Ten oz

The Constitution was written well before then and still serves as the backbone for traditionalists views. There isn't an expiration date here. Additionally I also reference Jim Crow and that just ended in 1964. To put that into perspective several members of the House and Senate grew living in segregated conditions. This stuff isn't ancient history. To the OP's points 1-3: our govt has not always protected the everyone, Healthcare is not treated as a right, and we did not have an education which equal provides for all. The positions listed are liberal because they seek to change that which has been traditional. I didn't say that. I already posted the definition. Caution toward change and a preference toward tradition is highlighted in every definition for the word which I know to exist. The status qou is changed by liberals. Despite the massive changes we (USA) still follow constitution which is hundreds of years old. Decades ago is just drop in the bucket.

Assured mutual destruction is understood to be a deterrent. In the U.S. our nuclear deterrent is understood to have prevented war or at least kept us safe. Ironically when other countries seek the same deterrents the U.S. often views it as an act of aggression. It is a contradiction. At the same time our (USA) govt actively works around the war through sanctions and threats of preemptive military strikes to prevent other nations from having nuclear weapons we continue to develop more. That "do as we say and not as we do" behavior creates a lot of tension around the world. In lie of the weapons the U.S. already posses and the fact the U.S. is actively in talks with nations like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear programs I think creating new nuclear devices is a bad idea that send a contradictory message to world.

You are not actually attempting to, or would you be able to, address what conservative or liberal means to 7.6 billion people. Neither the word liberal or conservative can be applied universally free from the environment where they are being used. In Afghanistan the conservative position is that women should cover their faces in public. That position doesn't apply in the western world. Please refer to the definitions below if you are confused. By definition the points iNow listed in the OP are liberal within U.S. society in that they are not traditional. Points 1-3 asks to protect the weak, make healthcare a right, and provide everyone with education. As a country with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, and etc the U.S. traditionally has not done 1-3. Numbers 4-7 are clarifications of positions which are often obfuscated and #8 is a call to discard traditional views which have prevented the LGBT community from living equally in society. Numbers 9-11 is more contextual clarification in my opinion, 12 is statement of belief/opinion, and the rest are calls for change to our (USA) current gun & energy policies. The OP's points out specific political positions and states a liberal view towards them. It is not vaguely seeking to define what liberalism means beyond as applied to the positions (Education, Healthcare, Guns, LGBT, Immigration, Energy, Taxes) listed. lib·er·al adjective 1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. 2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training. synonyms:wide-ranging, broad-based, general. noun 1. a person of liberal views. con·serv·a·tive adjective 1.holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. noun 1.a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

So one is enable to have a more liberal or conservative stance regarding them? Either liberal and conservative are titles directly associated with policy platforms or not. I think you are trying to have it both ways a bit in saying liberal and conservative should be not conflated with democrat and republican but then also arguing only democracies with competing parties can have liberals and conservatives.

So where in the world specifically do you believe these titles (conservative and liberal apply)? You copied and pasted the whole globe earlier. Why, you have argued that liberal and conservative do not apply specifically to parties. If liberal and conservative are merely individual preferences than one can take a more liberal or conservative view toward anything.

Do the titles (liberal conservative) apply outside of ones individual political environment? Letting a women show her face in public is a liberal position in Afghanistan. If these threads are going to be in politics and not general philosophy that they sort of need to be political i.e. about specific policies and actual unfolding events.

Yeah, you think Assad in Syria cares about people's potential, history of capitalism, and less govt influence? By anywhere in the would I think you Western would because 1-6 doesn't apply nearly anywhere in the Middle East, Russia, China, and Norther Africa, Central America, and etc. Kim Jong Un is very resistant to change. I linked you the published platforms for both parties and encouraged you to review both. That is hardly and attack.

True, but this is a political thread and the actual practice of politics in the U.S. is Democrat and Republican. I personally do not see it as productive to pretend every individual is an island. The rubber hits the road on election day and people do end up choosing. Democrats and Republicans are our President, Senators, Governors, and etc. It is useless to discuss politics while refusing to acknowledge thats; especially if we're using their (Democrat/Republican) talking points as the OP did. Exactly

What liberal and conservative mean varies greatly by country. Raider is in the U.S. and their post is fill with typical tropes which most closely align with U.S. Republican talking points. The stated positions about healthcare, guns, govt, and etc would not apply to self identifying conservatives in Sweden. The philosophical beliefs of self identifying conservatives vs liberals is different all over the world. What might be liberal in Saudi Arabia could still be very conservative in Canada. As a label Conservative and Liberal do not exist uniformly enough to encompass all people everywhere. It is useful to be specific to the political environmental the labels are applied. You think what it means to be a conservative in Syria or North Korea mirrors anything you listed?

The U.S. has a 2 party system. When you become voting age those will be your options. You started this thread here in Politics and not in General Philosophy. So that makes this about politics and not the differences between Conservative and Liberals philosophically. The political reality, the actual policies being debated and put in place, are done by Democrats and Republicans. Of course you don't feel Republicans neatly match your personal view of conservatism. National parties are made up of tens of millions of people. No political party will ever meet your singular perspective of what you are. That aside which policies and candidates one supports is all that matters. Nancy Pelosi doesn't care what the people that vote for her call themselves. She only cares that they vote for her and once they do they ha e supported Democrats whether they choose to call themselves liberal or conservatives.

Below I linked the published national platforms for Democrats and for Republicans. How about you read through the specific policies each advocates and take a nothing crack at your list. Democrats - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform Republican - https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

Other than being Pro Life I didn't read a single stated reason which is a specific political policy advocated by either Republicans or Democrats.

If any crimes were actually committed Attorney General Sessions could have everyone involved prosecuted. The fact that these claims are coming in the from of an inter office memo between Nunes and his aides rather than in the form of indictments tells us everything we need to know.

Which Trump's own appointees dispute as inaccurate. Because it is designed to hurt the credibility of the FBI and DOJ which has detrimental impacts on their ability to function. FBI Director Wray (Trump's guy) says they cherry picked the classified information; "omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy". The things omitted are true always. The memo doesn't provide the full story. Nope, the memo is not and will not be used in any legal proceedings less Mueller uses it to cite Nunes with obstruction. Sure, "if" covers anything and everything. There is zero creditable evidence you can cite that this was the case. You enjoy being mislead? What are you referencing. No one from the Obama's admin was found guilty of committing crimes. You realize that this memo has ZERO legal impact on the Mueller investigation right?

What about it? It was written by Republicans on the House intelligence committee and Trump's own people dispute it. It is a memo. A written opinion and not a formal indictment or something which will be used in court or any other formal legal proceedings. Again, Trump put Wray in charge of the FBI and Wray approved the FBI statement I linked and personally went to the White House to object. BTW, what I linked is contained (via hyperlinks) is the story you linked. So don't act as if I changed the topic. I literally sourced your own darn story.....smh

"WASHINGTON — A memo by House Republicans about the Trump-Russia investigation is inaccurate and misleading, the FBI said in an unusual statement Wednesday, hours after President Donald Trump assured a lawmaker he planned to allow the document to become public. “We have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy," the FBI said. On Monday, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went to the White House and appealed to President Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, not to make the memo public, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News. That intervention was first reported by The Washington Post." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-urges-white-house-not-release-gop-russia-probe-memo-n843391 FBI National Press Office January 31, 2018 FBI Statement on HPSCI Memo The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process. With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-hpsci-memo FBI Director Wray was made FBI Director by Trump himself. Rod Rosenstein was brought into the DOJ by George W Bush (Republican) and Rosenstein himself is a registered Republican. Trump claiming the FBI and DOJ favor Democrats despite the fact that his own appointees run both agencies is stupid. Wray is the guy Trump tapped to be Direct after he fired Comey. Lets also not forget that Trump initially claimed it was Rosenstein who advised him to fire Comey.

Yes, I've been using my phone more often of late. The combination of fat thumbs and the smaller window on the mobile version of this site hasn't been kind.

"in June 2016 that the top 1% of families captured 52% of the total real income (GDP) growth per family from 2009-2015. From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% captured 91% of the income gains" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States Nothing is wrong with better for most. Better for most would be great. During the 35yrs you've been an engineer we have not experienced "better for most". We have experienced better for some by worse for most.

That it is not was Trump's advisers opinion as stated by the NY Times and not necessarily my opinion. I quoted it to highlight the fact that there is no secret that Trump lies to the media regarding the Russia investigation. It is an acknowledge thing within his own circle that he lies to the media.

"The statement, released in response to questions from The New York Times about the meeting, has become a focus of the inquiry by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election." "Some lawyers and witnesses who have sat in or been briefed on the interviews have puzzled over Mr. Mueller’s interest in the episode. Lying to federal investigators is a crime; lying to the news media is not. For that reason, some of Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that Mr. Mueller has no grounds to ask the president about the statement and say he should refuse to discuss it." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/politics/trump-russia-hope-hicks-mueller.html In the he said she said war of words between Trump and DOJ/FBI it is those in the DOJ/FBI who have testified under oath. Sally Yates testified under oath that she had briefed Trump about Flynn lying to federal investigators; which Flynn has since pled guilty to. James Comey testified under oath he briefed Trump regarding Russia's interference in our election and that separately Trump had ask him to drop the Flynn investigation. Lying under oath is a crime. If either Yates or Comey lied they can be prosecuted. Trump and his team initially lied to the media about Yates claiming Flynn had lied to VP Pence only; not federal investigators. Trump and team also claim to the media Comey is lying. Big difference, critical different, Trump and his team are not actually accountable for what they tell the media and know it. Yates and Comey are accountable for what was said under oath. As Trump continues his attack on the DOJ and FBI with the release of a memo written by Republican which Trump's own nominated FBI director (Wray) is signalling he'll dispute I think it is critical to keep in mind that Trump and his administration considers lying to the media beyond formal review. The primary means the public has to what is happening is the media. Trump and his team have made it clear that misleading the media/ public is acceptable. With that in mind how can anyone take anything Trump and his public advocates say in good faith?

Does the U.S. how the most powerful military in the world; yes or no? That is the bottom line. Our military is absolutely greater than others and the excessive spending we do is redundant.

interested stated their observation from outside the U.S.. They were not stating what others had told them. "Absolute numbers" matter absolutely. It is the reason the U.S. absolutely has the most powerful military in the world. One we use offensively, not purely defensively, to get things those in power want. The U.S. has 5 times the Nuclear warheads than France and the U.K. put together. It isn't merely about what is spent as a percentage of GDP. It is about what is and isn't excessive. No nation in the world can make the U.S. militarily. Several in the world surpass France and the U.K.. In the U.S. we already have all the fire power needed to not only defend ourselves from attack by any other nation but the ability to either counter attack and crush any would be attackers or assure the mutual destruction of the planet. France and the U.K. rely on coalitions for such protection and influence. The U.S. spend money on the military at redundant leaves. Another thousand nuclear bombs stockpiled alongside the 7,000 we already have doesn't make us safer or appreciably deter anything. "Congress people on the right" means Republican. We has a 2 party system and Republicans are universally recognized as the "the right" when discussing elected officials; iNow's comment wasn't referencing all U.S. citizens. As a matter of party platform Republicans do not believe their should be a federal minimum wage, period. That is a statement of fact. If one is a Republican (elected or registered) their actions/affirmation support the party's platform. So it is accurate to say Congress people on the right (Republicans) are against their being a federal minimum wage. From the Republican Party's published national platform: "We recognize the challenges facing all the U.S. territories in an era of dramatic global economic change. They need venture capital to retain existing industries and develop new ones. A stronger private sector can reduce dependence on public employment and lead toward self-sufficiency. Their development of local energy options will be crucial to reduce dependence on costly imported fuel. The territories’ economic stability and potential for growth must be considered in any trade agreements between the United States and other Pacific nations. They should be given flexibility or exemption from laws that increase costs for their populations, such as the minimum wage and the Jones Act concerning shipping. All unreasonable impediments to their prosperity should be removed, including unreasonable U.S. customs practices. Territories such as American Samoa should be able to properly develop their resources, including fishing, when jobs and the economy depend on it." "Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level" https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

I think we would need someone who actually is pro execution to decide if they feel life without parole is a compromise. I am guessing they would not seeing as it has been rejected in favor of execution over and over again. iNow is correct. We are way off topic. My initial point was simply that a combination on liberal and Conservatives ideals isn't a default solution.

It is not middle ground. No one is asking for less. If the two sides were: execution vs a light prison sentence then life without would be the middle. However no one is asking for light prison sentences for murders and others who commit capital offenses. The liberal view is life without parole. The Conservative view is execution.