France vs. Russia

[MT Treasurer]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

Santander is as much a Republican as you are - since I guess both of you identify as Republicans. In fact, a great majority of Republicans would probably say that he's closer to the average Republican and today's GOP than you are, but that is detabable (Heck, who defines what a "conservative" is?). Also not sure why you're insisting that I'm not a conservative or conservative-leaning? (I mean, I haven't really thought about it much, but still...)

[President Johnson]

Our good neighbor France.

[Greedo punched first]

Easily France. Putin is insane.

[Goldwater]

The one with a Mediterranean climate.

[Mr. Smith]

What terrible options, but lean France since the food is better and much of the English language comes from French...can't disavow that.

[Intell]

France now, Russia under post Stalin or pre Stalin communism.

[Person Man]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

Santander is as much a Republican as you are - since I guess both of you identify as Republicans. In fact, a great majority of Republicans would probably say that he's closer to the average Republican and today's GOP than you are, but that is detabable (Heck, who defines what a "conservative" is?). Also not sure why you're insisting that I'm not a conservative or conservative-leaning? (I mean, I haven't really thought about it much, but still...)

You are a conservative. He is  a moderate conservative, and he is a Christian Nationalist.

[Intell]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

Santander is as much a Republican as you are - since I guess both of you identify as Republicans. In fact, a great majority of Republicans would probably say that he's closer to the average Republican and today's GOP than you are, but that is detabable (Heck, who defines what a "conservative" is?). Also not sure why you're insisting that I'm not a conservative or conservative-leaning? (I mean, I haven't really thought about it much, but still...)

You are a conservative. He is  a moderate conservative, and he is a Christian Nationalist.

RINO Tom, is a epitome of centrist liberalism.

[RINO Tom]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

Santander is as much a Republican as you are - since I guess both of you identify as Republicans. In fact, a great majority of Republicans would probably say that he's closer to the average Republican and today's GOP than you are, but that is detabable (Heck, who defines what a "conservative" is?). Also not sure why you're insisting that I'm not a conservative or conservative-leaning? (I mean, I haven't really thought about it much, but still...)

You are a conservative. He is  a moderate conservative, and he is a Christian Nationalist.

RINO Tom, is a epitome of centrist liberalism.

I suppose it depends on how we're defining everything.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

[Goldwater]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

I think you and Intell are defining the term liberal very differently.

[Intell]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

You're the epitome of social liberalism, while RINO Tom is the epitome of centrist, capitalist liberalism. Most people, in this forum broadly liberal, apart from me and some others, and even I am in support of social liberal values, and a liberal western society, though not all aspects of such liberalism.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

To be fair, you are the only person who is not.

[Phony Moderate]

France, but I really wish the French left was in practice as good as its rhetoric.

[mvd10]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

Based on what I've read, American "liberals" in the conventional sense (Jefferson to Jackson to Wilson to FDR to LBJ, etc.) derived their initial "liberalism" from the idea that America would be a newer, more progressive society where one's wealth or privilege would not guarantee one success, as it did in comparatively "conservative" Europe.  Following this spirit, Democratic-Republicans and Democrats have always taken whatever measure necessary (decreasing size of government, returning power to the states, increasing size of government, centralizing power, you name it) to stop our society from ever moving toward an oligarchy.  In the 1800s, that might have been opposing a continental railroad that would cost tons of money and only benefit those rich enough to afford to utilize it, but it also might be making the wealthy pay more in taxes in 2016 so that a new train could be built from the poorer neighborhoods to get into downtown somewhere.

That's the problem with drawing conclusions based around the "method" a politician of old tried to use to achieve his goals.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

Based on what I've read, American "liberals" in the conventional sense (Jefferson to Jackson to Wilson to FDR to LBJ, etc.) derived their initial "liberalism" from the idea that America would be a newer, more progressive society where one's wealth or privilege would not guarantee one success, as it did in comparatively "conservative" Europe.  Following this spirit, Democratic-Republicans and Democrats have always taken whatever measure necessary (decreasing size of government, returning power to the states, increasing size of government, centralizing power, you name it) to stop our society from ever moving toward an oligarchy.  In the 1800s, that might have been opposing a continental railroad that would cost tons of money and only benefit those rich enough to afford to utilize it, but it also might be making the wealthy pay more in taxes in 2016 so that a new train could be built from the poorer neighborhoods to get into downtown somewhere.

That's the problem with drawing conclusions based around the "method" a politician of old tried to use to achieve his goals.

So you're a Republican because you want an oligarchy?

[The_Doctor]

As always, the great Ronald Reagan had it right. The Commies are still our enemies, and compared to that, I'll take Paris over Moscow.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

Obviously, he isn't an American liberal, but he still is very much a liberal.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

Based on what I've read, American "liberals" in the conventional sense (Jefferson to Jackson to Wilson to FDR to LBJ, etc.) derived their initial "liberalism" from the idea that America would be a newer, more progressive society where one's wealth or privilege would not guarantee one success, as it did in comparatively "conservative" Europe.  Following this spirit, Democratic-Republicans and Democrats have always taken whatever measure necessary (decreasing size of government, returning power to the states, increasing size of government, centralizing power, you name it) to stop our society from ever moving toward an oligarchy.  In the 1800s, that might have been opposing a continental railroad that would cost tons of money and only benefit those rich enough to afford to utilize it, but it also might be making the wealthy pay more in taxes in 2016 so that a new train could be built from the poorer neighborhoods to get into downtown somewhere.

That's the problem with drawing conclusions based around the "method" a politician of old tried to use to achieve his goals.

So you're a Republican because you want an oligarchy?

Okay, I know you're not that simplistic, bro.  I referenced what a bunch of dead people viewed themselves as, didn't give my opinion on it and you reached that conclusion somehow?  Unimpressive.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

[Goldwater]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

But isn't a protest vote inherently a waste anyway? The logic of "not wasting" a protest vote on a third party makes no sense to me.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

"I hate Trump and what he turned my party into, that's why I'm going to vote for someone who is even more odious and with whom I don't agree on anything either." Totally makes sense. C'mon, Clinton is your candidate, her entire camapaign was aimed at getting NeverTrump Republicans like you to vote for her. I guarantee you that in 4 or maybe even 2 years you will have a green avatar. Heck, when it comes to foreign policy and social issues, you and BRTD/Clinton/the Democratic Party are literally indistinguishable.

[The_Doctor]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

Have you considered your party is going, with all due respect, in a very different ideological and strategic direction than what we might expect? For example, if we had nominated Rubio, I would still be a Republican. (I voted Cruz in the primaries as well).

I am pretty sure we'll end up voting Republican in 20 years (after the GOP is forced to make realistic changes) and I consider myself "Democratic aligned" for the sake of stopping Trump and the GOP direction.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

But isn't a protest vote inherently a waste anyway? The logic of "not wasting" a protest vote on a third party makes no sense to me.

Fair point, but as I sat there in the voting booth, it seemed if I weren't going to vote Trump, I should just pull the trigger for Clinton.

TN Vol, you hardly know any of my views.  You just assume that because I'm some Northern social moderate, I must be an elitist (which you also for some STUPID reason associate with Democrats over Republicans) and therefore you hate my views.

The whole political landscape is not good, God-fearin' rural folk vs. Hollywood and NYC.  Period.  It never will be.  Stop trying to phrase things that way, even if you don't put it in that exact language.