View Full Version : Another Progressive jumps ship


detbuch
02-09-2017, 02:51 PM
Dave Rubin, lapsed progressive, explains why he left the left:

By Bradford Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, February 6, 2017 Internet talk show host Dave Rubin says he no longer identifies as a progressive after becoming disillusioned with the left’s increasing disregard for concepts such as freedom of speech, religious liberty and judging people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

In an episode of Prager University released on Monday, Mr. Rubin says so-called progressives are actually rather regressive.
“Banning speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from college campuses — that’s not progressive,” Mr. Rubin says in the four-minute video. “Prohibiting any words not approved of as ‘politically correct’ — that’s not progressive. Putting ‘trigger warnings’ on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people — that’s not progressive, either.”

“All of this has led me to believe that much of the left is no longer progressive, but regressive,” he continues.

The host of the eponymous “Rubin Report,” a popular talk show on YouTube, Mr. Rubin says progressives have become obsessed with identity politics and measuring which group has been most victimized by straight, white males.

“If you’re black, or female, or Muslim, or Hispanic or a member of any other minority group, you’re judged differently than the most evil of all things: a white, Christian male,” he says. “The regressive left ranks minority groups in a pecking order to compete in a kind of ‘Oppression Olympics.’ Gold medal goes to the most offended.”

But none of these things leads to a flourishing and free society, Mr. Rubin says. In fact, they’re the perfect “recipe for authoritarianism.”

“I’m a married gay man, so you might think that I appreciate the government forcing a Christian baker or photographer or florist to act against their religion in order to cater, photograph or decorate my wedding. But you’d be wrong,” he says. “A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won’t bake you a cake, find another baker; don’t demand that the state tell him what to do with his private business.”

Mr. Rubin says he now describes his political views as “classically liberal.”

“For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive,” he says. “I don’t really call myself a Democrat, either. I’m a classical liberal. A free thinker. And, as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position.”

detbuch
02-09-2017, 03:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8

detbuch
02-09-2017, 04:09 PM
BTW, for those who don't like Christians or religion in general and you are turned off by his support for freedom of religion, Rubin is an atheist.

detbuch
02-09-2017, 05:23 PM
He says it better here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70

wdmso
02-09-2017, 05:49 PM
Iím a classical liberal. A free thinker.

detbuch
02-09-2017, 08:23 PM
Iím a classical liberal. A free thinker.

Me too.

scottw
02-10-2017, 07:13 AM
I can't think of the name of the movie at the moment, it was on recently..classic...name of a flower in the title...but there is a great exchange between a mother and a daughter...the mother, very liberal and free-thinking, tracks down her daughter who has gone off with some religious friends...the mother is apoplectic not understanding why or how the daughter could leave, scoffing at the thought of religion....she exclaims "how could this happen...I taught you to think for yourself!!"...the daughter calmly replies...."no you didn't, you taught me to think like you"......it's like that :kewl:

PaulS
02-10-2017, 02:44 PM
I can't think of the name of the movie at the moment, it was on recently..classic...name of a flower in the title...but there is a great exchange between a mother and a daughter...the mother, very liberal and free-thinking, tracks down her daughter who has gone off with some religious friends...the mother is apoplectic not understanding why or how the daughter could leave, scoffing at the thought of religion....she exclaims "how could this happen...I taught you to think for yourself!!"...the daughter calmly replies...."no you didn't, you taught me to think like you"......it's like that :kewl:

Here is a good example of thinking for yourself.

Roughly half of Americans who support President Trump's controversial travel executive order say that the ban is justified after the nonexistent "Bowling Green Massacre," according to a new poll by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway referred to the massacre, which never happened, during several media appearances, including a segment on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Over the course of the interview, the senior White House aide made several references to a "massacre" in Bowling Green, Ky. as justification for the banning citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from travel to the United States.

Still, of those who support it, 51 percent thought Conway's remarks about the massacre showed good reason to pursue the Jan. 27 order, which barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. Only about 23 percent of the ban's supporters said the ban couldn't use the massacre as justification.

detbuch
02-10-2017, 03:40 PM
Here is a good example of thinking for yourself.

Roughly half of Americans who support President Trump's controversial travel executive order say that the ban is justified after the nonexistent "Bowling Green Massacre," according to a new poll by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway referred to the massacre, which never happened, during several media appearances, including a segment on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Over the course of the interview, the senior White House aide made several references to a "massacre" in Bowling Green, Ky. as justification for the banning citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from travel to the United States.

Still, of those who support it, 51 percent thought Conway's remarks about the massacre showed good reason to pursue the Jan. 27 order, which barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. Only about 23 percent of the ban's supporters said the ban couldn't use the massacre as justification.

Give us an example of thinking for yourself re the ban. Is the ban valid per the statute which gives the President power to create such a ban? Think for yourself. Don't depend on lawyers or judges. There is obviously disagreement among them. One judge already decided in court that the ban was constitutional. Now, thinking for yourself, tell us how the ban is not constitutional.

PaulS
02-10-2017, 03:55 PM
Seems like you're still angry about that other thread:hihi:

detbuch
02-10-2017, 04:02 PM
Seems like you're still angry about that other thread:hihi:

So you can't think for yourself. Avoid answering the question with your fall-back "your angry" meme again.

(I answered you in "the other thread" and pointed out that your article did not prove intent. It only implied it. So there was nothing for me to be angry about. Sooo . . . when someone keeps accusing someone else of something which is not true, psychologists might consider that to be a condition called "projection." Since you seem to see anger in others when it isn't there, it is quite probable that you are projecting. (Projecting your own predilection on someone else.)

Or you're just replacing snark for thought and inability to successfully debate.)

PaulS
02-10-2017, 04:14 PM
Your post just sounded angry. Pointing that out isn't using "snark". Didn't you cry about poking a bear or something like that. I just laughed when you brought that thread up here. The admin. kept changing their story repeatedly and it was clear what their intent was. People were doing word searches on the order and saying it didn't use the word ban.

I once read something that a Nobel prize winner said - something like if somebody sat down next to you at a party and said he was Napoleon, why engage in a discussion with him about cavalry tactics?

In other words, why get drawn into the minutiae of a technical discussion when the overall framework of the conversation is silly. Why would I want to engage with you on a discussion of the constitution.

detbuch
02-10-2017, 05:12 PM
Your post just sounded angry. Pointing that out isn't using "snark". Didn't you cry about poking a bear or something like that. I just laughed when you brought that thread up here. The admin. kept changing their story repeatedly and it was clear what their intent was. People were doing word searches on the order and saying it didn't use the word ban.

You're doing what you accuse all those others of--not thinking for yourself. You presented article after article after article that try to show intent, but don't deal with the actual wording of the EO. TDF posted the whole EO. I pointed out the section which gave the regulator the ability to allow those with green cards and proper visas to enter, and he did so citing the wording of the EO. That's the only clear intent that has been proven. And by that, the so-called lack of clarity was corrected. But the correction of any misapplication, which should have been a reasonable end to the discussion, was totally ignored and the negativity kept coming, (wonder why) and you depended on that rather than thinking for yourself by looking at the actual wording of the EO and the reasoning of the regulator re those words.

I once read something that a Nobel prize winner said - something like if somebody sat down next to you at a party and said he was Napoleon, why engage in a discussion with him about cavalry tactics?

This is an extreme "apples to oranges" comparison. I'm not claiming to be anybody. I'm trying to have a rational discussion with somebody whom I hope is doing the same. If this cuckoo comparison is how you're looking at it, why on earth would I want to have a discussion with you.

In other words, why get drawn into the minutiae of a technical discussion when the overall framework of the conversation is silly. Why would I want to engage with you on a discussion of the constitution.

The overall framework is founded on its minutiae. So if a conversation is silly, then it is not paying attention to the minutiae. Or worse, it is purposely disregarding them in order to create a truth which cannot be proven. Thinking for yourself often requires the ability to understand the minutiae.

It seems that you want to depend on articles which satisfy your bias rather than depending on your own reading of the giant, glaring "minutiae" of the actual wording of the EO. And you have demonstrated in the past that you are not able to think on the Constitution but must depend on others to think for you. Even so, you could have discussed the statute (not the Constitution) which gives the President the clearly specified power to do what Trump did. And the very statute that the 9th Circuit Judges ignored.

Instead of thinking for yourself, you went to the "you're angry" schtick.

PaulS
02-10-2017, 05:25 PM
Sure, it was an angry post. 3 times you insulted me with your "think for yourself" comment. And I didn't accuse any one here of not thinking for themselves, my post was a counterpoint to Scott's post about a liberal who apparently couldn't think for themselves. And I certainly post a lot fewer articles here than most people who post here.

Even more anger in that last post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-10-2017, 05:42 PM
Sure, it was an angry post. 3 times you insulted me with your "think for yourself" comment. And I didn't accuse any one here of not thinking for themselves, my post was a counterpoint to Scott's post about a liberal who apparently couldn't think for themselves. And I certainly post a lot fewer articles here than most people who post here.

Even more anger in that last post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There you go again.

PaulS
02-10-2017, 05:46 PM
I call it as I see it. 3 times you said it, not 1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch
02-10-2017, 06:11 PM
I call it as I see it. 3 times you said it, not 1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is three the magic number for anger? Was Jesus angry at Peter when he denied him 3 times before the rooster crowed? No, Jesus understood human weakness and he loved Peter.

Three is usually associated with good things, not anger--it's the number of harmony, the number of good fortune, sacred in many religions, and there's that "third time's the charm."

My saying it three times is not a sign of anger, but of good, of love, of harmony . . . and it's the charm.

scottw
02-11-2017, 06:01 AM
And I didn't accuse any one here of not thinking for themselves, my post was a counterpoint to Scott's post about a liberal who apparently couldn't think for themselves.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasn't much of a counterpoint...no offense...on crap...was that "snarky"?

the mom was a liberal type in the movie...the daughter implied the the mom couldn't think for herself as the mom was berating her for not thinking for herself(like her) it's pretty common:wave:...I think this applies universally...I'm sorry if it angered you...the point was that the proudly self-described "free-thinkers" often seem to be the same folks that repeat mantra and language over and over, share memes, cut and paste basically struggle for an original thought or creative moment engaging in what appears to be "free-thinking" group think....all of the folks on my Facebook feed who fancy themselves highly evolved free thinkers use up all of their time and energy sharing obnoxious memes, I guess because that's how you proclaim to the world "I'm a free-thinker!!" .........

"I think that I 'free-think' there for I am"....despite any evidence and often to the contrary...it's like the "concerned for the environment" pipeline protestors and probably intellectually superior and environmentally conscious(just ask them) "free-thinkers" who spent their time demanding the water be protected and then left behind mountains of trash and waste threatening the same water supply.....or the tolerant "free-thinkers" on college campus' who attack anyone who harbors a differing opinion...or in the example I provided...the secular left's general attitude toward those with religious beliefs as being anything but free-thinking and therefore having zero standing where thinking is concerned.....the "free-thinkers" are remarkably predictable

that was the point ...declaring oneself a "free-thinker" is often more a self satisfier than fact....it allows an individual...an "intellectual"... quite a bit of latitude and assume a higher pedestal(in their mind) than those that they conclude do not think freely(like them)...it's soft bigotry....it doesn't require a degree....in my opinion much of "modern liberalism/progressivism" is a coalition of self-proclaimed "free- thinkers" engaging in the shallowest form of collectivist authoritarian group think and speak...

Dave Rubin declared himself a "free-thinker" as a result of recognizing and rejecting the left's group think authoritarianism posing as "free-thinking"...maybe he should have said..."freed-thinker":uhuh:

scottw
02-11-2017, 06:59 AM
Iím a classical liberal.

it's really amazing how many Big Government leftists have suddenly become huge fans of limited government, separation of powers, strict readings of the Constitution and law... etc..:rotf2:

wdmso
02-11-2017, 09:04 AM
it's really amazing how many Big Government leftists have suddenly become huge fans of limited government, separation of powers, strict readings of the Constitution and law... etc..:rotf2:

Who would those many be ? For me I agree limited government comsertives want no government .
separations of powers again yes.. consertives only want it when rulings swing their way when they don't its the judges fault .. strict reading of the constitution seems only again to apply to issues comsertives support they only support the 3 branch's of government when they think they control all 3 branches


Who has done more for individual rights and Who has done more to restrict individuals rights and advance corporate American I know my answer and it's not based on a feeling :btu:

scottw
02-11-2017, 09:06 AM
For me I agree limited government comsertives want no government .


:huh: please offer any evidence that conservatives want no government

wdmso
02-11-2017, 11:21 AM
Steve Bannon

I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.
Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Trump’s decision to appoint billionaires, bankers, and oil tycoons to his cabinet signifies that his administration does not plan to even pay lip service to a democratic government. The fact that many of the new cabinet members lack relevant expertise doesn’t matter

sorry i dont see these things as making America great agin

Seeing you like polls here is one 51% of Trump supporters say he should be able to defy judicial rulings he disagrees with, according to poll reported by Maddow HUMM IF THEY SUPPORT THIS WHAT ELSE DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND

scottw
02-11-2017, 11:34 AM
Steve Bannon

Iím a Leninist,Ē Bannon proudly proclaimed.
Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
ďLenin,Ē he answered, ďwanted to destroy the state, and thatís my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of todayís establishment.Ē Bannon was employing Leninís strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Trumpís decision to appoint billionaires, bankers, and oil tycoons to his cabinet signifies that his administration does not plan to even pay lip service to a democratic government. The fact that many of the new cabinet members lack relevant expertise doesnít matter

I'm not a big Snopes guy but leftists seem to love it for proof of stuff so hear you go

http://www.snopes.com/bannon-leninist-destroy-state/

detbuch
02-11-2017, 11:38 AM
For me I agree limited government

If you believe that judges are allowed to disregard the strict language of the Constitution and impose loose interpretations of that language in order to allow government to do things which the Constitution strictly does not allow it to do, then you do not agree with limited government.

separations of powers again yes.. consertives only want it when rulings swing their way when they don't its the judges fault .. strict reading of the constitution seems only again to apply to issues comsertives support

Strict reading of the Constitution does not involve issues per se. It is about which branch of government, if any, has the power to deal with the issue at hand. It is the loose "interpretation" which frees government, or a branch of government, to control an issue which a strict reading would prohibit it from doing. That is a basic tenet of so-called "conservatism." Usually, a conservative argument in court is not so much about proposed legislation, but more about the constitutional power to pass it. When, and if, a conservative argues strictly on social implications or social justice, then that conservative is not one.

they only support the 3 branch's of government when they think they control all 3 branches

Why should a conservative support a branch of government if that branch was not abiding by the Consitution? It isn't the Congress, or the Executive, or the Judicial which is to be supported, it is the Constitution which is to be "preserved, protected and defended." Whenever any of the three branches is acting in a manner which does not support that oath of office, it is in error, and should not be supported.

Who has done more for individual rights and Who has done more to restrict individuals rights and advance corporate American I know my answer and it's not based on a feeling :btu:

I think we all know your answer. But riddle me these--why has corporate power, such as it is, grown so much in spite of all the regulations imposed on it? Why has so called income inequality grown in spite of regulations against it? Who has facilitated the power of groups to grow over individual choices?

Hint, your choice, of who, depends on corporate power to fund its efforts and to collectivize business and production into fewer, larger, more centralized entities whose number are easier to control than the scattering little individual enterprises. Your choice, of who, strives to centralize all facets of society. It's favorite notion of individual rights is group rights, which is a form of centralizing individual power and rights. It is easier to have more control and forced dependence over the large but fewer in number groups than the scattered and unruly 350 million individuals. Your choice, of who, prefers, requires, a top down controlling authority which decides what individual rights are rather than the constitutional notion of inalienable rights which that top down authority has no right to trample.

detbuch
02-11-2017, 12:04 PM
Trumpís decision to appoint billionaires, bankers, and oil tycoons to his cabinet signifies that his administration does not plan to even pay lip service to a democratic government.

That is a non-sequitur. If more billionaires and tycoons are created in democracies than in dictatorships, how does appointing them to cabinet positions interfere with democratic government?

The fact that many of the new cabinet members lack relevant expertise doesnít matter

That's too vague to be meaningful.

sorry i dont see these things as making America great agin

Why not?

Seeing you like polls here is one 51% of Trump supporters say he should be able to defy judicial rulings he disagrees with, according to poll reported by Maddow HUMM IF THEY SUPPORT THIS WHAT ELSE DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND

Again, too vague. And what is meant by "defy"? Other, mostly Democrat, Presidents have defied judicial rulings. And their supporters loved it. It is a little understood fact that judges are not the sole "interpreters" of the Constitution. In fact, a President, as well as any Congressman, or citizen for that matter, should be interpreting the Constitution every time he acts as an official of the government. And judges are not endowed with superior wisdom.

At any rate, most "supporters" of either party, if asked various vague questions are likely to come up with not well thought out answers.

If we have come down to this sort of discussion, we are lost.