Athanasius said:

---

I'll take a stab, although I'm not a progressive.

We see problems in the world. Crime, poverty, etc...

We look at the mechanisms that might be good at solving those problems.

Of all the mechanisms we see, like the free market, religious conversion, or government, we think that government is the most appropriate.

---

In fact it is likely the worst. He'll look at the hell governments have unleashed on the world. Perhaps it is because their power and authority are largely unchecked and they are run by those that were not good enough to make it in real world.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

Define "play fairly". Is this another dig for equal equity? Because equal equity in no way shape or form leads to playing fairly.

---

Fair play means getting rid of exploitation (at home and overseas) and ensuring everyone has equal opportunities through education and local utilities.

---

That couldn't be further from the progressive/Democrat agenda.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

That's a nice sentiment, but that is not remotely what progressives elect politicians to do. Racial & gender quotas, progressive taxes, hate crime laws, reparations and on and on and on. Please.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

Define "play fairly". Is this another dig for equal equity? Because equal equity in no way shape or form leads to playing fairly.

---

Fair play means getting rid of exploitation (at home and overseas) and ensuring everyone has equal opportunities through education and local utilities.

---

So stop discriminating against whites and Asians in college admissions etc etc right?

---

Of course. This also means getting rid of legacy student priority and bribery

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

Goodness, this is frightening, and supremely ignorant.

---

We should not limit policy purely based on the principle of states rights. If the federal government is capable of enacting laws the improve society better than any individual state can on their own, I will choose the federal government for this every single time.

---

The Federal Government should do what the Constitution allows it to do, NOTHING MORE.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

This explains it. The assumption is that fairness is achievable. Fairness is situation where the loser, regardless of effort, is not only happy for the winner, but willing to lose for that happiness to exist. The "progressive" mind hasn't come to terms, and likely never will, with the fact that fairness doesn't exist. They'll continue to prop up the losers, regardless of effort, in an attempt to make everyone a winner.

Sharpshooter said:

---

The Federal Government should do what the Constitution allows it to do, NOTHING MORE.

---

This. So much this.

Quote:

---

The Federal Government should do what the Constitution allows it to do, NOTHING MORE.

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

"Hey progressives, I have an honest question"

Immediately asks obviously argumentative and rhetorical question

---

Why is this so hard for you? What progressive policies make you support them?

Athanasius said:

---

I'll take a stab, although I'm not a progressive.

We see problems in the world. Crime, poverty, etc...

We look at the mechanisms that might be good at solving those problems.

Of all the mechanisms we see, like the free market, religious conversion, or government, we think that government is the most appropriate.

---

What is this based on though?

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

Goodness, this is frightening, and supremely ignorant.

---

We should not limit policy purely based on the principle of states rights. If the federal government is capable of enacting laws the improve society better than any individual state can on their own, I will choose the federal government for this every single time.

---

Usurpation of power not granted

barbacoa taco said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

"Hey progressives, I have an honest question"

Immediately asks obviously argumentative and rhetorical question

---

Another dodge.

Why do you favor bigger federal government? It's a simple, straightforward question.

---

It's a loaded question and I reject the premise of it. Just pointing out how your OP was obviously done in bad faith and was meant to start an echo chamber of "liberals bad amirite"

---

It's a very straightforward question.

You call this place an echo chamber yet you can't even formulate why you are progressive.

Quote:

---

I contend that conservatives want just as big of a government as liberals do. They just want it to restrict people other than themselves.

---

Wrong. By definition they're not conservative. There's a reason 90% of this board hates both sides. You see conservatives on this board bash conservative leaders constantly.

I never see that happening with the progressives/leftists/liberals. Yet you have the gall to make the gaslighting statement above.

TxSquarebody said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

This explains it. The assumption is that fairness is achievable. Fairness is situation where the loser, regardless of effort, is not only happy for the winner, but willing to lose for that happiness to exist. The "progressive" mind hasn't come to terms, and likely never will, with the fact that fairness doesn't exist. They'll continue to prop up the losers, regardless of effort, in an attempt to make everyone a winner.

---

Our society is no where near perfectly fair, but it is a lot fairer then it was 300 years ago with the existence of slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor. Just because fairness isn't 100% achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. A society that is 75% fair is way better than a society that is 0% fair.

Slicer97 said:

---

Why do you favor more federal government involvement in everyone's lives?

---

These are the best threads. Hands down.

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Athanasius said:

---

I'll take a stab, although I'm not a progressive.

We see problems in the world. Crime, poverty, etc...

We look at the mechanisms that might be good at solving those problems.

Of all the mechanisms we see, like the free market, religious conversion, or government, we think that government is the most appropriate.

---

What is this based on though?

---

I would think they would base it on 2 things:

1- the quality of the mechanism itself (i.e. the market is fast, but scattered and can be manipulated/has failures)
2- the quality of the mechanism as compared to the other options (i.e. the family has proven itself to be too corrupt an entity in raising children as compared to government standards)

A third thing, which I think progressives are absolutely terrible at is a third option, which is:
3- the quality of the mechanism in the context of the problem (i.e. national defense- probably a federal problem to solve, laws on spanking your child, probably a family problem to solve)

Progressives tend to use a hammer on all the things instead of just nails.

I think this goes into a *more* accurate reason progressive use government to solve problems: a religous one.

Most progressives subscribe to a humanistic religion- in that world view, they claim and hold onto certain moralities (like rape is wrong, slavery wrong, etc), and, again, in that worldview, might makes right- because without a transcendent authority, the ONLY right can be achieved through might (power/violence/threats of violence or imprisonment) <- all of which are gained through governmental mechanisms

Slicer97 said:

---

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

---

You're making a ****ty assumption.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

You ever seen in the movies where a guy is walking alone at night through a bad part of town and some shady dudes are all like, hey come over here for a minute, we just want to talk to you

And then he goes over there and they knock him down and all start kicking him in the ribs

This is that, in thread form.

---

That's a dodge. I'd like to know where the belief stems from.

---

ok fine, that's a bad faith question because it presumes that conservatives want less government.

They don't. They want more as well, but in different places.

---

Don't mistake conservatives for Republicans. It's why I posed the question to progressives rather than Democrats.

I'm not interested in views based upon party loyalty but rather personal political philosophy. Both parties suck and I don't think either one does a very good job of representing the views of their constituents. This is largely the reason I favor less government, particularly at the federal level.

---

I don't want more government, I want the government we have to work for everyone.

The US spends a higher portion of its GDP on health care than most of the developed world, but if we used that 12% on making sure that everyone isn't a broken leg away from being homeless, that's evil socialism.

I think we're at a stage, as a civilization, where no one should be going hungry or lacking medical care. Regardless of merit, and even what "merit" means is a much deeper conversation.

---

We have an endless supply of morbidly obese useless people who will never contribute to anything other than raising healthcare costs for all of us who take care of ourselves. Bang up job there.

The only people that look hungry that I see are rich soccer moms. It is staggering how many super poor people are extremely obese. Ain't no one going hungry I can assure you that. I don't care what fake stats you could ever present from any given leftist rag.

---

You can always tell who has never traveled outside of the USA.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Wrong. By definition they're not conservative. There's a reason 90% of this board hates both sides. You see conservatives on this board bash conservative leaders constantly.

---

Don't think I agree that 90% of this forum "hates both sides." F16 is still pretty damn MAGA even with Trump being out of office. Though I do appreciate people who call it both ways. Criticism of your own side is healthy.

Quote:

---

I never see that happening with the progressives/leftists/liberals. Yet you have the gall to make the gaslighting statement above.

---

Do you live under a rock? Leftists hate the current Democratic Party leadership. Biden is incredibly unpopular and it's not just conservatives who hate him.

Quote:

---

we're at a stage, as a civilization, where no one should be going hungry or lacking medical care.

---

I would argue that government intervention/interference is one of the main reasons medical care is so expensive and we have people going homeless/hungry. Maybe it is time to stop thinking the same government who got us here are going to do anything but make it worse.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Do you live under a rock? Leftists hate the current Democratic Party leadership. Biden is incredibly unpopular and it's not just conservatives who hate him.

---

Yeah, but Leftists hate Biden and Co. because they are not extreme left enough, aka ****ing crazy enough.

What is the obsession with MAGA? Very few actual MAGA folks on here but everyone gets accused of it by simply being conservative. You all have created quite the boogeyman out of a dude who was in Home Alone 2.

Quote:

---

Do you live under a rock? Leftists hate the current Democratic Party leadership. Biden is incredibly unpopular and it's not just conservatives who hate him.

---

I would honestly never know Biden was unpopular based on this board. Please link me to any thread that backs up your assertion that leftists hate the current party because I have NEVER seen that on this board. Please. Just one thread with leftists/progressives complaining about the current administration or DNC.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

This explains it. The assumption is that fairness is achievable. Fairness is situation where the loser, regardless of effort, is not only happy for the winner, but willing to lose for that happiness to exist. The "progressive" mind hasn't come to terms, and likely never will, with the fact that fairness doesn't exist. They'll continue to prop up the losers, regardless of effort, in an attempt to make everyone a winner.

---

Our society is no where near perfectly fair, but it is a lot fairer then it was 300 years ago with the existence of slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor. Just because fairness isn't 100% achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. A society that is 75% fair is way better than a society that is 0% fair.

---

If fairness is what progressives seek, they are really freaking bad at implementing it. I don't believe for a second that progressives want fairness. They're 100% about greed, hatred, and seeking revenge on those who they more often than not wrongly perceive as unjust.

Progressives have never encountered a bad idea that they don't like. Furthermore, they're led around and manipulated by the party of slavery and segregation who still thrives on racism to this day.

It's easy to win political fights when you have zero ethical or moral boundaries and the media/bureaucracy is on your side. Progressive politics wouldn't stand a chance without those advantages because their arguments are simply incapable of winning on merit alone.

barbacoa taco said:

---

"Hey progressives, I have an honest question"

Immediately asks obviously argumentative and rhetorical question

---

Not flaming here, but your response does absolutely beg the question… Are you afraid your beliefs won't stand up to scrutiny here?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

---

You're making a ****ty assumption.

---

Then get off the thread.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Our society is no where near perfectly fair, but it is a lot fairer then it was 300 years ago with the existence of slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor. Just because fairness isn't 100% achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. A society that is 75% fair is way better than a society that is 0% fair.

---

I am curious if you think openly discriminating against a particular race and/or gender for college admissions, hiring and/or promotion at work, etc. is "fair"?

Slicer97 said:

---

Why do you favor more federal government involvement in everyone's lives?

---

Like abortion? Or were you talking about contraceptives? Oh, I see, you limited it to federal government so you can have an out. You are ok with government involvement if it is just the state

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

What is the obsession with MAGA? Very few actual MAGA folks on here but everyone gets accused of it by simply being conservative. You all have created quite the boogeyman out of a dude who was in Home Alone 2.

---

said dude from Home Alone 2 is running for president for a third time and is leading in a lot of polls, and I consider him to be a threat to the country. so no, he's not just a boogeyman.

Quote:

---

I would honestly never know Biden was unpopular based on this board. Please link me to any thread that backs up your assertion that leftists hate the current party because I have NEVER seen that on this board. Please. Just one thread with leftists/progressives complaining about the current administration or DNC.

---

why would there be a thread like that on a conservative dominated forum? lol. Biden is not well liked outside of mainstream Democrats. Progressives and leftists can't stand him, much like they couldn't stand Hillary and ended up losing her the 2016 election. A lot of progressives and working class liberals don't see mainstream Democrats as looking out for their interests.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

"Hey progressives, I have an honest question"

Immediately asks obviously argumentative and rhetorical question

---

Not flaming here, but your response does absolutely beg the question… Are you afraid your beliefs won't stand up to scrutiny here?

---

Here? Or a more normal forum?

This is like being in the NRA forums and asking posters to defend their beliefs on strict gun control measures. It is not an invitation to a rational conversation, it's bait.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The government should act as a referee to make sure everyone plays fairly. Whether it's local government or federal government doesn't matter to me.

---

This explains it. The assumption is that fairness is achievable. Fairness is situation where the loser, regardless of effort, is not only happy for the winner, but willing to lose for that happiness to exist. The "progressive" mind hasn't come to terms, and likely never will, with the fact that fairness doesn't exist. They'll continue to prop up the losers, regardless of effort, in an attempt to make everyone a winner.

---

Our society is no where near perfectly fair, but it is a lot fairer then it was 300 years ago with the existence of slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor. Just because fairness isn't 100% achievable doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. A society that is 75% fair is way better than a society that is 0% fair.

---

When does the progressive stop inventing losers? If equal opportunity is the benchmark, not equal results, I would argue we are well beyond the 75%. Must we achieve 100% loss so that no winner can be determined? Or is "fairness" achieved when the 10% or less, of those "identified" by the progressive mind, succeed at the cost of the 90%?

Slicer97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

---

You're making a ****ty assumption.

---

Then get off the thread.

---

Nah, make a better thread instead of this regurgitated crap.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

---

You're making a ****ty assumption.

---

Then get off the thread.

---

Nah, make a better thread instead of this regurgitated crap.

---

Are you admitting to trolling at this point?

OP asked a question. You presumed ulterior motives. Prove OP created a troll post by engaging the question and see if they troll back.

Otherwise you are just admitting to stifling conversation.

Tea Party said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Not able to defend your political philosophy?

---

You're making a ****ty assumption.

---

Then get off the thread.

---

Nah, make a better thread instead of this regurgitated crap.

---

Are you admitting to trolling at this point?

OP asked a question. You presumed ulterior motives. Prove OP created a troll post by engaging the question and see if they troll back.

Otherwise you are just admitting to stifling conversation.

---

These posts have been asked since TexAgs was created. They're always garbage threads and the OP doesn't really care to hear what they say. Just argue with them and tell them why they're wrong.

I'm guessing he'll start a TEXIT thread tomorrow and then follow that up with a thread bashing educators. It's a silly trope at best. The OP is trolling.

It's really two sides of the same coin. Both sides seek government infusion into everyone's lives, they just differ in what gets intruded on.