March Madness and Covid-19

[BCSooners]

Hopefully at election time the people remember that he practically mocked the virus in the beginning, and is just an idiot in general.

He was a prodigy of Fallin. If that still gets you elected it doesn’t matter what you do in this state.

 

[thebigabd]

It may have held the country back IN YOUR OPINION, but that is not a fact. Just b/c you want us to go a certain direction doesn't mean the majority of the country wants the same thing.

Sure, I suppose these are all opinions. For example, people out there think things would be better if the "south" rose up and brought back the Confederacy, white supremacy, etc.

So, then you talk about what the majority of America wants. Not sure you want to go down that road, because that world would like more like what I have been describing than what you are fighting for. The problem is, we don't have national referendums like real democracies that allow us to vote on particular issues. If you are interested in what real democracy looks like, I suggest you read "Democracy and its Critics" by Robert Dahl. It's an incredible read.

Our democracy is tainted in critical ways, and reforms are needed. First, our system is based on law, not on majority rule. Second, the two party system itself robs people of legitimate representation. We essentially have a "winner take all" system. A tiny majority of people vote GOP in Florida? 100% of them are governed by GOP. Other countries with more robust democracies have better forms of representation. Second, big money in politics isn't compatible with legitimate democracy. That's why Citizens United was such a big issue.

And finally, the political parties themselves create a bizarre voter where you have to accept a party, all or nothing, because we can't vote on particular issues like in Switzerland. And they are pretty much universally entrenched as a team. Very few break ranks. What if I want to expand social security, but don't support abortion? I don't have a candidate. What if I want to have tuition-free education, but want no intrusion on what I believe are 2nd Amendment rights? I have no candidate. I have to accept the entirety of their policy positions to get the one thing that is important to me.

I am sure you have heard the term "single issue voters"... It is estimated that a very large portion of the population are single issue voters. Which mean, they likely sacrifice many things they want in exchange of a particular issue that is especially important to them. This is flawed.

Sorry, I was ranting.... anyway... Yes, just like it is an opinion that white supremacy is the best way to go, it is also an opinion that Trump and those who think like him are taking America in the opposite direction. Going backwards, not forward.

However, consider this... What is a "conservative"? What does that mean? Naturally, it means to "conserve".. Not change. So let's say one administration made a lot of significant changes (like FDR and LBJ), and the conservative administration comes in and undoes those changes, they are putting it back the way it is originally. I would call that going backward, because if you never change anything you know what happens? Nothing.

Many of the "conservative" policies aren't trying to take the country in a new direction as much as they are trying to put it back the way it was at some other point in time. Such as... before abortion. Before social security. Before Medicare. Before Obamacare. Before environmental regulations... Before gays were socially acceptable... etc.

We'll see. Generations change. People change. Culture, economics, the general world environment all change. People thought when the children of the 70's grew up there would be a big shift toward liberalism. As that generation grew up, that shift never really occurred. Much like every other thing on this planet, there is an ebb and flow. Once we start going too far one direction, it flows back the other. If you think this country is ever going to be run like Bernie Sanders wants to run it for more than a couple of terms, you are crazy. It won't happen. It'll turn right back towards conservatism. That's the way of the world.

As you said, we will see. I happen to believe that we are in the last real generation of expansive conservatism. Remember, our older generations are basically from a different world (I can think of some comments my own grandparents make that are FAR from socially acceptable). And the generation below them as well. They share little in common with the middle aged and younger generations. The world is trending liberal, and America will eventually catch up.

 

[MJSooner]

Sure, I suppose these are all opinions. For example, people out there think things would be better if the "south" rose up and brought back the Confederacy, white supremacy, etc.

So, then you talk about what the majority of America wants. Not sure you want to go down that road, because that world would like more like what I have been describing than what you are fighting for. The problem is, we don't have national referendums like real democracies that allow us to vote on particular issues. If you are interested in what real democracy looks like, I suggest you read "Democracy and its Critics" by Robert Dahl. It's an incredible read.

Our democracy is tainted beyond repair. First, our system is based on law, not on majority rule. Second, the two party system itself robs people of legitimate representation. We essentially have a "winner take all" system. A tiny majority of people vote GOP in Florida? 100% of them are governed by GOP. Other countries with more robust democracies have better forms of representation. Second, big money in politics isn't compatible with legitimate democracy. That's why Citizens United was such a big issue.

And finally, the political parties themselves create a bizarre voter where you have to accept a party, all or nothing, because we can't vote on particular issues like in Switzerland. And they are pretty much universally entrenched as a team. Very few break ranks. What if I want to expand social security, but don't support abortion? I don't have a candidate. What if I want to have tuition-free education, but want no intrusion on what I believe are 2nd Amendment rights? I have no candidate. I have to accept the entirety of their policy positions to get the one thing that is important to me.

I am sure you have heard the term "single issue voters"... It is estimated that a very large portion of the population are single issue voters. Which mean, they likely sacrifice many things they want in exchange of a particular issue that is especially important to them. This is flawed.

Sorry, I was ranting.... anyway... Yes, just like it is an opinion that white supremacy is the best way to go, it is also an opinion that Trump and those who think like him are taking America in the opposite direction. Going backwards, not forward.

However, consider this... What is a "conservative"? What does that mean? Naturally, it means to "conserve".. Not change. So let's say one administration made a lot of significant changes (like FDR and LBJ), and the conservative administration comes in and undoes those changes, they are putting it back the way it is originally. I would call that going backward, because if you never change anything you know what happens? Nothing.

Many of the "conservative" policies aren't trying to take the country in a new direction as much as they are trying to put it back the way it was at some other point in time. Such as... before abortion. Before social security. Before Medicare. Before Obamacare. Before environmental regulations... Before gays were socially acceptable... etc.



As you said, we will see. I happen to believe that we are in the last real generation of expansive conservatism. Remember, our older generations are basically from a different world (I can think of some comments my own grandparents make that are FAR from socially acceptable). And the generation below them as well. They share little in common with the middle aged and younger generations. The world is trending liberal, and America will eventually catch up.

Wow a lot to unpack there, but I'll try. There are a few points that I think deserve conversation.

• The first point is we are not a democracy. It is unfair to compare us to other "real democracies". We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. This means states have rights of government of their people and we are not governed solely by the Fed. This was the entire argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists leading up to the constitution. It is also why we don't have national referendums. That is the job of the Congress to make laws from the represented officials from each state.
• Secondly, you stated our democracy is beyond repair because it is not based on majority rule? You cite how a few people in one state can turn an election because of who controls it. But back to point one, we are not a democracy, and this is exactly what the Great Compromise was about in 1787 where Connecticut pushed back against large populous state control of representation, so every state had both an equal and proportional voice and vote. Without this compromise, the Constitution would not have been ratified. As a result, in 92% of our 58 elections, the "majority vote" has matched the electoral vote.
• Third, I will agree with you on the two party system, but we have bascially had a two party system since Thomas Jefferson won in 1800. Even in the elections prior to 1800, there were two parties, but mulitple candidates from the same party could run in the general election. In reality, a third party candidate was only a serious candidate once, and that was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate because he disliked Taft. So that doesn't even really count.
• Fourth, campaign finance reform is desperately needed. But getting that done is like getting a CEO and board to vote on firing themselves. It will be almost impossible to get done. I remember Obama campaigning on campaign finance reform but once elected, he did little to push it. And Republicans are the same way. I am FAR from supporting Bernie's agenda but corporations do need to be limited in their election influence.
• Finally, you ask "what is a conservative?". You tried to answer that by implying a conservative in modern terminology seems to be one that wants to take the country back not move ahead. That sounds like a campaign slogan from Bernie or the Justice Democrats. A conservative absolutely wants to move the country forward, they just don't want to do it by expanding government or disrupting the concepts of our founding fathers. A conservative wants limited government control of our lives, believes in fiscal responsibility, supports capitalism and economic freedom, and wants laws to protect conservative moral principles. Conservatives believe in government supporting those who cannot help themselves but wants less government interference and control for those that can.

I enjoy exchanging ideas and debating issues and love history and politics. While I do not consider myself a Trumper by any stretch, I don't believe our country is wrong by clinging to conservative principles. You say that this is the last conservative generation as America needs to catch up to the liberal world, my guess is those during the late '60s and '70s said the same thing. Yet in the most recent poll I saw, only 26% considered themselves liberal, with 70% said they are conservative (38%) or moderate. That is not drastically different than 20 years ago. The only difference is the voices of those that are liberal like the Justice Democrats are often the loudest.

You may disagree with me or someone on ideology, but that doesn't mean we don't have common ground. That is what is lacking in our country, finding the common ground. You see, our problem isn't with the political idealogy of this country, it is with the leaders of the politics. Think about it, 2 of our final 3 presidential contenders aren't really matched with the party they say they represent.

What we need is a change in leaders, not a change in our system.

 

[steverocks35]

The United States had 1,024 Covid-19 deaths since yesterday. The first country in the world to have greater than 1,000 deaths in a single day.

 

[MJSooner]

The United States had 1,024 Covid-19 deaths since yesterday. The first country in the world to have greater than 1,000 deaths in a single day.

You left out a keyword- first to have REPORTED greater than 1,000 deaths.

I also think studying the daily numbers doesn't solve anything. It is the actions that matter. Heart disease is a bigger problem than COVID19 as 1,800 Americans die EVERY DAY- every single day every year- from heart disease, yet we don't have a death tracker on CNN. And as someone who has had a suicide in their family, 150 Americans take their own life every single day, yet we do nothing about it. Not trying to dismiss COVID19 or is seriousness, but it is the actions that matter, not the numbers.

Additionally, anyone that believes that China, who has been dealing with this for at least 3-4 months, and has 4 times our populations, is reporting true numbers is naive. Also, of course we would eventually pass Italy on the highest number of deaths in one day. Much like us compared to China, we have almost 6 times their population. If they had 919 in one day, it would be like us having 5400. Our numbers will get worse.

 

[steverocks35]

You left out a keyword- first to have REPORTED greater than 1,000 deaths.

I also think studying the daily numbers doesn't solve anything. It is the actions that matter. Heart disease is a bigger problem than COVID19 as 1,800 Americans die EVERY DAY- every single day every year- from heart disease, yet we don't have a death tracker on CNN. And as someone who has had a suicide in their family, 150 Americans take their own life every single day, yet we do nothing about it. Not trying to dismiss COVID19 or is seriousness, but it is the actions that matter, not the numbers.

Additionally, anyone that believes that China, who has been dealing with this for at least 3-4 months, and has 4 times our populations, is reporting true numbers is naive. Also, of course we would eventually pass Italy on the highest number of deaths in one day. Much like us compared to China, we have almost 6 times their population. If they had 919 in one day, it would be like us having 5400. Our numbers will get worse.

This thread is about Covid-19, not those other things you mentioned.

 

[thebigabd]

The first point is we are not a democracy. It is unfair to compare us to other "real democracies". We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. This means states have rights of government of their people and we are not governed solely by the Fed. This was the entire argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists leading up to the constitution. It is also why we don't have national referendums. That is the job of the Congress to make laws from the represented officials from each state.

Agreed... I am aware of the famous line attributed to Ben Franklin. "We are a a Republic, if you can keep it".... We often refer to ourselves as a democracy, but what that really means is that we elect our representatives. Which has flaws that I listed. Single issue voters, winner take all, etc.

Secondly, you stated our democracy is beyond repair because it is not based on majority rule? You cite how a few people in one state can turn an election because of who controls it. But back to point one, we are not a democracy, and this is exactly what the Great Compromise was about in 1787 where Connecticut pushed back against large populous state control of representation, so every state had both an equal and proportional voice and vote. Without this compromise, the Constitution would not have been ratified. As a result, in 92% of our 58 elections, the "majority vote" has matched the electoral vote.

I actually changed to "beyond repair" to "needs reforms".

Third, I will agree with you on the two party system, but we have bascially had a two party system since Thomas Jefferson won in 1800. Even in the elections prior to 1800, there were two parties, but mulitple candidates from the same party could run in the general election. In reality, a third party candidate was only a serious candidate once, and that was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate because he disliked Taft. So that doesn't even really count.
Fourth, campaign finance reform is desperately needed. But getting that done is like getting a CEO and board to vote on firing themselves. It will be almost impossible to get done. I remember Obama campaigning on campaign finance reform but once elected, he did little to push it. And Republicans are the same way. I am FAR from supporting Bernie's agenda but corporations do need to be limited in their election influence.

I respect what you said, but it doesn't change the calculus. I have to accept the entire belief system of one party to get something I want. If abortion is THE MOST important thing to me, I have to vote GOP and sacrifice other things that I may have voted differently on if I had the chance. It's a critical flaw because it can't be solved.

Finally, you ask "what is a conservative?". You tried to answer that by implying a conservative in modern terminology seems to be one that wants to take the country back not move ahead. That sounds like a campaign slogan from Bernie or the Justice Democrats. A conservative absolutely wants to move the country forward, they just don't want to do it by expanding government or disrupting the concepts of our founding fathers. A conservative wants limited government control of our lives, believes in fiscal responsibility, supports capitalism and economic freedom, and wants laws to protect conservative moral principles. Conservatives believe in government supporting those who cannot help themselves but wants less government interference and control for those that can.

I said that a conservative is someone who wants to conserve, as the name implies... A large portion of the Trump/GOP agenda is literally undoing changes by previous administrations. Most conservatives want to undo lots of things, and that is the "change" they sell. Putting it back the way it was. I suppose that is change, depending on how you look at it. It's not a new idea to simply undo something and replace it with what was there originally, in some cases, nothing.

When you say "move the country forward"... I think what you are trying to say there is they want the country to succeed, and by doing so want to keep it (or conserve it) in it's original state. I don't disagree with that. I think it's foolish, but I don't disagree that is their intent. As you said, they want "small government"... Who determines that? If the government provides social security, does that mean its not small anymore? If public schools become tuition-free, does that mean the government got too big? Again, who determines that? Basically what it comes down to is what benefits of being American do people want, and what don't they want. If the government makes college tuition-free, I don't consider them too big. If the government continues social security and medicare, I don't consider them too big. I don't have to go to school. They aren't forcing me to go to college, I just have an option to if I choose. They aren't forcing me to retire, I just have a guaranteed pension if I choose to.

Could I say the government is too big because they have a prohibition on marijuana? Conservatives have historically supported that. Could I say the government has gotten too big if they increase military spending year over year? Conservatives have historically supported that. Could I say a government has gotten too big if it wages war without constitutional authority? Conservatives have typically supported that.

The point is... you can't determine what makes a government too big in this context. It just comes down to what you want, and what you don't want.

You say that this is the last conservative generation as America needs to catch up to the liberal world, my guess is those during the late '60s and '70s said the same thing.

They probably did, but society wasn't ready at the time. We progressed a lot under a few great leaders, but society as a whole wasn't ready at that time. Black people were still being water-hosed in the streets and beaten by the police at that time.

What we need is a change in leaders, not a change in our system.

Depends on what you call "the system"... but regardless, I probably disagree. I am reminded of a letter I heard of that Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, where he basically said it was unhealthy to bind future generations with the laws, values, etc of past/antiquated generations. He called it "tyranny of the dead".... I am not saying it needs to be blown up, but I think some reforms are needed.

 

[thebigabd]

This thread is about Covid-19, not those other things you mentioned.

I think China is kind of a red herring here... who cares what they report? I keep seeing this in the news. Does what China reports change what we report? Does it change our grim situation?

Seems like its more of an effort to blame, deflect, and see which super power is handling it better. None of that saves any lives here, as far as I can tell.

To Steve's original point... we are the first country to report that number... If you don't believe the Chinese, fine, compare it to Italy. What is their highest number?

 

[MJSooner]

This thread is about Covid-19, not those other things you mentioned.

Actually this thread has been about many many other things than COVID19, many of which topics you have also discussed.

My point was simply we are past the point of posting the number of dead from COVID19 like it is supposed to alarm us or wake us up. We are there already. We know it is serious and the numbers suck now but will only get worse.

At this point, we have to focus on actions to improve the numbers. As I compared COVID19 to the other numbers I cited, just citing numbers doesn't change anything.

 

[steverocks35]

I think China is kind of a red herring here... who cares what they report? I keep seeing this in the news. Does what China reports change what we report? Does it change our grim situation?

Seems like its more of an effort to blame, deflect, and see which super power is handling it better. None of that saves any lives here, as far as I can tell.

To Steve's original point... we are the first country to report that number... If you don't believe the Chinese, fine, compare it to Italy. What is their highest number?

Exactly, I shouldn’t have compared it to other countries, because it doesn’t matter what is happening in those places. What matters is that this thing is steamrolling and accelerating. I read today that there has been a Covid-19 positive patient detected in 95% of counties in the United States. That’s astonishing.

 

[steverocks35]

Actually this thread has been about many many other things than COVID19, many of which topics you have also discussed.

My point was simply we are past the point of posting the number of dead from COVID19 like it is supposed to alarm us or wake us up. We are there already. We know it is serious and the numbers suck now but will only get worse.

At this point, we have to focus on actions to improve the numbers. As I compared COVID19 to the other numbers I cited, just citing numbers doesn't change anything.

The numbers do matter though, and citing the numbers DOES change things. They get people to act for one thing. The numbers FINALLY got Stitt to take more action, although not enough in my opinion.

 

[MJSooner]

I think China is kind of a red herring here... who cares what they report? I keep seeing this in the news. Does what China reports change what we report? Does it change our grim situation?

Seems like its more of an effort to blame, deflect, and see which super power is handling it better. None of that saves any lives here, as far as I can tell.

To Steve's original point... we are the first country to report that number... If you don't believe the Chinese, fine, compare it to Italy. What is their highest number?

I listed it in my post- 919 has been their highest daily total.

But just because we surpassed 1000, which based on our population being third in the world you assumed we would, doesn't really "change" anything. it is just used to create a different emotion. If the temperature outside is 101 vs. 99, it doesn't make 99 any less hot. But throwing around 100 degrees is used to provoke a different reaction.

Seems like that is what is done with surpassing 1000 dead, or what will happen in a day or two when the world passes 1MM cases. It is just a number thrown around to alarm people or create a feeling of dispair, but doesn't change anything from today when there are 935K cases.

 

[steverocks35]

I listed it in my post- 919 has been their highest daily total.

But just because we surpassed 1000, which based on our population being third in the world you assumed we would, doesn't really "change" anything. it is just used to create a different emotion. If the temperature outside is 101 vs. 99, it doesn't make 99 any less hot. But throwing around 100 degrees is used to provoke a different reaction.

Seems like that is what is done with surpassing 1000 dead, or what will happen in a day or two when the world passes 1MM cases. It is just a number thrown around to alarm people or create a feeling of dispair, but doesn't change anything from today when there are 935K cases.

What’s significant is the rate of increase. The curve is not flattening much yet.

 

[thebigabd]

I listed it in my post- 919 has been their highest daily total.

But just because we surpassed 1000, which based on our population being third in the world you assumed we would, doesn't really "change" anything. it is just used to create a different emotion. If the temperature outside is 101 vs. 99, it doesn't make 99 any less hot. But throwing around 100 degrees is used to provoke a different reaction.

Seems like that is what is done with surpassing 1000 dead, or what will happen in a day or two when the world passes 1MM cases. It is just a number thrown around to alarm people or create a feeling of dispair, but doesn't change anything from today when there are 935K cases.

You know whats funny? No joke.... after my last post I went to the kitchen and made a turkey sandwich... white bread, light miracle whip, sliced Colby jack cheese.... Came back, opened my browser... First news story that pops up is that Italy isn't reporting correct numbers. 5 minutes after I said not to compare to China, but to Italy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...her-than-reported/ar-BB122vvc?ocid=spartanntp

 

[MJSooner]

The numbers do matter though, and citing the numbers DOES change things. They get people to act for one thing. The numbers FINALLY got Stitt to take more action, although not enough in my opinion.

But saying we have 1000 dead in one day isn't any more significant than if we have 987 dead. It is just a benchmark used to create a different emotional reaction. It is the actions that matter.

The only reason Stitt acted is that literally every single city had already acted and he was getting pressure from businesses and donors to do more. And you know my total dissatisfaction with Stitt, but what more could he do, with restrictions, at this point? He certainly needs to do more with testing and support for sure.

We all get its seriousness. If you don't you are in denial. I just don't think to have a daily counter like what the major news networks are doing is doing anything to help, it just creates fear and panic. That accomplishes nothing and is actually detrimental as stress weakens the immune system. No one ever lists recoveries or negative tests. No one ever talks about New Rochelle turning the corner, or decrease in hospitalizations in SF or WA. Maybe we should.

 

[MJSooner]

What’s significant is the rate of increase. The curve is not flattening much yet.

Then why not list that daily instead of the number dead, if that is the most significant?

In all seriousness, I would be interested in that number. I thought it was great when I saw it Monday for NY and yesterday when Dr. Birx showed it on the slide for Italy.

 

[steverocks35]

But saying we have 1000 dead in one day isn't any more significant than if we have 987 dead. It is just a benchmark used to create a different emotional reaction. It is the actions that matter.

The only reason Stitt acted is that literally every single city had already acted and he was getting pressure from businesses and donors to do more. And you know my total dissatisfaction with Stitt, but what more could he do, with restrictions, at this point? He certainly needs to do more with testing and support for sure.

We all get its seriousness. If you don't you are in denial. I just don't think to have a daily counter like what the major news networks are doing is doing anything to help, it just creates fear and panic. That accomplishes nothing and is actually detrimental as stress weakens the immune system. No one ever lists recoveries or negative tests. No one ever talks about New Rochelle turning the corner, or decrease in hospitalizations in SF or WA. Maybe we should.

I give up... I reported the number that we reached that we never reached before. Period. Think what you want to think about that number. I’ve reported lots of different numbers here.

 

[steverocks35]

Then why not list that daily instead of the number dead, if that is the most significant?

In all seriousness, I would be interested in that number. I thought it was great when I saw it Monday for NY and yesterday when Dr. Birx showed it on the slide for Italy.

The number that have died is the most accurate number.... and you can use that number to get a better picture of the number infected. And it’s the rate of increase in the number of dead I’m talking about.

 

[WTSooner]

The United States had 1,024 Covid-19 deaths since yesterday. The first country in the world to have greater than 1,000 deaths in a single day.

Basic math.

If the US is the 3rd most populous country in the World, and we aren't going to believe China's numbers, that literally leaves ONE other country that should potentially have more deaths than us.

Wasn't somebody (you or not) just bashing Trump yesterday for not understanding per capita type statistics?

The US and China SHOULD have the most deaths. And the highest number of deaths. That is common sense.

 

[WTSooner]

Wow a lot to unpack there, but I'll try. There are a few points that I think deserve conversation.

• The first point is we are not a democracy. It is unfair to compare us to other "real democracies". We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. This means states have rights of government of their people and we are not governed solely by the Fed. This was the entire argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists leading up to the constitution. It is also why we don't have national referendums. That is the job of the Congress to make laws from the represented officials from each state.
• Secondly, you stated our democracy is beyond repair because it is not based on majority rule? You cite how a few people in one state can turn an election because of who controls it. But back to point one, we are not a democracy, and this is exactly what the Great Compromise was about in 1787 where Connecticut pushed back against large populous state control of representation, so every state had both an equal and proportional voice and vote. Without this compromise, the Constitution would not have been ratified. As a result, in 92% of our 58 elections, the "majority vote" has matched the electoral vote.
• Third, I will agree with you on the two party system, but we have bascially had a two party system since Thomas Jefferson won in 1800. Even in the elections prior to 1800, there were two parties, but mulitple candidates from the same party could run in the general election. In reality, a third party candidate was only a serious candidate once, and that was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate because he disliked Taft. So that doesn't even really count.
• Fourth, campaign finance reform is desperately needed. But getting that done is like getting a CEO and board to vote on firing themselves. It will be almost impossible to get done. I remember Obama campaigning on campaign finance reform but once elected, he did little to push it. And Republicans are the same way. I am FAR from supporting Bernie's agenda but corporations do need to be limited in their election influence.
• Finally, you ask "what is a conservative?". You tried to answer that by implying a conservative in modern terminology seems to be one that wants to take the country back not move ahead. That sounds like a campaign slogan from Bernie or the Justice Democrats. A conservative absolutely wants to move the country forward, they just don't want to do it by expanding government or disrupting the concepts of our founding fathers. A conservative wants limited government control of our lives, believes in fiscal responsibility, supports capitalism and economic freedom, and wants laws to protect conservative moral principles. Conservatives believe in government supporting those who cannot help themselves but wants less government interference and control for those that can.

I enjoy exchanging ideas and debating issues and love history and politics. While I do not consider myself a Trumper by any stretch, I don't believe our country is wrong by clinging to conservative principles. You say that this is the last conservative generation as America needs to catch up to the liberal world, my guess is those during the late '60s and '70s said the same thing. Yet in the most recent poll I saw, only 26% considered themselves liberal, with 70% said they are conservative (38%) or moderate. That is not drastically different than 20 years ago. The only difference is the voices of those that are liberal like the Justice Democrats are often the loudest.

You may disagree with me or someone on ideology, but that doesn't mean we don't have common ground. That is what is lacking in our country, finding the common ground. You see, our problem isn't with the political idealogy of this country, it is with the leaders of the politics. Think about it, 2 of our final 3 presidential contenders aren't really matched with the party they say they represent.

What we need is a change in leaders, not a change in our system.

Good post. A lot I agree with there.