comments are in fact unrelated to American politics.  Ok.  I guess you have to say that now, because your comments about liberalism and conservativism are completely inaccurate as they relate to American politics. 

In America, the left's embracement of "equality" is very recent.  Historically, as I indicated, they were oppressive.  In terms of individual liberty and "equality," that originated with the Republican party.  In addition to abolition, all of the major early civil rights legislation originated with "the right" in America.  In fact, it was Democrats who opposed and filibustered things like the 64 Civil Rights Act.  That was after they literally fought to the death to preserve slavery (i.e., oppression). 

So you if you want to wax eloquent about the left vs. the right outside of America, including the French Revolution, that's fine.  But if you're going to talk about American politics and political history, you need a better understanding of our history.   

Dude, I am allowed to talk in whatever manner I want. I can talk recontextualize the conversation as I see fit, you are doing so by bringing the argument back to the inception of the parties, which are quite different from what is colloquially known as right and left today.

I said

which makes sense because the LEFT came long after the right in history, it was a maturing. Conservatism will always fail as progress and evolution are a rule.

I used the LEFT (and capitalized it to indicate it's difference from  the democrats or NDP in canada etc), I said in HISTORY. I then switched from republicans to CONSERVATISM which isn't unique to the US.

You clearly have misunderstood me. I have argued in good faith, kept from trolling yet you can't help yourself. The mature thing to do would admit you jumped the gun and argue against my points as I am intending.

I certainly am not trying to argue US history. I am well aware of the history of slavery, it's a pretty blatant talking point (rightfully so in some sense) and extremely well known. Jesus, all I would have to do to know this would have been to watch the movie Lincoln. Even if that's true its not how the parties evolved, however, if you believe I was still referencing the lefts creation only in the states than my argument would not be true in totality.