• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker: "So Many Progressives Mourning John Bolton's Firing"

If I had to choose a president, I'd choose Trump over Bolton. Trump is an incompetent buffoon with no skills other than bungling deals and tainting everything with incompetence, and Bolton is a war-monger who sees every problem as an opportunity for war. I'll take corrupt absurdity over the deaths of millions.

Here's a question: Why should I be choosing a side here? Neither of these people belong within 1000 miles of government. Why did Trump choose Bolton in the first place, and why did anyone with half a brain choose Trump?
 
Tucker is, as usual, completely right. The left hates him for it because they've entirely sold out to the pro-war lobby.
fwiw, Tucker's argument is what's known in the debate biz as a straw man argument.
So, of course Tucker's argument sounds good.
Tucker is arguing against a position he created specifically to argue against.

The more you know...
 
Tucker states Chris Murphy said he was, "Legitimately shaken to see Bolton leave the White House."

Murphy's tweet stated:

I’m legitimately shaken by the grave instability of American foreign policy today.

I’m no Bolton fan, but the world is coming apart, and the revolving door of U.S. leadership is disappearing America from the world just at the moment where a stable American hand is most needed.


Tucker's liberal 'paraphrasing' of Murphy was nowhere close to accurate. But I guess it is only the 'left-wing' media that spreads 'fake news.' :roll:

A bit off topic, but lets not forget Tucker's disappointment when he couldn't nail DeBlasio on his SUV. For those who didn't catch it, (paraphrased) Tucker asked the mayor how he gets away with driving an SUV, and DB explained it is hybrid-electric.
 
You're calling Bush and Trump "the progressive left"? You realize it's Republicans who keep giving this asshole a job and Democrats who keep complaining about it, right? You Trump cultists are completely allergic to reality. I bet you think Mike Pence is a Democratic sweetheart as well. :lamo

When Trump leaves office they will deny ever supporting him and claim he was really a leftist progressive because he supported prison reform and opposed the TPP.
 
A bit off topic, but lets not forget Tucker's disappointment when he couldn't nail DeBlasio on his SUV. For those who didn't catch it, (paraphrased) Tucker asked the mayor how he gets away with driving an SUV, and DB explained it is hybrid-electric.

Still uses gas.
 
Tucker states Chris Murphy said he was, "Legitimately shaken to see Bolton leave the White House."

Murphy's tweet stated:

I’m legitimately shaken by the grave instability of American foreign policy today.

I’m no Bolton fan, but the world is coming apart, and the revolving door of U.S. leadership is disappearing America from the world just at the moment where a stable American hand is most needed.


Tucker's liberal 'paraphrasing' of Murphy was nowhere close to accurate. But I guess it is only the 'left-wing' media that spreads 'fake news.' :roll:

So you want Bolton back??
 
Welcome to 2019, where have you been the last decade? The fact you skip completely over the Obama administration to go after Bush and Iraq makes me wonder if you were just completely ignorant of what was going on under Obama or simply partisan hackery. Just an FYI, both Hillary AND Bernie had more donations from Defense contractors than any Republican in 2016 so to say they sold out to the pro-war lobby seems fairly accurate. The idea that either party isn't complicit in these stupid wars is rather ludicrous at this point.

There are some Democrats who have taken money from the NRA. Are you saying Progressives/liberals/Dems are pro-gun?
 
Military interventionism is a positive change?
Geoist might think that but Carlson sure doesn't believe it.
He's always been against interventionism.
Against use of big G Government when not in our interest.
Bolton is not.
That was Carlson's point.

Tucker was for military intervention inIraq before he was against it.

Tucker’s point was that believing in using government to create change in a society makes you a progressive. He is grossly incorrect with his simplistic definition. By his own definition he is a progressive as he believes in using government to curb immigration.



You don't see the difference between big G Government enforcing our domestic Laws and big G Government military interventionism around the globe? Really?

So foreign policy is the only thing that defines a Progressive? Universal health care isn’t a Progressive idea because it is a domestic issue? Really? :doh
 
Tucker is, as usual, completely right. The left hates him for it because they've entirely sold out to the pro-war lobby.

:2rofll:
 
The idea that liberals liked Bolton just broke my brain. **** it. Time for a DP break.
 
If you are talking about the corporate media then you have no idea what defines the 'left.' And even the corporate media is generally apprehensive about the neocons you mentioned, especially John Bolton.

Max Boot literally works for the left wing media. He’s not the only one.

When Trump was asked in 2002 by Howard Stern if he supports a war against Iraq he repllied, "Yeah, I guess so."

That doesn't sound like someone protesting Bush's push to go into Iraq.

WaPo quoted Trump criticizing the war six days after it started.

Then how do you explain the fact the vast majority of Progressives opposed nation-building and the Iraq War? Your 'logic' doesn't add up.

The Democrats supported the Iraq War almost to a man. They only turned on it when doing so became politically useful for them. They immediately resumed support for war when Obama became President.
 
I already explained it.

Internal may be interesting but they are a fail at communication.

I will help. It is best we define the terms if we want to have a discussion.

The political use of the two terms dates back to
1789 and the French Revolution. In the National Assembly in Paris, the
partisans of the Revolution sat on the left side and their opponents sat on the
right. This is how we got our original “left-wing” and “right-wing.” The term
“right-wing” in this context refers to defenders of the Ancien Régime who
wanted France to return to the governing alliance of throne and altar that had
preceded the revolution. “Conservative” became a description of the old
guard who wanted to conserve the monarchy and the prerogatives of the
established church against revolutionary overthrow.
So right away we have a problem: if this is what “right-wing” and
“conservative” mean, then there are no right-wingers or conservatives in
America. America has never had either a monarchy or an established church.
Modern American conservatives have no intention to introduce either. In
what sense, then, are modern conservatives right-wing? What is it that
American conservatives want to conserve?
The answer is pretty simple. They want to conserve the principles of the
American Revolution. So while the French Right opposed the French
Revolution, the American Right champions the American Revolution. If it
seems paradoxical to use the terms “conserve” and “Revolution” in the same
sentence, this paradox nevertheless defines the modern-day conservative. The
American Revolution was characterized by three basic freedoms: economic
freedom or capitalism, political freedom or constitutional democracy, and
freedom of speech and religion. These are the freedoms that, in their original
form, American conservatives seek to conserve.
As the founders understood it, the main threat to freedom comes from the
federal government. Our rights, consequently, are protections against
excessive government intrusion and intervention. That’s why the Bill of
Rights typically begins, “Congress shall make no law.” By placing fetters or
restraints on the federal government, we secure our basic rights and liberties.
The objective of these rights and liberties is for Americans to devote their
lives to the “pursuit of happiness.” Happiness is the goal and rights and
liberties are the means to that goal. Right-wingers in America are the ones
who seek to protect the rights of Americans to pursue happiness by limiting
the power of the central state.
“An elective despotism,” Jefferson said, “is not what we fought for.”2"
"Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party preceded our current two-party
system, but his sentiment is one that American right-wingers and
conservatives would heartily endorse. Even elected governments do not have
unlimited power. They must operate within a specified domain; when they go
beyond that domain, they become a threat to our freedom and, in this respect,
tyrannical. We are under no more obligation to obey an elected tyranny than
the founders themselves were obliged to obey the tyrannical authority of the
British Crown.
By limiting state power, conservatives seek among other things to protect
the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Abraham Lincoln,
America’s first Republican president, placed himself squarely in the founding
tradition when he said, “I always thought the man who made the corn should
eat the corn.” Lincoln, like the founders, was not concerned that private
property or private earnings might cause economic inequality. Rather, he
believed, as three of the founders themselves wrote in Federalist Paper No.
10, that “the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring
property” is the “first object of government.”3
American conservatives also seek to conserve the transcendent moral
order that is not specified in the Constitution but clearly underlies the
American founding. Consider, as a single example, the proposition from the
Declaration of Independence that we are all “created equal” and endowed
with “inalienable rights” including the “right to life.” This means for
conservatives that human life is sacred, it has a dignity that results from
divine creation, it is so precious that the right to life cannot be sold even with
the consent of the buyer and seller, and finally that no government can violate
the right to life without trespassing on America’s most basic moral and
political values" - The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.
 
I already explained it.

Part Deux.

""So much for the political Right, what about the Left? The Left in America
is defined by its hostility to the restrictions placed by the founders on the
federal government. That’s why leftists regularly deplore constitutional
restraints on government power, proclaiming the Constitution woefully out of
date and calling for us to adopt instead a “living Constitution”—a
Constitution adapted to what the Left considers progressive. Indeed many
leftists today use “progressive” as their preferred political label. They used to
call themselves “liberal,” a term which refers to liberality or freedom; now
they use “progressive,” a term which identifies them with the future as
opposed to the past.
Progress by itself is a vacant term; we need to know what progressives
mean when they use it. What they mean is progress toward greater federal
power and federal control. The progressives, in other words, are champions
of the power of the centralized state. Two very bad words in modern
progressivism are “state’s rights.” Progressives are happiest when the federal
government is running things, and when they are in charge of the federal
government. That’s what ensures “progress”; any setbacks to this program
represent “reaction” and “regress.” No wonder leftists term conservatives
who resist expanding government power as “regressive” or “reactionary.”
But why does state power have to be so centralized? While the founders
viewed the government as the enemy of rights, the progressive Left regards
the federal government as the friend and securer of rights. Moreover,
progressives distrust the free-market system and want the government to
control and direct the economy, not necessarily nationalizing or taking over
private companies, but at least regulating their operations and on occasion
mandating their courses of action.
In addition, the Left seeks government authority to enforce and
institutionalize progressive values like federally funded abortion and equal
treatment of gays and transsexuals. From its abortion stance alone we see that
the Left rejects the idea of a transcendent moral order as firmly as it rejects
the conservative principle of an inalienable right to life. So if “Right” in
America means a limited, nonintrusive government with a wide scope for the
individual pursuit of happiness, “Left” in America means a powerful
centralized state that implements leftist values and is controlled by the Left."
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

So in terms of proposing big government intervention (As the video you posted shows)....John Bolton has been clearly a man of the left.
 
Aside from that, Tucker's definition of a Progressive is completely asinine.

He claims (paraphrasing) that progressives see the state as answer to all human problems. I agree the claim is a bit too strong, but it's certainly accurate. Whether it's guns, the environment, healthcare, education, etc, the list goes on and on and on of problems which progressives believe can only be fixed by government intervention.

I don't understand how you could see this as "asinine" when it's pretty obvious he's correct.
 
Watch closely for the republicans who talk about liberals after Donald Trump made another bad hire just to have the guy quit (and Trump lying about that).

It shows they have no excuses left.
 
Tucker was for military intervention inIraq before he was against it.

So you think the less informed position is more accurate? Interesting.
 
Max Boot literally works for the left wing media. He’s not the only one.

Lots of people work for the corporate media. My god, Donna Brazile works for Fox News.


WaPo quoted Trump criticizing the war six days after it started.

He was for it immediately before the war. Millions of Progressives were against it when he was for it. Figure that one out considering your asinine definition of a Progressive.

The Democrats supported the Iraq War almost to a man.

Pretending for a second all Democrats are Progressives (not all of them are), 126 Democrats and 6 Republicans in the House and 21 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the War. Are you saying Republicans in 2002 were more 'Progressive' than the Democrats? :lamo


They only turned on it when doing so became politically useful for them. They immediately resumed support for war when Obama became President.


Love the revisionism coming from you guys. Hilarious.
 
I wouldn't call Mr. Bolton a "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination, but he shares the anti-Russian, pro-Syrian-invasion attitude I've seen expressed by many progressives.

US foreign policy of late hasn't really a progressive versus conservative issue. It's pro-intervention versus anti-intervention.

I think of the reasons why some equate progressivism with interventionism is because the US media--which is nothing if not socially progressive on domestic matters--is also staunchly pro-intervention. Hence people equate the two.
 
Internal may be interesting but they are a fail at communication.

I will help. It is best we define the terms if we want to have a discussion.

The political use of the two terms dates back to
1789 and the French Revolution. In the National Assembly in Paris, the
partisans of the Revolution sat on the left side and their opponents sat on the
right. This is how we got our original “left-wing” and “right-wing.” The term
“right-wing” in this context refers to defenders of the Ancien Régime who
wanted France to return to the governing alliance of throne and altar that had
preceded the revolution. “Conservative” became a description of the old
guard who wanted to conserve the monarchy and the prerogatives of the
established church against revolutionary overthrow.
So right away we have a problem: if this is what “right-wing” and
“conservative” mean, then there are no right-wingers or conservatives in
America. America has never had either a monarchy or an established church.
Modern American conservatives have no intention to introduce either. In
what sense, then, are modern conservatives right-wing? What is it that
American conservatives want to conserve?
The answer is pretty simple. They want to conserve the principles of the
American Revolution. So while the French Right opposed the French
Revolution, the American Right champions the American Revolution. If it
seems paradoxical to use the terms “conserve” and “Revolution” in the same
sentence, this paradox nevertheless defines the modern-day conservative. The
American Revolution was characterized by three basic freedoms: economic
freedom or capitalism, political freedom or constitutional democracy, and
freedom of speech and religion. These are the freedoms that, in their original
form, American conservatives seek to conserve.
As the founders understood it, the main threat to freedom comes from the
federal government. Our rights, consequently, are protections against
excessive government intrusion and intervention. That’s why the Bill of
Rights typically begins, “Congress shall make no law.” By placing fetters or
restraints on the federal government, we secure our basic rights and liberties.
The objective of these rights and liberties is for Americans to devote their
lives to the “pursuit of happiness.” Happiness is the goal and rights and
liberties are the means to that goal. Right-wingers in America are the ones
who seek to protect the rights of Americans to pursue happiness by limiting
the power of the central state.
“An elective despotism,” Jefferson said, “is not what we fought for.”2"
"Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party preceded our current two-party
system, but his sentiment is one that American right-wingers and
conservatives would heartily endorse. Even elected governments do not have
unlimited power. They must operate within a specified domain; when they go
beyond that domain, they become a threat to our freedom and, in this respect,
tyrannical. We are under no more obligation to obey an elected tyranny than
the founders themselves were obliged to obey the tyrannical authority of the
British Crown.
By limiting state power, conservatives seek among other things to protect
the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Abraham Lincoln,
America’s first Republican president, placed himself squarely in the founding
tradition when he said, “I always thought the man who made the corn should
eat the corn.” Lincoln, like the founders, was not concerned that private
property or private earnings might cause economic inequality. Rather, he
believed, as three of the founders themselves wrote in Federalist Paper No.
10, that “the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring
property” is the “first object of government.”3
American conservatives also seek to conserve the transcendent moral
order that is not specified in the Constitution but clearly underlies the
American founding. Consider, as a single example, the proposition from the
Declaration of Independence that we are all “created equal” and endowed
with “inalienable rights” including the “right to life.” This means for
conservatives that human life is sacred, it has a dignity that results from
divine creation, it is so precious that the right to life cannot be sold even with
the consent of the buyer and seller, and finally that no government can violate
the right to life without trespassing on America’s most basic moral and
political values" - The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

Oh my god, I'm not reading all of that right-winged revisionism.
 
So you think the less informed position is more accurate? Interesting.

:confused:

To say he was for military intervention early on is accurate. Would he have stated he was taking a 'Progressive' position? I highly doubt it. Tucker is neck-deep in far-right revisionist history. Anything bad in history = LIBS.
 
Back
Top Bottom