Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Dan Mitchell: ‘Reckless and Irresponsible- President Trump: Is Making Big Government Even Bigger’

Source:CNN- President Barack Obama vs. President Donald Trump
Source:The New Democrat

“A few months later, I concluded that the answer was no. Trump – like Bush and Nixon – was a big-government Republican.

I wish that I was wrong.

But if you look at the budget deal he approved last year, there’s no alternative explanation. Especially since there was an approach that would have guaranteed a victory for taxpayers.

Now it appears that he is on the verge of meekly surrendering to another big expansion of the federal budget.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell's piece

Source:Dan Mitchell: 'Expressing Disdain for Trump's Big-Spending Budget Deal'- Dan Mitchell, talking to Neil Cavuto 
When you read this piece about the Republican Party and how they’ve given up on fiscal conservatism and have said goodbye to it, ( at least until the next Democratic President )  hope you don’t get the impression that I’m leaving the Democratic Party off the hook here for the hook here for the budget deficit that’s now over 1 trillion-dollars again and the 21 or so trillion-dollar national debt, because I’m not. Democrats have never claimed the mantle of fiscal conservatism and fiscal conservatives. And other than the 1990s with New Democrat and Progressive President Bill Clinton, they never even claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility either. President Jimmy Carter, tried in the late 1970s, but failed to do that.

Pre not just Donald Trump, but George W. Bush as well if there was ever any benefit to having Republicans in government and leading government, it was that they were going to keep your taxes and regulations down, as well as spending. That they saw government’s job was to protect people from predators, foreign and domestic. And that they wouldn’t run high deficits and debt, because they believed in limited government and expected government ( especially the Federal Government ) to do a handful of things and do them well. That to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: it’s the job of government to keep us safe, not to run our lives for us. But even with Ronald Reagan as President, that message and vision for what it means to be a Republican has changed dramatically.

In 1980 to be a Republican it meant someone who believed in the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, strong national defense, fiscal conservatism, as well as economic freedom, and even personal freedom. That even if Republicans didn’t approve of someone else’s lifestyle choices, they didn’t believe that it was the job of big government to tell people that they can’t live that way, short of not hurting other people with their own lives.

That being a Conservative meant being someone who believed in conserving these American values. Not conserving the Republican Party at any cost, even if that it meant abandoning conservative values like: the U.S. Constitution, limited government, rule of law, tradition, etc.

It’s not just today with this Republican cult like figure named Donald Trump where we’ve seen the Republican Party pretty much ( with few exceptions ) surrender their own traditional Republican values of what it means to be both a Republican and a Conservative.

Ronald Reagan, whatever you think about his politics was never a fiscal conservative, at least not as President. George H.W. Bush was, but he only served one term before losing reelection. George W. Bush, I mean he walks into the White House door with 120 billon-dollar surplus and leaves the White House with a trillion-dollar deficit, so do the math. And of course there’s President Donald Trump, who has never even advertised himself as a Conservative, let alone a fiscal conservative and by the time his first ( and if there’s a God, only one term ) as President, will double President Obama’s 600 billion-dollar deficit.

Today according not to just President Donald Trump, but the Republican Leadership being a Republican and a Conservative seems to mean nothing more than supporting President Trump at all costs: including surrendering what I guess now today in the Republican Party would be little things like morality, character, honesty, decency, truth-telling, the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, and even fiscal responsibility, just as long as you support President Trump. And that the only time to even try to sound like a fiscal conservative, is when there is a Democratic President.

Liberty Pen: Brendan O'Neill- 'Political Correct Bigotry'

Source:Liberty Pen- Is this kid saying no to political correctness, or is how pointing it out?
"British columnist Brendan O’Neil explains the intended and unintended consequences of the sugar-coated tyranny we call political correctness.

See the video at Liberty Pen

Source:Liberty Pen- Brendan O'Neill on Twitter 
Brendan O'Neill is right in the sense that racial and a certain form of racism has come back into style, but both on the Right and Left. We have a President of the United States who is now openly racist towards minorities that criticize him, with his political party either backing up everything that he says, or denying that his racism is racism. And then you have people on the Left of all races and ethnicities who openly bash Caucasians and Caucasian men, who if those attacks were against any minority group, the people saying those things would automatically be labeled as racists or bigots.

Back in the 1990s which now seems like over 20 years ago, ( ha, ha ) we as a country and society where race and ethnicity actually started not mattering, where people of all races were not being judged by their race and ethnicity, where Americans even minorities didn't feel the need to identity themselves by the things that's most physically most obvious about them other than their gender, which is their race and ethnicity.

In the 1990s we had our affirmative action debates and other debates about poverty and the role of government, but we weren't debating who were the real Americans with people on the Right ( especially the Far-Right ) claiming that European-Americans were the only real Americans. And everyone else including Europeans who weren't Protestant and Northern European, like Italians and Jews, and even Irish-Catholics, weren't real Americans. With only Anglo-Saxon Protestants being the real Americans.

With the Far-Left saying that European-Americans are essentially all bigots and bad people, who don't understand what it's like to be African, Latino, Asian, or Middle Eastern in America. And the only good Europeans in America were on the Left and from Northeaster and West Coast background as far as how they grew up and went to those schools, where they learned how to become good people.

I grew up in Bethesda, Maryland in the 1980s and 90s and went to one of the most diverse high schools that you could ever imagine where there certainly wasn't a majority ethnicity in that school and perhaps not even a majority race. Where we were all considered to be people and individuals, as well as students, but not as members of this race or this ethnicity. Bethesda Chevy Chase High School just outside of Washington, in a lot of ways represents Dr. Martin L. King's dream where all of his children would've been judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

And we're now at a point in the country thanks to the Far-Right and Far-Left where race and ethnicity now matters. Where it can be a real problem for you as a minority to be a Republican. Both from the Far-Right of the party, but from partisans from your own community who see you as a sellout and believe that you're now one of them. ( Meaning part of enemy )

And if you're a Democrat who is of European background, you'll have Far-Leftists who think your race and ethnicity not only matters, but is a problem for them. Who don't want to see you win this election or be appointed to that office, simply because those positions already have a lot of people from your race serving in those positions. We're seeing that in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, where a big problem that the Far-Left of the party has with Vice President Joe Biden, is that he's Caucasian and male, as well as 76 years old.

I'm from the John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin King school of America who believes not just in liberal democracy, but pluralism as well. That believes that we don't judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Anyone can say that they're colorblind, or race blind, ethnic blind, or gender blind. Which is a silly thing to say, because none of us are and that's not the point or question anyway. The point or question is do we judge people by their race, ethnicity, or gender, or do we judge them by the content of their character and as individuals. If you believe in the great melting pot known as America, then you're a pluralist who sees people as individuals and judges them accordingly. Not by the color of their skin and what racial or ethnic group that they're a member of. 

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Warner Brothers: The Getaway (1972) Starring Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw

Source:Warner Brothers- The Getaway; starring Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw. 
"The Getaway, an Appreciation - Criminal Element Criminal Element The Getaway (1972)"

Source:Warner Brothers- Steve McQueen: starring as Doc McCoy 
"Steve McQueen (The Great Escape) and Ali MacGraw (Love Story) are at their finest as husband and wife thieves on the run in this classic Sam Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs) action-thriller. The sizzling screenplay by Walter Hill is based on a novel by pulp legend Jim Thompson (The Grifters, After Dark, My Sweet). The Getaway was a box-office hit at the time of its release in 1972, hitting #5 for the year! Later remade with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger."

From Warner Brothers

I watched the TCM version of this great, classic film last night for preparation for this post and Ben Mankiewicz the way he introduced the movie was spot on: he said that in this movie, you're going to to end up rooting for Doc McCoy ( played by Steve McQueen ) and his wife ( played by Ali MacGraw ). Even though everyone in the film is either a career criminal or corrupt public official. This is not one of those cops and robbers films where the good guys are clearly good and the bad guys are clearly bad.

They're all Devils in The Getaway at least in the sense that they all break the law for a living. The only difference between Doc and his wife is that they rob a bank in order to get Doc out of prison and then keep them out of prison. And then everyone turns on each other to not get their share of the money, but get to get the whole pot of money.

I just gave you the plot, but if you want more info you can watch the movie yourself or I'll give it to you. Doc McCoy, is a career bank robber who is doing time in Texas for an armed robbery. He has a good record in prison, but is denied parole, because he won't perform the bank robbery. His wife wants him out of prison ( naturally ) and tells the corrupt parole board member ( played by Ben Johnson ) that if you let Doc out, he'll organize and run the bank robbery for him and that she'll also bang him. ( To put it bluntly ) Doc, knows about the bank job, but isn't filled in until later on until after they break away from the guy running the show that his wife banged the guy to get him out of prison.

If you like high-powered action movies with car chases, shootout and even a lot of violence, as well as beautiful, sexy women who are also as cute as button like Ali MacGraw, who at times comes off as a little girl, because she so sweet in the movie and then Sally Strothers who is literally one of the cutest and most immature Hollywood Babydoll's ever, who has an important guest appearance in the movie, you'll like The Getaway a lot. It also has a lot great humor and funny people in it as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Politics of Writing: ‘The Failures of Masculinity’

Source:Order of Man- “10 Steps to Reclaiming Masculinity”
Source:The New Democrat

“There are few things in society that can be perpetuated that are so plainly false yet never have their merits questioned. The concept of masculinity is one of these things. It can take many forms, not just as a mindset but also through actions in our daily lives. Masculinity is believing that men need big muscles, hair on their chest, never to show emotions – and especially – never to cry. It is a repressive force that keeps men at a standstill, keeps women in a nuclear home holding cell, and adds absurd amounts of anger to the world we live in. First, once we fully understand the roots and causes of masculinity it will be easier to tear it down and place a functional belief set in its place.”

Read the rest at The Politics of Writing

Source:BBC News: HardTalk- Stephen Sackur Interviewing Jordan Peterson: ‘On The Backlash Against Masculinity’- Jordan Peterson: standing for masculinity? 
“The Canadian psychologist Jordan B Peterson says there is a “backlash” against masculinity and “a sense there is something toxic about masculinity”.
He told Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur: “There are biological differences between men and women that express themselves in temperament and in occupational choice and that any attempt to enforce equality of outcomes is unwarranted and ill advised as a consequence.”
Mr Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos.”

Reading this piece from The Politics of Writing, I get the sense that if Socialists were ever in charge in America ( especially Radical Feminists or Marxist-Feminists ) straight men and male heterosexuality, would essentially be outlawed. That America would be nothing but straight women, dykes, ( butch lesbians ) and openly gay men. ( Or queens ) That it essentially would be illegal to be a straight man. It would be illegal for men to be butch or masculine, we would be forced to give up our deep voices and everything else that makes us straight and masculine.

And it wouldn’t just be the way that straight men present themselves in public that could become illegal ( if Marxist-Feminists ever came to power in America ) everything that we’re into as guys would be gone, or at least outlawed. Football, boxing, pro wrestling, ultimate fighter, poker nights, auto racing, car shows, sports bars, action movies, even checking out women in public without first getting their permission to check them out would be considered illegal. But of course ice skating, ice dancing, tennis, and soccer ( the official sport of socialism ) would remain legal in America. That it would essentially be illegal for American men to be guys if Socialists and Marxists-Feminists ever came to power in America.

I also get the sense at The Politics of Writing that author of that piece believes that it’s not just straight men that are the problem, but what he calls white straight men that are the problem and represent everything that’s wrong not just with America, but with the world as well. That they’re the cause of all the violence and bigotry in the world, including sexism.

I don’t doubt that there are sexist, bigoted, even violent men in this group of men that he calls straight white men, but to claim that there the only reasons for these problems in society, you would have to forget not just about a lot of other men in America, but around the world as well. And women as well who commit violent crimes and even become terrorists of all races and ethnicities.

If you think all violent men in America or in any other country are purely of European ancestry, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest: “you have another thing coming.” Have you’ve ever been to, read about, watched and news piece about the Middle East, Africa, Central America? You seriously don’t believe that those countries don’t have their own share of violence and bigotry, that comes from straight, masculine men?

In a lot of Middle Eastern countries men aren’t just considered superior to women, but are superior to women under their laws. Saudi Arabia and Iran which are both officially Islamic states that are governed by a fundamentalist, warped view of Islam, where women under law in those countries aren’t just considered inferior to women, but are considered to be servants and even property of men.

In a lot of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian countries, homosexuality is still illegal under law and punishable by death. But we don’t hear about what Radical Feminists call excessive masculinity and male straightness coming from those places, because the men in those countries aren’t European or Protestant. It’s just flat-out racism that comes from people who claim to be anti-fascists and anti-racists.

If you want to talk about violent men or violence and bigotry coming from anyone, then cover all of your bases. Or at the very least don’t deny or ignore the evidence and facts that contradicts your partisan ( if not racist ) argument that all the violence in the world just comes from straight European-American-Protestant men. That’s assuming that you want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn’t already a member of your partisan clan. Radical Feminists or Marxist-Feminists are radicals for one very good reason: they’re not very popular. Similar to how people on the Far-Right who are called White-Nationalists, aren’t popular, which is why they’re radical. They’re both out of the mainstream in most societies.

Monday, July 29, 2019

The Onion: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi- 'Concerned Outspoken Leftist Faction of Party Could Harm Democrats Reputation As Ineffectual Cowards'

Source:The Onion- Not a fan of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 
"Admitting she had worries about the rise of left-leaning activist groups within her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed concerns Thursday that outspoken progressives could do permanent damage to Democrats’ reputation as ineffectual cowards.

“They mean well, but if they continue to aggressively push their agenda like this, they run the risk of fundamentally altering the public’s perception of Democrats as bumbling, feckless chumps,” said Pelosi, adding that this brash brand of politics could be easily manipulated by Republicans to paint the party as something other than a bunch of sniveling wimps who are too weak-willed and complacent to stand up for anything with even remote political risk.

“I understand where these groups are coming from, but while it might feel good to vent their frustrations about the state of the country, they could undermine what I believe should be our core 2020 argument: We are dithering, incompetent doormats who are infinitesimally less objectionable than our opposition.” Pelosi also noted that her concerns shouldn’t be overstated, as she knew it would take more than a few activists for voters to associate the Democratic party with the vaguest inkling of courage."

From The Onion

"While speaking to reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a decision on impeachment proceedings would happen in a "timely fashion" but would not lay out a specific timeline."

Source:MSNBC- Republicans, could only pray that they could have as strong as a leader as Nancy Pelosi . 

Whatever if you think of The Onion and I believe they're one of the best ( if not best satirical news organizations anywhere ) you have to understand that they come at politics and current affairs with not just a leftist slant, but a partisan leftist slant. They represent the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren of the Democratic Party and out of the party in America.

So of course when you have these partisan leftist House Democrats calling for President Donald Trump's impeachment, they're going to back those Democrats 100%. Especially when you have an establishment, big picture Democrat like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has to represent and lead the entire House Democratic Caucus and even a lot of the Democratic Party and she stands in their way like on impeachment, they're going to stand with the partisan, leftist Democrats.

When I think of this partisan debate in the Democratic Party about whether to impeach President Donald Trump, a debate that I actually believe is healthy, because it shows that the Democrats really are the big tent party, especially compared with the Republican Party, which is really nothing more than Donald Trump's party at this point, I think of the captain or head coach of the football team, versus the junior varsity team. ( Or in these House Democrats case: the freshman team )

Nancy Pelosi is where she is in Congress right now and has been leading the House Democrats since 2003 both as Minority Leader and now as Speaker, because she has the talent, the judgment, and the knowledge.

She's not the Speaker of the Democratic Socialists of America. She's the Speaker of the House of Representatives and therefor the highest ranking Democrat not just in the House Democratic Caucus, or the House, or in Congress even, but in the United States. She leads and represents Democrats not just in San Francisco ( her hometown ) but in New York, Washington, Boston, but also in places like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Florida, etc.

Speaker Pelosi, represents and leads Democrats all over the country and can't just say: "It's time to impeach President Donald Trump:" just because the partisan Far-Left of the Democratic Party wants it. She has the entire party from people who wants to impeach the President at all costs, ( even if that means losing the House next year ) as well as Center-Left Democrats who of course want to see President Donald Trump out of office, but aren't just more practical in how they're going about doing that, but are just practical period.

Center-Left House Democrats, understand how Washington works, how the House works, how Congress works and understands how the Senate works and that sure, they could impeach President Trump with 220-225 Democratic votes and perhaps Independent Representative Justin Amash as well, but then it goes to the Republican Senate where you won't even have a majority vote in favor of conviction and you might lose 3-5 Democrats as well.

And where do these freshman, partisan, Far-Left House Democrats go from there do they say: "We stood up to President Donald Trump. And fought the good fight and even though we got our asses kicked, it felt good doing it!"

It's easy to say it's time to impeach the President, when you represent a district like in New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, areas of the country where it's not just that President Trump is unpopular, or where his approval rating might be below the freezing level, ( sort of like his IQ ) but where his approval rating is so low, it might not even register and you're not in power, you don't have a leadership position and the only people that you're accountable to is you partisan Democratic base and you complain from the sidelines that the coaching staff ( in this case the House Democratic Leadership ) should do this or that. Sort of like the junior varsity or freshman football team watching the game from the stands at a varsity football game.

But it's another when you actually have power and are accountable to more people than just your hardcore, partisan Democratic base. Which is the position that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in today.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post on FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

CNBC: ‘Why Democratic Socialism Is Gaining Popularity In The United States’

Source:CNBC- with a look at socialism in America.

“Socialism used to be a scary word in the U.S., but presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have helped to catapult it back into mainstream American politics. In the latest explainer from CNBC we try to answer what socialism means to different parts of the political spectrum and whether it’s fad or the future of politics in America.” 

From CNBC 

This is the perfect question to be asking and debating, because it goes to the heart of a big debate America has debated as a country for at least forty-five years. With the creation of the Great Society, to President Richard Nixon’s Federalist approach to domestic issues. To get government power out of Washington and back to the states. To President Jimmy Carter’s New Democratic approach to get more power back to the people. And of course the debate just getting bigger with President Reagan, President Clinton and of course today with President Obama. That is why do we have a government and different levels of government and what is it exactly do we need, not want government to do for us in a civilized society.

Why do we have a government and what we need it to do. Depends on who you ask anywhere from Socialists on the Far-Left let’s say who have the biggest role for government and tend to have programs and taxes that are designed to solve all of our problems for us. To Libertarians who aren’t quite Far-Right, but have the smallest role for government for us. To Liberals and Conservatives who are somewhere in the middle. But with different roles for government in our lives and what we need to pay in taxes. 

My role for government as a Liberal I believe is pretty simple. To do for us what we can’t as people do for ourselves, or do as well for ourselves. The obvious things being law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, smart regulation of the economy. But not running the economy which is different. A public education system, but not an education monopoly for the broader public. These are a few examples but my role for government doesn’t get much bigger than this. 

My basic idea for government is to protect and expand freedom that individuals have to run their, or govern even their own lives, not to take someone else’s freedom from them. But to be able to manage their own economic and personal affairs. So for people who do not have freedom, but need it and deserve it, help them help themselves so they have the freedom to take care of themselves. And to protect freedom for those who already have it and still deserve that freedom. 

I’m not anti-government even at the federal level and not pro-government at any level. But the role of government is to protect and expand freedom. That also includes protecting workers and consumers from predators with smart regulations. But again not designed to run companies, but to protect people from those in companies who would hurt us. Only having the government that we need and not the government that we want. Which are different things. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

Friday, July 26, 2019

CNBC: Squawk Box- Maya MacGuineas- 'The Debt Limit Deal is The Worst Budget in History'

Source:CNBC- Maya MacGuineas, is one the last true fiscal conservatives in Washington. As well as Chairman of the Committee For a Responsible Budget. And therefor a member of an endangered political species in Washington.
"Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, joins "Squawk on the Street" to discuss the budget deal brokered between the White House and Congress, which raises the debt ceiling."

Source:The Washington Post- "President Trump speaks at a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Oval Office on July 22. (Alex Brandon/AP)"
Watch the full interview here at CNBC

The phrase they spend money like drunken sailors, gets used around a lot when talking about our Federal politicians in Washington, both in Congress and at The White House. Senator John McCain, ( RIP ) used that phrase a lot when he was still in Congress.

If you want to take that to the next level and make a politically incorrect ethnic joke about it, you could say: "they spend more money than Irish drunken Irish sailors at a Boston Irish pub." And you could say if Democrats and Republicans and Republicans were Irish-American sailors, they wouldn't put every Boston Irish pub out of business, because they would just drink every last drop force all of those pubs to suspend operations until they can get more whiskey and other alcoholic drinks.

Next week this blog is going to have a post about the death of fiscal conservatism and how most if not all fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party are either dead now and are MIA, perhaps were kidnapped by the new nationalist wing of the Republican Party that apparently doesn't even like constitutional conservatism, let alone fiscal conservatism.

But the budget deal that was reached this week by the Democratic and Republican Leadership's, was obviously bipartisan. We now don't have any fiscal conservatives at least with any power in either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and they all think in the moment and what's happening now and apparently couldn't care less ( to be way too kind ) about the future of the country, at least as it relates to the economy and our fiscal outlook.

To paraphrase Senator Rand Paul, ( something that I rarely do ) when talking about Washington spending and Congressional spending bills: these bipartisan spending bills in Congress are nothing more than guns and butter. Republicans get their guns meaning more spending and increases in spending on national defense and other national security priorities. Democrats get their butter which is increases in medical research, Welfare spending, perhaps infrastructure. Each side gets what they want, as well as perhaps what they don't want which is equal blame for their share in new deficit spending and increases on the national debt.

Another way to look at this bipartisan spending bill is with a hypothetical: imagine if you have a kid with bad teeth and a lot of cavities and you tell him or her that they can have all the cookies, candy, cake, and ice cream that they could possibly want, just as long as they brush their teeth everyday and go to the dentist twice a year: you think their cavities are going to go way, just because they're now brushing their teeth and going to the dentist?

Democrats and Republicans, don't care about the budget deficit and national debt and therefor aren't going to do anything about it. But will compound the problem by adding to it and then telling their voters that they got what they wanted for them. Fiscal irresponsibility is a bipartisan political disease that both Democrats and Republicans have that's spreading to the rest of the country that we have to pay for. 

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Coordination Problem: Peter Boettke- ‘Liberalism Misunderstood’

Source:Slide Player- Liberalism, is based around liberal democracy, not collectivism. 
Source:The New Democrat

“Liberalism was born in an effort to escape oppression and dogma — a critique of the alignment of the Crown and the Altar that was enforced by the Sword. True radical liberalism is a foundational critique, and seeks to set in place constraints and establish extreme limits on the scale and scope of the Crown, Altar and Sword. In operational terms this led to constitutionally limited government, religious toleration, and peaceful relations between nations through the free flow of labor, capital and goods. I have not raised the issue of the abolition of the Crown, the Altar and the Sword, I am just limiting the discussion to the constraints and the machinery of establishing and enforcing those constraints — the institutions of Liberalism.”

Read more of Petter Boettke’s piece at Coordination Problem

Source:Learn Liberty: Stephen Davis- 'The History of Classical Liberalism'- Sounds nothing like socialism 
“Historian Stephen Davies describes classical liberalism as a comprehensive philosophy, which has had implications in all the major academic disciplines.

At an abstract level, classical liberalism offers three key insights:

1) The goal of life is human happiness and flourishing.
2) Personal choice and individual liberty are crucial in explaining and appreciating how society develops.
3) Commerce, wealth, and trade are preferable to war and conflict.

If you agree with these classical liberal insights, you might be a classical liberal!”

This blog covered Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism yesterday, which is also an important political philosophy and even though classical liberalism ( or liberalism ) and objectivism have things in common and that libertarianism has a lot in common with liberalism as well, there actually different political philosophies than liberalism. And even though they have a lot more in common with liberalism than socialism, they’re actually fairly different. Which is what I’m going to explain here.

When people think of Liberals, they tend to think of people who are so in love with government, ( especially big government ) that they would go to bed with it, if they could and even bang government. Not bang on government like in protest, but bang government, because they’re so attracted to it. And that’s as far as I’m going to go with that metaphor: at risk of disappointing anyone.

When people think of Liberals, ( especially the so-called mainstream media ) they think of people who from Senator’s Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, even though none of these members of Congress self-describe their politics as liberal, to Communists and other left-wing Socialists around the world.

The popular opinion of liberalism and Liberals, is that the more government that someone believes in, the more liberal that they are. People tend to view liberal as less or more: the more government you want, the more liberal you supposedly are. The less government that you, supposedly the more conservative that you are. So the popular view of liberalism is that if you believe in a liberal amount of government, ( meaning a lot of government ) the more liberal that you supposedly are.

But if you’ve been following along so far, that’s not what liberalism is about: the liberal philosophy is not built around government, but built around liberty and even individual liberal, with liberal coming from the word liberty, not government, state, or authoritarian. So the more liberal that you are, the more liberty that you believe in. So a Radical Liberal, is not a Socialist or Communist. Radical liberalism, is not socialism or communism. Radical Liberals, are people who believe in no government and believe in anarchy instead.

A lot of Libertarians today, are essentially Radical Liberals, because they don’t seem to have much if any role for government do do anything for them or for anyone else. A lot of these Liberals, actually call themselves Voluntarists: people who believe that people should interact with each other only through voluntary exchange and not being forced to through government or anyone else to do anything.

So what do Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) believe in and what does it mean to be a Liberal? ( Or Classical Liberal )

A good way to look at liberalism and Liberals, or Liberal Democrats and liberal democracy, is to look at it like a sporting event or just life in general: where you have people who are free to live their own lives as they see fit, short of abusing innocent people with what they’re doing. So the Liberal believes that people should have a lot of free choice and individual freedom, just as long as they’re not abusing any innocent person with what they’re doing. And where government comes in is to regulate what people can do to each other, but not what people can do to or for themselves.

A liberal society is a society where both personal and economic freedom is not just tolerated, but encouraged. Where society is protected from predators both foreign and domestic. Where government is responsible to only doing for the people what we can’t for ourselves. And that government needs money to perform these limited but critical services., but that it should be limited and decentralized as much as possible, and be as responsible as possible with the limited resources that the people give it.

So when you think of Liberals, don’t think of you new-tech hipster ( or hippie ) who is always walking around with a coffee house cup who thinks they know best what everyone should think and believe and what people should be able to do with their own lives and wants government to manage everyone’s life for them, because they believe that people are essentially stupid ( especially minorities ) and can’t manage their own affairs and handle what people have to say or think about them. Those people are basically Neo-Communists, who might only considered mainstream in the People’s Republic of California. ( Especially in the San Francisco area )

When you of Liberals, think of people who believe in individual liberty, as well as truly racial, ethnic, religious, and gender-blind society. Or to paraphrase the great Dr. Martin L. King: a society where no one’s children are judged based on the color of their skin of any other physical characteristic that they were born with, but by the content of their character and what they bring to society as individuals, not as members of any group.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Ayn Rand Institute: 'Ayn Rand - Her Philosophy in Two Minutes'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- The philosophy of objectivism. 
"Learn more about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism—a philosophy for living on earth."

From the Ayn Rand Institute

Source:Amazon- "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library): Leonard Peikoff: 9780452011014: Books"
From The Atlas Society

"Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged , Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

If you look at Ayn Rand's objectivism, it's the least romantic and idealist of any political or social philosophy known to man, because it's all about reason and the individual.

It's also the least flattering, because you wouldn't hear Ayn or one of her followers say something nice to someone just to be nice: you're not going to hear a Randian say: "this is the best meal that I've ever had in my life." Especially when you only served them meatloaf and mashed potatoes. No offense to meatloaf and mashed potatoes, a meal I'm a big fan of, but if you had dinner at a great Italian or French restaurant, or a great American steakhouse or some place like that, you're not going to say under oath at least: "that meatloaf and mashed potato meal, is the best meal I've ever had in my life." If you're trying to kiss your boss's wife ass or something like that, then maybe you would do that. Or you might say that was the best meal that if you ever had in jail or in a hospital, or some cafeteria. And you might sound like you're joking, but you would be honest and even truthful.

What you get from a Randian like Ayn or anyone else, is their best view or opinion based on what they know based on the best available evidence in front of them. Not what's the nicest, or harshest, or politically correct thing to say, but exactly what they're thinking based on what they know at the time, because again their philosophy is based on reason, not kindness or harshness. They're not flatterers and then they're not assholes: they say what they think based on what they know and then make all of their decisions in life based on what they know at the time. So if you're looking for a great romance novel, don't expect to get that from a Randian. But if you want a good fiction based off of a true story ( political or otherwise ) a Randian might be a good author for you.

So objectivism like liberalism, ( in the classic and real sense ) or conservative-libertarianism, or  left-libertarianism, anarcho-libertarianism, are all based around the individual and that people should be in charge of themselves and accountable to themselves. That people should make their own decisions and then be held accountable ( for good and bad ) for their own decisions. Not talking about an anarcbo society where there are no rules and people are free to abuse innocent people, but where people are free to make their own decisions in life, ( short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing ) where  individualism, freedom, and even selfishness aren't just tolerated, but even encouraged under objectivism.

So why do Leftists and Rightists hate Ayn Rand?

I'm not gong to get into Far-Left or Far-Right here even in an American political spectrum sense, because people who are Far-Left in America, would be called Center-Left in a lot of European states. And people who could be called Far-Right in America, would be considered Center-Right in most of if not the entire Middle East, but I'll explain why Socialists ( regardless of the Socialist faction ) and why let's call them Christian-Conservatives or Religious-Conservatives, people who in America are now called Christian-Nationalists and in the Middle East would be Islamists, hate Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism.

If you're a Socialist, objectivism or Randianism is like the Devil to you: ( assuming you're not a Communist ) because it represents everything that you hate about individualism and individual freedom, especially economic freedom with the belief that people who make a lot of money, should not only be allowed to make a lot of money, but then be able to keep most of that money to spend as they please, even while you have people in poverty.

If you're on the Christian-Right or you're a Nationalist, Ayn Rand is the Devil to you because of her social philosophy that people should be free to make their own decisions in life and not be forced to conform to someone else's view of morality. And that government shouldn't be able to force people to live a certain way and that people should live any lifestyle that they want and not be forced to live a certain way. And that women shouldn't be forced too served under men and be servants to men, that everyone is equal regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. If you're a Christian-Nationalist, ( let's say ) you obviously have big issues not with this hardcore individualism, but that no one is superior or inferior to anyone based on their social class or culture.

What Socialists, Christian-Nationalists. and Islamists have in common is that they're all collectivists: right-collectivists come at their view of collectivism from a fundamentalist ( if not warped view ( of their religion. Socialists, come at their collectivism based on their view of government and have a very romantic or idealist ( if not warped ) view of what government can do for people, if it just has the money and resources provide those services for everyone.

So of course collectivists ( left or right ) are going to have real issues with objectivism or any other philosophy that's based on individualism and individual freedom, because they believe individualism leads to inequality or immorality. And you need a central government big enough to prevent inequality and immorality from happening. Which is why collectivists ( left and right ) hate Ayn Rand, because of her belief in the individual, even over government.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Mr. Manifesto: Teddy Roosevelt- 'Saved The U.S. From a Communist Revolution'

Source:Mr. Manifesto- Theodore Roosevelt, vs. the Socialists 
"Why wasn't there a Communist Revolution in America?
I explain my theory on how Theodore Roosevelt prevented a Communist Revolution in The United States of America."

Source:Square Deal- Theodore Roosevelt: the father of the Progressive Era?
Here more at Mr. Manifesto 

The guy in this video, ( I wouldn't bet a penny that his given name is Mr. Manifesto: I mean what father in the world, would be willing to call their own son Mr? LOL ) is essentially arguing that there are two factors that prevented America from becoming a communist state through a communist revolution or any other means.

One, Theodore Roosevelt became President because he was President William McKinley's Vice President and President McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

Two, that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a Communist or Socialist himself and that he didn't want communism or socialism governing America.

The guy is right that pre-TR, America was govern by corporate-friendly ( if not corporatist ) President's, as well as Congress's. America, was basically an Ayn Rand wet dream or book ( except this story wasn't fictional ) where government especially at the Federal level had almost no role in the economy.

You had business executives and owners that were very wealthy and most of the country was working very hard for very little and struggling just to pay their bills. And TR wanted to change that first with his Square Deal ( which created the regulatory state in America ) as President and when he wanted to become President again in 1912, he ran on what his cousin Franklin as President would put in place in America in the 1930s what became the New Deal, which created the public safety net in America.

Even when Teddy Roosevelt ran again for President in 1912, the Communist Revolution in Russia was still about 5 years away. Teddy, wasn't a Socialist or Communist and didn't want America to become a socialist state of any kind and did believe in liberal democracy and individual freedom, but was against what's called income inequality, where you have very few people at the top doing very well, while the rest of the country struggles just to survive.

TR, believed that government could come in and help close that income gap and allow for more Americans to succeed economically in America and that government could help people do that, while retaining the great American progressive values that he believed in as a Progressive: like work, production, economic freedom, and individualism.

So based on that had President Teddy Roosevelt not had gotten his Square Deal through Congress and then later the New Deal in the 1930s, maybe America thanks to the income inequality back then and then later the Great Depression, becomes a socialist state.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

People's World: Rosana Cameron: 'Call Me a Communist'

Source:People's World- A rally for Communists?
"As an activist in my early 20s, I didn’t know much about what communism really was; all I’d heard was they were bad people that could hurt you and your loved ones. Being active in the Chicano student movement, I came across a member of MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztl├ín) who mentioned to me that the Communist Party USA was giving a class on Marxism and asked if I was interested in going.

On the first day, the teacher talked about why there were rich and poor people. He said the reason there were poor people is because those that own the manufacturing companies, businesses, and natural resources (the “means of production,” as I learned that afternoon) took advantage of those that worked for them by paying low wages while making lots of money selling the products workers made. As a simple example, he explained how it might cost a company $0.50 to make a pair of shoes, but it would then turn around and sell the pair for two, three, or more times that much. The raw materials were infused with the labor power of the workers to create new value. That new value was the source of profit. “That makes sense,” I thought to myself."

Read more of Rosana Cameron's piece at People's World

Source:Now This World: Jules Suzdaltsev- 'Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference?'- Seriously, what's the difference? No for real, I really want to know. 
"There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference? Find out in this quick explainer!"

I'm going to respond to both Rosana Cameron and Jules Suzdaltsey about their interpretations of communism and then talk about what I think about both of those definitions.

According to Rosana Cameron, she's a Communist because she's seen how the rich hurt the poor and how they've been allowed to have so much, while the poor have so little and that the state should own the means of production to correct what she calls that injustice.

According to Jules Suzdaletsey, we've never had a communist state anywhere in the world. Even though Russia ( when it was the Soviet Union ) was controlled by the Communist Party with no opposition parties. China, ( as the People's Republic ) is controlled by the Communist Party. Cuba, since 1959 has been controlled by the Communist Party and I could go on.

He also said that these countries that are supposedly run by Communists, are really socialist states where the state is in control of everything. But if you listen to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez today, ( two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress ) their vision of socialism is very democratic and not authoritarian at all. Where the state would be in control of the wealth in society to be used to make sure that everyone has the basic necessities in life.

So are Socialists authoritarian or not and if they are and it's really the Communists that are accountable to the people, then how come Democratic Socialists don't call themselves Communists? How come all of these so-called communist states don't just call themselves socialist states, instead of communist states? There's a major contradiction there.

This is one reason ( and just one ) why Socialists and Communists have always represented the Far-Left in America and a lot of the developed, democratic, Western world, along with the fact that people in these countries tend to like their freedom and like having money and not living in deep poverty, but that Socialists have always had a hard time explaining what they actually believe and what it means to be a Socialist.

Which is why you basically now have these two competing wings in the socialist movement in America where the so-called democratic wing of the socialist movement are called Democratic Socialists, ( at least by the people who have the balls to call themselves Socialists, not Progressives or Liberals ) with Communists still trying to figure out where to they go from here. They no longer seem interested in overthrowing the U.S. Government and Constitution through revolutionary force and replacing our liberal democracy with a socialist state, but they're not ready to completely get in bed with the Bernie Sanders of the world and call themselves Democratic Socialists either.

Just once I would like to hear an actual Communist come out of the closet ( so to speak ) and say: "damn right, I'm a Communist and this is why." And then explain how communism is different from what's called democratic socialism and how Communists are different from Democratic Socialists. We're now at a point politically in America ( thanks to the Millennial Generation ) where politicians, especially young politicians ( depending on where they live ) can admit and self-describe their politics as Socialist, ( or Democratic Socialist ) with those politicians going out-of-their-way to make to clear that they're Democratic Socialists and not Communists, but we still don't hear any politicians or well-known leftist political activists calling themselves Communists. 

Monday, July 22, 2019

ACLU: Sam Walker: 'Conscientious Objectors'

Source:ACLU- The ACLU, standing up for free speech during World War I
"The ACLU was born out of World War I and the repression that resulted when the U.S. joined the fight."

"On the night of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made the trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol for a special session of Congress that he convened. In one of the most consequential speeches in U.S. history, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war that would take the country into the Great War’s killing fields in Europe. During his address that night, President Wilson called Americans to arms with the memorable pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

Read more from Sam Walker at the ACLU Blog

Source:Cardozo Life: 'ACLU in American Life'- NYU Professor Norman Dorsen 
"The ACLU began by defending conscientious objectors during World War I and went on to oppose Japanese internment, to defend the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and to represent abortion rights activists. NYU Professor Norman Dorsen, who headed up the ACLU for many years, is featured in this piece." 

In a liberal democracy like America, it's not enough to have a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee all of our individual rights like free speech, right to privacy, property rights, and other right, you need private organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union there to defend Americans individual rights, simply because you have politicians and other government officials who don't believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are more than willing to impose their religious and cultural values on others and do with through government force. You also need judges and courts who believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, otherwise organizations like the ACLU and others won't be that powerful. 

From Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

That's what the ACLU is about which is the right for all Americans from people who are as Far-Left as Communists who hate our liberal democracy and U.S. Constitution, to people as Far-Right and racial and ethnic Nationalists who believe that our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to European-Americans who are English and Protestant, or other Northern European Protestants.

Anyone can defend popular speech in America, because who could possibly offend by doing that? Unpopular nerds or radicals who simply don't fit in with the popular political or social class? It's the people who go out on a limb and take a stand even if that stand is radical and even hateful that need the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, a functioning court system, and private individual liberty groups like the ACLU who need individual rights to be protected just as much, if not more than the popular political and social classes in America. 

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Bill Whittle: 'Why DonaldTrump: Told 'The Squad' of 4 U.S. Lawmakers to Go Back Where They Came From'

Source:Bill Whittle- The so-called Squad, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"President Trump told U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib -- known collectively as 'The Squad' -- to go back where they originally came from and to fix the broken, corrupt governments in those places before they try to fix America. What did he mean by this, and why does he continue to go after a handful of rookie lawmakers as part of his effort to get re-elected? Bill Whittle explains."

Source:Bill Whittle

What does it mean to be an American, which I guess is the question for this piece, if you don't want to concentrate on just the pure fascism ( if not racism of ) of President Donald Trump's tweets about those four leftist Democratic Representatives last Sunday.

If you were born in the United States even if both of your biological parents weren't, or emigrated illegally, you're an American citizen. If you emigrate to America legally, ( like Representative Ilhan Omar ) you're an American citizen. What if any of these female Reps. told Donald Trump to go back to Germany or Scotland, ( where his ancestors are from ) he's second generation on his father's side with his paternal grandparents coming from Germany: how would The Donald and his 60 million supporters handle a Far-Left, minority Democratic woman asking him that question? Of course they would accuse her of being a racist. so how is President Trump telling these Reps. to go home, ( as if they're from any other country ) any different?

Americans are Americans regardless of their political ideology. You can always question their patriotism and how much they may love or hate America, depending on how they talk about America. But similar to what state someone lives in, it doesn't matter how much they love or hate their state that determines how much they love their state, but what state they live in that determines their residency. In Donald Trump's small, Pluto size mind and world the only real Americans are the people who agree with him on everything. And everyone else are the Un-Americans who should go away. And that's just not the real America and what makes us the great liberal democracy that we are. But instead some Russian or Saudi fascist state that Donald Trump wants us to be.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Murray Rothbeard: Ross Perot- 'Was The Original Donald Trump'

Source:Murray Rothbeard- One of Ross Perot's candid quotes 
"How did the media Discredit Ross Perot? What tools did they use?
Music by Chuki"

Source:Murray Rothbeard
Source:BBC- "Democrat Bill Clinton (L), Independent Ross Perot (C) and President George H.W. Bush"
I realize this guy on YouTube is not the best source ( and perhaps not even a credible source to talk about Ross Perot ) but I heard this comparison between Perot and Donald Trump last week and I just feel the need to correct the record on it. 

Ross Perot, was a serious, very intelligent man both as it related to business and not just one of the original new-tech leaders, but innovators when it came to new technology with his computer company.

The only time Donald Trump has ever made any real money on his own in his life ( without screwing other people out of their money ) is with his reality TV career that started 15 years ago. We're talking about a man who went bankrupt multiple times both with his business, as well as personally, to the point that back in the early and mid 90s he was borrowing money from his successful brother, to pay his personal bills. Back then he was going through both a bankruptcy and second divorce and couldn't pay his own bills, let alone run his own business.

What Perot and Trump have in common is that trade was a major part of their presidential campaigns. And it's an issue that they both seem to understand pretty well.

But Ross Perot in 92, was running on fixing the debt and balancing the budget with a serious plan to do both.

Donald Trump, is the self-proclaimed King of Debt and for good reasons: his personal and business bankruptcies and thanks to his borrow and spend, supply side fiscal policy that assumes his trillion-dollar tax cut ( mostly for wealthy investors and business ) is going to pay for itself, ( even though there is no real evidence of that ) America is going run a trillion-dollar budget deficit for the first time since 2013 again. Remember, President Barack Obama, inherited a trillion-dollar deficit and got that cut in half during his eight years as President. President Trump, is about to double the Obama deficit.

Ross Perot, wad a good, funny, charming, intelligent, successful man who not only knew how to work with others, was good at it and perhaps even enjoyed working with other people. Donald Trump, believes that anyone who disagrees with him on anything, not only hates him, but hates America and therefor is Un-American. Who doesn't even read his own intelligence reports or believe them that were prepared by his own National Security Council that he personally appointed. Does he ever read anything that he didn't personally write, or that's not one of his speeches?

Ross Perot, in 1992 and 96 was talking about a red, white, and blue America and bringing all Americans together. Donald Trump and just look at this week apparently believes that ethnic and racial minorities are Un-American and shouldn't be American citizens. At least minority women in the House of Representatives.

So sure, Ross Perot and Donald Trump are both outsiders who took on the political establishment in America and made very successful runs at the presidency, with The Donald even winning his election. And they were both suspicious of free trade. But that's really all that they have in common. We don't even know for sure if President Trump was ever a billionaire or is currently a billionaire and might only be worth a 10th of what he claims, because of all of his business and personal debt. And as a result they really shouldn't be compared with each other at all.

When you think of Ross Perot, you should look at Representative John Anderson who made a successful Independent run for President in 1980. And look at Neo-Confederate Governor George Wallace, if you want to compare another major presidential candidate with Donald Trump. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Last Week Tonight: Ayn Rand- 'How Is This Still A Thing?'

Source:Last Week Tonight- Objectivist author Ayn Rand.
"Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," is still kind of a thing. How?"

Source:Last Week Tonight

Source:All Top- "Author Max Barry once described reading Ayn Rand in this way,” I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection ..."
I'm not an objectivist and not a believer in objectivism, but I am a believer in individualism and if that makes me a selfish asshole or douchebag, ( as the guy said in the video ) then that's his damn problem, but not mind.

Ayn Rand, is not the mother of individualism or the creator of it, but perhaps is the strongest and most vocal advocate of it, which is why Liberals, ( such as myself ) Conservatives, Libertarians, even Socialists with her strong advocacy for feminism and the right to privacy can find something about Ayn that they can actually like, because most of us at least ( who aren't Socialists or Christian-Nationalists ) believe in some degree of individualism and freedom of choice and don't expect big government to even try to do everything for us.

Ayn Rand is sort of like ice cream or cookies: almost everyone can find something about her that they like. Almost everyone has a particular type of cookie or ice cream that they like and everyone has something about Ayn that they like: from 1960s Hippies to modern day Hipsters who don't want to be part of the establishment and want to be able to live their lives. To Christian-Nationalists who perhaps want big government to live in our homes and tuck us in at night so we're not living what they could call immoral lives, but like Ayn's advocacy for economic freedom.

Even Socialists who believe in women's reproductive rights and feminism, can find something that they like about Ayn Rand. To Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservative-Libertarians who believe in individual freedom and individualism and don't want big government running our lives for us at all.

Almost everyone has something about Ayn Rand that they like or can like, just like most of us have a cookie or flavor of ice cream that we like as well. Because Ayn believed in personal choice, reason, objective thought, free will, free expression, American liberal values that most Americans still love. While collectivists on both the Far-Left and Far-Right can find a lot about her that they hate, because her whole message was about individualism and individual choice, instead of a government collective deciding what's best for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

CSM: Stephen Humphries- 'How To Save Politically Mixed Marriages in The Donald Trump Era'

Source:CSM- Author Jeanne Safer: with a book about politically mixed marriages in the Trump era
"Psychotherapist Jeanne Safer has parlayed her own experiences and those that have been shared with her into a book I love you, but I hate your politics: How To Protect Your Intimate Relationships in a Poisonous Partisan World."

Read the rest ( if you can ) at CSM

Source:TYT: Cenk Uygur & Anna Kasparian- 'Americans Unwilling To Marry Outside Their Politics'- Different race, ethnicity, religion, culture, no problems! But marrying someone from different politics, that's a whole new issue.
"A very low percentage of Americans are married to spouses that have opposing political views from then. The number of interracial couples may soon exceed those with differing politics. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“Would you believe us if we said you're about as likely to marry someone of a different race as you are someone from the other political party?

Buried inside a new Pew Research Center survey on political polarization is this nugget: Americans say they are overwhelmingly married to people with whom they agree politically. In fact, just 9 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats say their spouse or partner is a member of the other major political party.

By contrast, Pew estimated in 2015 that 6.3 percent of Americans in 2013 were married to a spouse of a different race. But that number is climbing. It was less than 1 percent in 1970, but about 1 in 8 marriages in 2013 (12 percent) were interracial.

Bipartisan marriages still far outnumber gay marriages -- another fast-increasing kind of marriage, thanks to its nationwide legalization in 2015. Gallup data suggests about 1 million American adults are married to a spouse of the same gender; but that's still less than half a percentage point of the entire U.S. adult population.”

I'm not one of these doom and gloomers who think America is going to hell and as a result we're about to seem some new civil war in this country, but whenever I see stories that Americans aren't even willing to be friends with other people, because they either support President Donald Trump's nationalist philosophy or don't, that leads me to believe that maybe America is in danger of it's first civil war, at least since the 1960s, if not since the 1860s with the American Civil War.

I guess all of this would be easy for me to say, because I can  be completely philosophical and theoretical as someone who is not married. So taking my advice on this, might be lack asking your plumber for a medical opinion about cancer or whatever the disease or medical condition that you want to learn about. But if successful marriages has anything to do with commonsense, ( and considering 1/2 American marriages end in divorce, that would suggest no ) I believe there are some commonsense suggestions that could help people who are married to someone who is pro-Trump or not, when you're on the other side of that issue.

Suggestion one: don't discuss politics that relates to Donald Trump at all, at least in a serious way. If there's anything that both spouses agree on when it comes to Donald Trump where one spouse hates everything about him, but the other spouse likes PresidentTrump's economic polices, but hate his tone, rhetoric, character, ( which is common with Trump supporters on CNN ) then maybe talk about what you both don't like about the President. And if there's anything that you both like about him, maybe you both find him to be funny and entertaining and neither one is a fan of political correctness, then concentrate on that.

Suggestion two which goes back to suggestion one: don't talk about politics at all, or at the very least don't make it personal and instead listen to each other and find out why your spouse believes what they believe. You probably still won't agree with your spouse, but maybe you can at least understand why your spouse believes what they believe. And don't make your political discussions personal, but instead intellectual and factual. But the better idea is to not talk about divisive politics at all and instead remember what you love about your spouse and why you married your spouse in the first place. ( Like your spouse's money, body, business connections, or perhaps other reasons )

Again, as someone who has never even been married, ( knock on wood: maybe there is a God ) I think some of my suggestions sound like a local auto mechanic giving a lecture about brain surgery, ( what the hell does that guy know: if I ever want his opinion on anything, it will be about cars ) but if marriage has anything to do with life and successful life, then successful marriages are about commonsense.

For people who aren't hardcore political junkies ( meaning they actually have lives ) getting through the Trump presidency even if your spouse disagrees with you on President Trump should be relatively easy.

But for people who don't have lives outside of politics, I suggest you find that life outside of politics and remember that FNC, MSNBC, and CNN aren't the only TV channels and you can do other things together and concentrate on what you have in common and why you're married to that person in the first place. 

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960