Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Anthony Kronman: 'The Assault on American Excellence'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing Anthony Kronman about his book.

Source:The New Democrat

"The former dean of Yale Law School argues that the feverish egalitarianism gripping college campuses today is out of place at institutions whose job is to prepare citizens to live in a vibrant democracy. In his tenure at Yale, Anthony Kronman has watched students march across campus to protest the names of buildings and seen colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes. He is no stranger to recent confrontations at American universities. But where many see only the suppression of free speech, the babying of students, and the drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history, Kronman recognizes in these on-campus clashes a threat to our democracy. Shermer and Kronman discuss:

• free speech vs. hate speech

• how language affects how we think about other people

• diversity of characteristics (race, gender) vs. diversity of viewpoints

• the search for universal truths vs. understanding other’s perspectives

• affirmative action in the academy: from the University of California to Harvard

• taking down statues of Hitler and Stalin vs. taking down statues of Confederate Generals

• the problem of applying current moral values to the past, and

• how to reform the academy to refocus on excellence.

Anthony T. Kronman served as the dean of Yale Law School from 1994–2004, and has taught at the university for forty years. He is the author or coauthor of five books, including The Assault on American Excellence; Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life; and Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan.

This dialogue was recorded on August 12, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

From Skeptic

Source:Skeptic Magazine- "Science Salon - Science Salon Archives"

I realize I'm not on expert of college having not even gong through a whole year of college and I'll be the first to admit that, but if college is for anything it's to prepare young adults for life in the real world.

College is not a gigantic spaceship to the Planet Paradise or Planet Utopia where there's no such thing as any bigotry, including racism and life is supposed to be swell ( to use a 1950s word ) or awesome, ( to use a Millennial word ) for everyone on the planet. But college is supposed to represent life and what life looks like on both the outside, as well as in college. All the good, the bad, the in between, awards for performing well, consequences for doing poorly, steep consequences for breaking the rules. People who think like you that you even like or love. As well as people who just don't think like you, but where you're so far apart what the person believes and says angers you and you even hate what they have to say and what they think.

College is not a free ride, ( even for the athletes and cheaters ) everything that people are supposed to gain there is supposed to be justified. You're supposed to earn your good grades and other experiences there and suffer the consequences when you don't do well, or even do poorly, or even break the rules. And people who go there regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, culture, politics, etc, thinking that they're entitled to never have to see or hear anything that they don't like or disagree with, don't belong in college. And perhaps would be better off to moving to Planet Utopia or Paradise where they never have to see or hear anything that they dislike.

Sort of like hardcore Libertarians who believe they should never have to pay any taxes, because they've never personally approved of the programs that their taxes pay for: well: if you don't want to pay taxes in America or anywhere else, go look for, find, and move to a place where there's no taxation. Or get elected to office and try to make the case for why there shouldn't be any taxation. But until the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl, if not even longer  ( to use an NFL analogy ) you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

For these so-called Che Guevara a man they don't even understand, (by the way and yet somehow they got into college ) loving so-called social justice warriors, who really are just illiberal leftists, ( Neo-Communists if you will ) who believe that anyone who isn't of European background and who has dark skin is entitled to never having to see or hear anything that they disapprove of, you should find another platform or place to express your fascist views other than college. Which is supposed to be an arena of ideas and liberal democracy where all views are heard and debated. Not some social laboratory where the scientists there are supposed to design the perfect people ( in their minds ) as far as how humans are supposed to look and think. And where everyone else need not apply. 

Classic Film & TV Cafe: The Notorious Landlady (1962) 'Scene With Jack Lemmon & Kim Novak'

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in The Notorious Landlady, from 1962.

Source:The New Democrat

"Diplomat Jack Lemmon has just returned to England and doesn't know that everyone else suspects Kim Novak's character of murdering her husband!"

From Classic Film & TV Cafe

Source:Alamy Stock Photo- Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon, in The Notorious Landlady from 1962.

Just on a personal note first: it was the early summer of 2009 June of that year when I was home on a Saturday and there was a an all day Alfred Hitchcock marathon and Vertigo was one of those movies. I heard the name Kim Novak before, but I didn't know who she was. Vertigo is a good movie, but it's really Kim Novak who caught my attention to the point for the rest of that summer at least and into the fall my goal was to see as many Kim Novak movies that I possibly could. I saw Boys Night Out, Strangers When We Meet and perhaps 2-3 other Kim Novak movies that year. Whenever they were available on TV and I had the time to see them. I literally grew a crush on her.

There's something about Kim's voice, eyes, face that all come together at the same time that makes it impossible at least for me to concentrate on anything or anyone else when the camera is on her. She's absolutely adorable and even childlike at times and yet is also drop-dead gorgeous, with incredible sweet, sexy voice. She's like the great talented athlete that has you begging for more every time you see him play, because he's such a great player and then one tragic day it's all over after he breaks his leg in a game and never plays again. And you keep think what if he didn't get hurt, how many more great plays and games, how great would his career had been, had it not been for that one tragic play. Except that Kim Novak was never tragically injured: she left Hollywood voluntarily in the 1960s.

So I think I know how the Jack Lemmon character feels in The Notorious Landlady, with the Kim Novak character knowing how much he likes her and just leaves him begging for more. The Notorious Landlady is not a great movie, which unfortunately can be said about most of Kim Novak's movies, but she and Jack were great together in it. And if they were the only two main characters in it, perhaps it's a great movie, because they had great chemistry in. And Jack Lemmon was always a master comedic actor and comedian.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

Source:The New Democrat

"MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

"In his new book, The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, the U.C. Irvine cognitive scientist Dr. Donald Hoffman challenges the leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. His evolutionary model contends that natural selection has favored perception that hides the truth and guides us toward useful action, shaping our senses to keep us alive and reproducing. We observe a speeding car and do not walk in front of it; we see mold growing on bread and do not eat it. These impressions, though, are not objective reality. Just like a file icon on a desktop screen is a useful symbol rather than a genuine representation of what a computer file looks like, the objects we see every day are merely icons, allowing us to navigate the world safely and with ease. The real-world implications for this discovery are huge, even dismantling the very notion that spacetime is objective reality. The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.

In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:

• the nature of reality (ontology)

• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)

• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation

• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat

• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)

• the hard problem of consciousness

• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”

• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?

• is spacetime doomed?

• quantum physics and consciousness

• the microtubule theory of consciousness

• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and

• how Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception differs from Jordan Peterson’s Archetypal Theory of Truth (Shermer’s label for Peterson’s evolutionary theory of truth).

This dialogue was recorded on April 8, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

From Skeptic Magazine

I'm not a scientist ( obviously. What was your first clue? ) so I'm not qualified to get into one's brain as far as why they do certain things, especially when they're obviously wrong and go against their own personal interest, as well as the interests of the people around them. But I'm an observer of people and as a man myself I am qualified to speak for myself as far as why people do certain things,  including things that go against their own personal interests and why people even feel the need to try to escape reality and reason when making certain decisions.

I'm not an Atheist and I'm not a Randian ( term named after author Ayn Rand ) but as an Agnostic and I believe even as a Liberal I believe in reason and reality and don't believe in the faith for the most part. Perhaps the least romantic person you've ever met ( assuming you've never met Ayn Rand ) and I believe that you always should go with reason and reality, over how you want things and people to be. I also don't drink alcohol and or use any other narcotics, so I'm always forced to live in reality and see things they way they are, at least to my best ability, because I'm don't have that escape to take me away from the way things really are, for good and bad. I'm not going to have  a bad day and then hit a bar to get wasted to try to get that day or whatever happened that day out of my mind.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything and I'm the best at anything including personal decision-making. I'm just saying reality and reason are my approach to how I choose to look at the world and then try to make the best decisions that I can based on what I'm personally seeing and hearing in life. Based not on how I want people, things, or places to be, but how they are based on the best available facts and evidence.

But for too many Americans reality is not good enough for them to the point that they just don't try to change it for them, but start seeing and hearing things that simply aren't there to make themselves feel better. The example I gave about not going to the bar when I'm having a bad time to get wasted and escape from my negative reality, that's not what a lot of Americans do and perhaps is a reason for alcoholism that people need to get wasted and feel better when they're going through tough times and see alcohol as their personal escape, regardless of the negative consequences that come from abusing alcohol.

For intelligent, sober, responsible, sane people, reality is all we need to do well in life: "these are the facts on the ground ( for good and bad ) and this is what can be done about it. And this is how we can make the best of it." Is how these people look at the world to make the world the best that they can make it for themselves.

The alcoholic, the celebrity culture crazed person who might not even be popular or even well-known in their own neighborhood, let alone the rest of the country, for them reality is not good enough. So they see things that simply aren't there, think more of themselves than they deserve too, and perhaps especially the alcoholic make a lot of bad decisions that come with really bad consequences for them and people around them. Because the real-world is not good enough for them and have mentally escaped reality.

ATHENAISM: 'Why Is John F. Kennedy so Popular?'

Source:ATHENAISM- Depends on who you ask for JFK's popularity.

Source:The New Democrat

"John F. Kennedy is one of the most popular US presidents. Was he as good as people remember him being? What exactly is it that makes him so popular?"

From ATHENAISM

Source:Caleb & Linda Pirtle- John F. Kennedy: I believe in 1960 when he was running for President. But I don't know for sure.

Why is John F. Kennedy so popular? It depends on who you ask and who you're talking about.

As a Classical Liberal ( a real Liberal ) myself I like JFK and consider him to be one of my political heroes, because of his politics and policies. You're talking about a Democrat who was not just an anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian, and an anti-collectivist all together. Who actually believed in economic opportunity, individual freedom, personal responsibility, like all real Liberals that liberty is not just worth defending, but is something that has to be defended.

JFK believed in equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, things that Democrats apparently don't believe in today ( for the most part ) with few exceptions. President Barack Obama, being one of the last of those Democrats despite his right-wing Tea Party stereotypes that President Obama was actually a Socialist.

But as I mentioned last week on this blog about JFK's rules for success, he wasn't just a brilliant man, but a man ( at least as far as how he spoke ) was full of such brilliant commonsense. Brilliant commonsense probably sounds like a great economy car: how great can an economy car be, otherwise it wouldn't be an economy car, but he's so quotable because he said things that sound brilliant at first, but then when you think about it they're really just commonsense that too many people had simply forgot about.

JFK's peace speech where he's talking about the shared human values between America and Russia and how it was in both superpowers best interests to cooperate for the good of the planet and our people's. He's someone that if you gave speeches for a living and tried to help people improve their own lives with your advice, would want to use JFK by quoting him.

So that's why I like him so much, but JFK's popularity of course is bipartisan and perhaps even nonpartisan, otherwise he wouldn't have an 83% approval rating or whatever the current figure is. Why do Conservatives like him? Why do Socialists ( who call themselves Progressives or Liberals ) like him? Why do even Libertarians like him? And finally, but certainly least: why is Hollywood if not in love with the man ( women and men ) why do they love him?

Conservatives like John F. Kennedy, because he was an anti-Communist, who really didn't like socialism in any form. He believed in economic freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which is why he pushed for what was certainly back in 1962 a very large across the board tax cut. He believed in a strong defense and that liberty was worth defending.

JFK, believed in things that today would look very conservative, especially with socialism being so popular at least with young Democrats today, but are actually very liberal ( both in a classic and real sense ) but look conservative, again compared with the modern Democratic Party. Back then Liberals were supposed to believe in these things and not sound and believe like Socialists. And Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) still believe in these things today.

Why do let's just call them what they are Socialists, who now see Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, Che Guevara, and other leftists as their heroes: why do they admire JFK?

President John Kennedy, wanted to expand the safety net in America and create new social insurance programs for people who struggle to survive economically in America. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Federal Aide for Education, because he was a Progressive ( not Socialist ) who believed that government, including the Federal Government could be used to improve the lives of struggling Americans.

But unlike let's say Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders he didn't think these programs should be universal and that the Federal Government should replace private employers as the source for how Americans get their what most of us call employee benefits: health insurance, paid leave, childcare, life insurance, pension, education, etc. And JFK also talked about the need for peace a lot.

Libertarians, similar to Conservatives like JFK for his beliefs in lower taxation and individual freedom all together. Jack Kennedy, didn't see the role of government especially the Federal Government to manage and run the lives of free Americans.

And finally, but certainly least why is Hollywood still in love with John F. Kennedy? If you're familiar with Hollywood, you know that it's not just the entertainment capital of America ( if not world ) but they're also the capital of pop culture and faddism.

If it's considered cool, it's probably because some Hollywood celebrity either started it or got behind it. And because of their faddism and addiction to popularity and hipsterism, Hollywood always feels the need to be popular and cool. They don't love the man because of his policies for the most part, even though they will talk about his policy accomplishments.

Hollywood loves JFK because he was cool and see him as an honorary member of their Hollywood club. He had friends in Hollywood and they even planned his 45th birthday party in 1962. We're a big part of the production of his 1961 inauguration. Hollywood has this dying need to be seen with the in-crowd and be associated with anything that's cool in America.

If fascism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism ever became popular in America, at least with young people, Hollywood would be promoting those philosophies with their movies and other productions.  Which is also why Socialists love JFK, because Socialists tend to be hipsters and follow the cool people as well. Which is why Hollywood claims to love Socialists and socialism as well, because socialism is popular with young people.

To have an 83% approval rating, you either have to be God in a very religious country where even young adults are very religious, or you have to be leading a country that's just been under attack and you're the one who successfully led the country through that crisis and came out stronger, like President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Or you have to be a politician who is so popular, because you're able to connect with so many people on so many different levels. Which is why John F. Kennedy is still so popular in America.

Evan Carmichael: 'John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success'

Source:Evan Carmichael- From some of John F. Kennedy's greatest speeches

Source:The New Democrat

"John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success:

In this video we're going to learn how to improve our lives by analyzing John F. Kennedy's rules

for success."

From Evan Carmichael

The brilliance of what John F. Kennedy talked about in life either as President of before his presidency, even though a lot of what he talked about had to do with public service and his own government service, can be translated into real life and how Americans live their own lives and should live their own lives. Not so much the decisions that they make in life, but how they go about making their own personal decisions.

Source:The Insider Tales- "The Insider Tales: inspirational quotes by John F. Kennedy

Move forward

People should not just appreciate what we have, but if anything be more focused on what we have, instead of what we don't have yet and perhaps will never achieve, but we should always strive to be the best that we can be. To always strive for perfection knowing that we'll never get there on that road of life, not so we chase our tales and just waste a lot of energy, but to be the best people that we can be. To be the best person, parent, uncle/aunt, sibling, friend, what we do professionally, our hobbies, etc. To be the best people that we can be in life that we possibly can.

Service

To go to President John F. Kennedy's inauguration: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Don't expect people to do for you, what you can't or are either not willing to do for yourself. You'll accomplish a lot more in life if instead of waiting around for things in life and for people to do give you things, because you're simply doing everything for yourself that you can and being the best and most successful person that you can possibly be. In this sense at least, JFK sounds like Ayn Rand here.

High standards

If you want the best out of life, you not only have to work for it, but you have to expect it as well. NFL teams don't win the Super Bowl by believing they're not even good enough to get to the Super Bowl. They know going into the playoffs, or at least late in the regular season that they have a really good team and perhaps even a great one and know they're good enough to win the whole thing. And then set out to do that and execute their goal here. And that's just one example with education being another one, where you can't have great schools, teachers, and students if you don't expect them to be great and hold them accountable when they're not as good as they can be, or even good enough and not even passing the grade.

Freedom for all

When race, ethnicity, complexion, gender, sexuality, religion become more important in America than the person themself, you have a real problem. And no, I'm not talking about not seeing the biological characteristics about people, because we would have to be blind to miss them, but instead see people as people first and more importantly as individuals and not as a member of any group. Judge people individually and you'll have a lot more friends, colleagues, mentors in life, then if you took the attitude you don't like that person's race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, etc.

Resolve differences?

Not sure I like this rule because not all differences can be resolved; hard to imagine how a Communist becomes a Libertarian and vice-versa. Or how a religious fundamentalist who perhaps even has their own definitions of what their religion is supposed to be that's not written in any religious text, gives all that up and decides that they're wrong and religion is actually garbage ( to keep it clean ) and all the sudden becomes an Atheist. Or how an Atheist who is so hardcore and militant with their Atheism to the point that they see anyone who is religious at all as either crazy or is a moron and perhaps even believes that religion should be outlawed, ( like a Communist ) all the sudden decides that they're not just religious, but a religious fundamentalist. Not all differences can be resolved simply because sometimes the two sides are just too far apart.

I guess my positive note here would be to learn to agree to disagree: instead of focusing on what divides you with someone or other people, how about focusing on what you do have in common ( if anything ) instead. And similar to judging people as individuals and as nothing else, you might find that you have some things in common with that person or people and pick up new friends. And if you're so far apart with someone or some people that what they stand for offends you, then maybe you should just move on and find new people to associate with. Which would also be better for your blood pressure with fewer intense arguments. Your heart would thank you for that.

Express your beliefs

You want people to know what you believe and who you are as a person, then speak up! Let people into your own world and bring them in to see what kind of person you are. You can't drive a car until you start it. And you won't make friends and obtain associates in life, if they don't know who you are and what skills you bring to the table and what kind of person you are, what you believe, and why you believe it.

Evan Carmichael's video is called John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success: I gave you six because a lot of his rules actually overlap. Like moving forward, ask not what your country can do for you, and a couple others. And as I said before a lot what Jack Kennedy talked about in life he was doing as a public servant: first as a member of Congress and then as President, but what he talked about as a public servant can be translated into real life as well. Which is one thing that I believe makes him so popular that he was not only so intelligent, but he was readable and easy to listen to. His brain was like a great book of commonsense.

Foreign Affairs: Sebastian Mallaby: 'How Should a Liberal Be?'

Source:K-Top- Thomas Jefferson: one of the Founding Father's, Founding Liberals, and father's of American liberalism.

Source:The New Democrat

"In James Grant, it sometimes seems, the nineteenth century has been resuscitated. Towering, gaunt, bow-tied, and pinstriped, he writes with a sly wit that recalls the novels of William Thackeray. His signal achievement is a fortnightly cult publication bearing the antique title Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. He is a nostalgic believer in the nineteenth-century gold standard. He eyes modern banking innovations with stern, starch-collared suspicion, as though peering at them through a monocle. Even traditional financial instruments elicit a wry scorn. “To suppose that the value of a common stock is determined purely by a corporation’s earnings,” Grant once wrote, “is to forget that people have burned witches, gone to war on a whim, risen to the defense of Joseph Stalin and believed Orson Welles when he told them over the radio that the Martians had landed.”

Now, Grant has written a delightful biography of Walter Bagehot, the great nineteenth-century Englishman in whom Grant perhaps recognizes a grander version of himself: the would-be Victorian sage is paying tribute to the authentic one. From 1861 until his death in 1877, Bagehot served as the third and most famous editor of The Economist. He was a confidant of William Gladstone, the dominant liberal politician of the era, and his words exercised such sway over successive governments that he was regarded as an honorary cabinet minister. After Bagehot’s death, a contemporary remarked that he might have been the most fascinating conversationalist in London.

Like Grant, Bagehot was a vivid wordsmith and a cult figure. Unlike Grant, Bagehot was generally a modernizer, a believer in progress, and therefore an opponent of the gold standard. (Bagehot’s views on certain matters, such as gender and race, were far from enlightened.) In his slim 1873 volume, Lombard Street, Bagehot explained how central banks should quell financial panics by printing currency and lending it liberally—“to merchants, to minor bankers, to ‘this man and that man,’ whenever the security is good.” To Grant’s evident dismay, this formulation."

From Foreign Affairs

Source:CBS News: 'President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address'- 

Our last Classical Liberal if not Liberal President

"On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history."

From Encyclopedia

"Liberal democracy is generally understood to be a system of government in which people consent to their rulers, and rulers, in turn, are constitutionally constrained to respect individual rights. However, widely divergent views exist regarding the meaning of consent and individual rights, of the particular forms of government that are best suited to the preservation of popular rule and the protection of rights, and of the types and effectiveness of constitutional constraints within particular forms of government. Nonetheless, liberal democracy is common throughout most of the developed world."

Before I get into how should a Liberal be, perhaps I should get into what Liberals aren't.

If you look at what stereotypical Liberals are, they represent almost nothing as far as what Liberals actually are and if anything if you look at what stereotypical Liberals are ( as some people call Modern Liberals ) and what real Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) are supposed to be, they look almost as different as Communists and Ayn Randian Objectivist-Libertarians: with the so-called Liberals believing that government should try to do practically everything for everybody and that free choice and private ownership should be as limited as possible, if permitted at all. With Randian-Libertarians thinking that government should do practically nothing for people, if anything at all.

If you look at the so-called Liberals going back to the late 1960s and all through the 1970s, you would think that Liberals are nothing but rebellious leftist-hipsters who believe everything that America represents is immoral and bigoted and that they want to tear down the system ( or as they would say, the man ) and replace it with a socialist state.

Radical leftist groups from the late 1960s and early 1970s like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground and other militant socialist groups, didn't even call themselves Liberals. It was the so-called mainstream media that did that. They were people who literally believed that liberal democracy is bad and communism is good. And today you see groups like that on the Far-Left in America that are supposed to be the Liberals of today, but who aren't militant: groups like The Left Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, ( who call themselves Democratic Socialists, not Liberals ) the Occupy Wall Street movement from early in this decade just after the Great Recession, and other left-wing, socially and politically active political organizations in America.

That if you're a Liberal, you're supposed to be a rebellious hippie ( either from the 1960s or today ) who believes that everything that America stands for and even our form of government is immoral and that it's your job to tear that down ( either through democratic means or otherwise ) and replace it with some type of Scandinavian socialist state. You're supposed to believe that the socialist dictators of the world like in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and other places are actually decent moral people and if there's anything wrong with them at all, it's America's fault and that we forced them on those countries. And that it's America who are the real authoritarians and terrorists in the world.

The so-called Modern Liberal is supposed to believe that capitalism is racist and bigoted, that personal freedom is dangerous, people are stupid and therefor you need big government to babysit people and manage their lives for them. That free speech is supposedly bigoted and therefore has to be regulated so that no one is offended. Well, anyone who isn't a member of some minority group ( except for Jews ) in the country. But free speech for anyone who has something to say about any member of a majority group. And free speech for anyone who has something negative to say about anyone on the Right ( including the Center-Left, who look Right compared with the Far-Left ) or any member of a majority group.

So-called Liberals are supposed to believe that anyone who sets out to get a good education and become financially independent in life and them accomplishes those objectives, even if they donate part of their wealth to charity, is somehow immoral and bigoted. The so-called Liberals from back in the day and today are people who not just question capitalism and private ownership, but are looking for alternatives to replace those actual liberal values. We're seeing that with young Democratic voters in the Democratic presidential race right now.

So I just laid out what Liberals aren't, even if the so-called mainstream media is too clueless or brainless to get that. And I'll tell you what it means to be a Liberal, at least to me.

If you look at the word liberal and liberty, they're very similar because liberal comes from liberty. ( Not big government, socialist, communist, collectivist, welfare state ) If you look at the words liberation, liberalize, liberalized, they're all not just very similar to liberal because they're the same things.

When countries liberalize their economies, their societies, their government's, they're opening them up and expanding individual freedom. Not expanding the government and taking away free choice and free ownership. We're seeing that in Cuba today with is more liberal today than they were even 15 years ago with Cubans now being able to own and start their own businesses and own their homes. When they were a pure communist state under Fidel Castro, they were less liberal than they are today.

To put it simply: a Liberal is someone who believes in liberty, not big government. Liberals, believe in liberal democracy and the liberal values that it represents: like individual rights like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, limited government, decentralization of power, ( both governmental and private ) checks and balances, free, fair, and open elections, quality of opportunity, equal rights, equal justice, pluralism, diversity, a race, ethnic, gender, and religious-blind society where individuals are judged exactly as that, not as members of any group. Liberals are not Anarchists or Communists: we want government to defend all of our rights for every one us, not to do nothing, or try to run our lives for us. These are the liberal values of liberalism, not collectivism.

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 Nancy Pelosi. 

Source:The New Democrat

"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. . 

From MSNBC

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. 

ACLU: Sam Walker- 'Conscientious Objectors'

Source:ACLU- The ACLU, standing up for free speech rights during World War I 

Source:The New Democrat

"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.”

Source:Cardozo Law: Professor Norman Dorsen- 'The 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 rights, 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.

The Onion: Paul Ryan- 'Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles'

Source:The Onion- Speaker Paul Ryan: the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 

Source:The New Democrat

"WASHINGTON—Noting the former congressman’s deep, unwavering commitment to shying away from every one of his civic responsibilities, the Heritage Foundation lauded Paul Ryan Thursday for inspiring millions of young gutless fucking cowards to take on leadership roles.

"Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for showing countless milquetoast little weaklings across the United States that if they want a place in politics, they can have it,” said Heritage Foundation spokesperson Katherine Primm, adding that she was grateful so many young candy-ass pushovers had the chance to see someone just like them not just get elected but also become speaker of the House.

“Before Paul Ryan, you’d never see a spineless coward taking charge, but now, faint-of-heart boys and girls will finally have the determination to become leaders and then cower in front of more powerful people and bend to their will."

"Before, it was just the brave who led—but thankfully, that era is behind us forever.”At press time, thousands of newly inspired chickenshit Americans had reportedly begun fundraising for congressional runs in 2020."

From The Onion

"President Donald Trump goes on the offensive against former House Speaker Paul Ryan at a White House departure."

From MSNBC

Source:MSNBC- President Donald Trump: finally speaking the truth about someone. 

Paul Ryan is sort of a tough one for me, because he really does represent what's left of Jack Kemp Center-Right-Wing of the Republican Party: Conservatives who believe in economic freedom for everyone including for poor people and using public policy to help low-income Americans become financially independent.

But if you just look at the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin as a leader, it won't take you very long, because there's not much there. I mean if you had a leadership scale for political leaders with people like President Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin L. King being at the top, you wouldn't see Paul Ryan from there. He wouldn't even qualify as a political midget, he would be more like an ant who avoids getting stepped on by people like President Donald Trump, Representative Steve King, and the rest of the Far-Right political heavyweights in the Republican Party.

Even as former Speaker Paul Ryan and now corporate board member Paul Ryan, he struggles to take on a President that in his gut, ( assuming he has a gut: he's so politically weak, it's hard to tell ) he knows is not just wrong, but irresponsible and even immoral. But even with criticism about President Trump saying that he knows nothing about government, he must have had some suspicion about that going in. And also that statement would've been stronger and had he said that as Speaker and not as a private citizen who know longer has anything left to lose in politics, because he's already lost everything.

You knew going in to 2017 that Republicans were in for a rough year, even with a Republican President, Republican Congress, ( House and Senate ) because you had an unqualified and immoral President and a unqualified Speaker of the House in Paul Ryan, who was well-suited to a committee chairman, but had no business leading a party in the House that was dominated by the Far-Right, who he never felt comfortable with and was never part of. I don't feel sorry for Speaker Ryan, because he didn't have to run for reelection as Speaker, but just giving you a little background about why this relationship and leadership setup wasn't even built to work, let alone last.

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer Interviewing Andrew Seidel: 'Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing author Andrew Seidel. 

Source:The New Democrat

"In this important new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, constitutional attorney and scholar at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew L. Seidel, begins by explaining what apparently religious language is doing in the Declaration of Independence. Does this prove that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? What, exactly, was the role of religion in America’s founding? Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true? The Founding Myth answers the question once and for all. Seidel builds his case point by point, comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Bible contradicts the Declaration of Independence’s central tenets. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was not built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism is, in fact, un-American.

Seidel and Shermer also discuss:

• the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and he explains how this could happen in the next 3–5 years

• new laws being passed in many southern states enacting the teaching of Christianity and the bible in public schools

• the thousands of letters that the FFRF receives every year from both secularists and members of minority religions who feel and believe that their rights are being threatened and even violated by Christian nationalists

• the “religious exemption” for vaccinations and why it’s nonsense

• why Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery

• how the South justified slavery in the Civil War

• how Christian nationalists cherry pick biblical passages to fit current secular moral trends

• the historical treatment of women in Christianity

• the historical treatment of homosexuals in Christianity, and

• why moral progress must come from the bottom up from cultural change as well as top down from changing laws.

This dialogue was recorded on June 19, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Author Andrew Seidel 

Source:Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Siedel: 'Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American'

If you want me to answer the question that is the title of this piece, I'll answer it for you anyway: Christian-Nationalism is Un-American, because it's Un-Liberal-Democratic, if not Un-Democratic all together. And I'm not talking about the Democratic Party, but the philosophy of liberal democracy and pluralism. Liberal values that the United States was founded on that all Americans are Americans and therefor have the right to be Americans ( which is as themselves ) and don't have to live the lives and live the way that Christian-Nationalists ( Christian-Fundamentalists ) believe they should be and should live. So Christian-Nationalism, is Un-Liberal Democratic, Un-Democratic, and anti-pluralist and therefor Un-American.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have their own fringes: or what I would call the escaped mental patient wings of their party's. The Democrats, have this growing Socialist wing that self-describes themselves as Democratic Socialists or Progressives, even though a lot of what they argue is actually not just illiberal, but regressive with their belief that speech and media that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that personal choices and personal freedom that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that Americans should be forced to subsidize choices that they approve of, like abortion and other things.

The Republican Party, has a wing of escaped mental patients that is perhaps even more illiberal and regressive, who advertises themselves as Conservatives and in some cases Christian-Conservatives, even though a lot of what they support is actually anti-conservative. They value the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, debt and deficits don't matter to them, morality and character doesn't matter to them, just as long as the person with poor morality and character is doing what they politically approve of. ( Like Donald Trump, just to use as an example )

Just to further the argument for why Christian-Nationalism is Un-American: could you imagine is these so-called Bible thumpers ( who really sound like people who landed in New Mexico yesterday coming from the Planet Zoltar, or some place ) actually came to power and not just had the presidency, the Congress with super majorities in both the House and Senate, and had the military behind them, what the United States would then become as a result: if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran are bad places for women, gays, and minorities, put the Christian-Nationalists completely in charge of the United States.

Christian-Nationalists, would create their own national time machine where once again being gay is not just illegal, but punishable by death either through the criminal justice system, or through private citizens. Women, would become second-class citizens and essentially slaves to their men. Minorities, wouldn't have the same rights as Caucasians, ( especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants ) America, this great and gigantic mecca for freedom and pluralism would become a national hell hole for anyone who isn't an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male, especially who comes from a rural background.

I believe anyone who actually is a Christian regardless of what division they're from should either be insulted that they get lumped into the same group as Christian-Nationalists, or be very amused by it and I'm sort of debating which emotion they should feel here. You could argue most if not everything that Christian-Nationalists support is anti-Christian, just like most if not what Islamists support is anti-Islam. But then you could also argue that a lot of what Christian-Nationalists support sounds so crazy as if they're escaped mental patients that only see and believe in things that crazy people could see and support. So I will let actual Christians who actually believe in The Ten Commandments, morality and character make that decision for themselves.

The New Yorker: Steven Markow: 'Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party'

Source:The New Yorker

Source:The New Democrat

"The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote."

Read more of Steven Markow's piece at The New Yorker

Source:Newsy: 'What does a moderate voter look like?'- Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?
 

"Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise."

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It's that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they're simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn't mean that they're a Centrist. It just might mean that they don't like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you're talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you're talking about and don't automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they're Centrists.

Just like you shouldn't assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn't assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they're automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don't believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according the the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they're not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can't be true.

I don't think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country. Civil rights laws, so people aren't denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you're definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there's a consensus to do so, whose motto: "I'm willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing." If that's your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial's who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it's cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O'Rourke's base. ( Or what's left of it at this point )  A man who proved at last Wednesday's Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he's wishy-washy in two languages.

If you're idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago.  What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

The New Yorker: Osita Nevanevu: 'Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & Two Paths for the American Left'

Source:The New Yorker- The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party.

Source:The New Democrat

"This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected."

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu's piece at The New Yorker

Source:Now This News: 'How Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Plan to Raise Trillions in Tax Revenue'-  Bernie vs. Liz

"Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.' It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans."

When you're talking about Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren for President in the Democratic primaries, you're not talking about Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller from 1964 in the Republican primaries: Senator Goldwater, was a hard-core, true Conservative-Libertarian Republican and literally one of the founding father's the conservative-libertarian movement not just in the Republican Party, but in America. Governor Rockefeller, was a Right-Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds crazy ) back when right-wing Progressives were a major part of the Republican Party.

When you're talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you're talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on wha the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn't interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren't denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics. And Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they're both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn't not just fly, but it doesn't get off the ground: sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it's too hot and the plane overheats. ( Something that I've experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there's too much snow on the ground.

For or one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system: when Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist: that she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question; she was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn't, is how they self-describe their politics. Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz,  both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas.