• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If Trump wasn't a conman and incompetent but with same views would you vote for him?

seyorni said:
So the avatars of Neoliberalism, the Koch brothers, are flagrant liberals?
Click to expand...
No clue (about the Koch brothers).

I don't suppose every instance of a liberal is an instance of one that's flagrant, but I do suppose that Neoliberalism better falls under the umbrella of Liberalism than it does conservatism.
 
Don't be fooled by the "liberal" in neoliberal. Neoliberalism is anything but liberal. It's Austrian corporatocracy and free-market mercantalism.
 
fast said:
seyorni said:
So the avatars of Neoliberalism, the Koch brothers, are flagrant liberals?
Click to expand...
No clue (about the Koch brothers).

I don't suppose every instance of a liberal is an instance of one that's flagrant, but I do suppose that Neoliberalism better falls under the umbrella of Liberalism than it does conservatism.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. Dick Cheyney and George W. Bush were avatars of Neoliberalism. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are neoliberal thinktanks. Neoliberals have been the establishment in the Republican party for more than 40 years starting around Nixon and Ford.
 
zorq said:
fast said:
No clue (about the Koch brothers).

I don't suppose every instance of a liberal is an instance of one that's flagrant, but I do suppose that Neoliberalism better falls under the umbrella of Liberalism than it does conservatism.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. Dick Cheyney and George W. Bush were avatars of Neoliberalism. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are neoliberal thinktanks. Neoliberals have been the establishment in the Republican party for more than 40 years starting around Nixon and Ford.
Click to expand...
Then what would be the difference between a neoliberal and a neoconservative?
 
Neoliberalism is a laissz-faire economic theory. Neoconservatism is an American, imperialistic political movement.
 
whichphilosophy said:
As I understand he wants to control illegal immigration and does not oppose the current laws on legal immigration unless I am wrong on the last point.
Click to expand...

His all-out ban on Muslim immigration would oppose our current laws (and quite possibly the Constitution, too). So, it seems you are wrong. He has never made it clear what part of our vetting process needs to be revamped or what process he would put in place to prevent terrorism caused by immigrants or the American-born children (thus US Citizens) of immigrants.

It's also not clear what he would do about the majority of illegal immigration, which is not Mexicans running across a wall-free border, but foreigners who overstay, or otherwise violate the terms of (like perhaps his wife did), their visas.

It's hard to vote for someone who hasn't advocated a particular policy position but who has simply put forth platitudes.
 
As hard as it to believe, I think the President has very large latitude on immigration as the law and constitution currently stands.
 
repoman said:
As hard as it to believe, I think the President has very large latitude on immigration as the law and constitution currently stands.
Click to expand...

The analyses I read about this said that a ban on specific countries could be legitimate, but a ban on a religion not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom