The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Nick Di Paolo: 'On Offensive Comedy and Political Correctness'

Source:The Rubin Report- Nick Di Paolo on offensive comedy and political correctness.

Source:The Daily Review

"Nick Di Paolo (stand up comedian) joins Dave to discuss his comedy career, his problem with political correctness and so many stand up comics today, why he believes comedians should be at the forefront of speech and free expression, and more."

From The Rubin Report

 I think the great comedian Mel Brooks had the best comment about political correctness that I've ever heard when he said in 2017 that: "political correctness is killing comedy." We've become at least with the left-wing such an uptight country now where comedy has almost disappeared ( unless you're making fun of right-wingers ) that everything is taken seriously.

 Comedy: "Professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh."

Comedy is simply just making fun of people and situations that deserve to be made fun because they've done or said something stupid or embarrassed themselves. When someone tells someone that they're as dumb as a brick. because they're constantly speaking nonsense or can't find their own hand in front of their face, they're literally not saying that person is a brick. They're saying they're dumb as a brick and act like they don't have a brain.

When people do redneck or ghetto jokes and I do that all the time, we're not saying that call Caucasians are rednecks or that everyone with a rural background is a redneck. We're saying that people from those communities who are rednecks are rednecks and speak a certain language and have a certain accent that perhaps only people from that community can understand. Who see Yankees and everyone with a metropolitan  accent as foreigners and perhaps even invaders. ( Sort of how Trump voters who view anyone with black hair and brown skin )

When people do ghetto jokes and I do that myself as someone who went to an urban melting pot high school in the early 90s, we're not saying that everyone from the African-American community are ghetto. We're simply making fun of ghetto people and mimic the way they talk and act. But not labeling all African-Americans as ghetto.

There's real-life and then there's comedy. When your'e watching sitcoms or any other type of comedy, that is not actually happing, since they're pretending and acting out. Real life is real, comedy is just an expression about the stupidity of life and what comedians are seeing from their own personal experiences and not meant to be taken seriously.

People who take comedy seriously are people who weren't around and perhaps had an off day when whoever who has the job of passing sense of humors around was passing those around. And are the biggest tight asses in the history of the world and have redefined that term. When someone makes fun of you, the first thing you do is to see if that person has a point and self-examine yourself. If the joke is spot on, you have nothing to complain about and if anything should laugh at yourself and use the humor as a learning experience. If the joke really is off target, then you laugh it off or fire back or enjoy the rest of your life. But unless the person is calling you a racial or ethnic slur, you really have nothing to complain about.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Jeffrey Tucker: Alt-Right & Right-Wing Collectivism

Source: The Rubin Report- Author Jeffrey Tucker, on The Rubin Report talking about the Alt-Right and right-wing collectivism. 

Source:The New Democrat

As Dave Rubin said, we know about left-wing collectivism or people who understand and follow political philosophy do. Which is the two branches of socialism meaning democratic socialism and communism. Not progressivism which is a different philosophy all together and a lot less collectivist where you have both a Left progressivism like the Franklin Roosevelt's of the world. And a Right progressivism the Nelson Rockefeller's of the world, Richard Nixon would be another one and Harry Truman would also be a Left-Progressive. But there's also a right-wing form of collectivism in America and they have several branches and none of them are very conservative.

Source: Amazon- Jeffrey Tucker's book about the Alt-Right and right-wing collectivism 

The three branches of right-wing collectivism at least as I see it are the Christian-Right, the Alt-Right and Nationalists. There not Conservatives at least in a political and constitutional sense as people who believe in conserving the Constitution and all of our individual rights.

Christian-Right

As Christian -Right Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore said himself last year, the book he goes by that defines his politics is the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. That's a paraphrase, but that's pretty close to exactly what he's saying there. Christian-Conservatives ( or Christian-Nationalists, as I call them ) use their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible to define their politics. That their religious beliefs should be what governs the country. And that everyone should be forced to live by their Christian moral values.

Nationalists

Similar to Christian-Nationalists are people who believe their national values and how they see their country trumps everyone else's and that their country should really have nothing to do with what goes on with the rest of the world short of having trade deals that benefit their country. Nationalists, tend to view themselves as the real Patriots in the country and everyone who disagrees with them as Un-patriototic or in an American sense as the Un-Americans. That they the real Patriots as Nationalists, are deserving of our constitutional rights and protections and people who oppose them politically as Un-American and traitors who are not deserving of those same individual rights.

Alt-Right

Not all Nationalists are racists, sexists, homophobes, and people who hate other Europeans like Jews, Italians, Slavs, Latinos, or people of Spanish background, and others. But when I think of the Alt-Right at least I think of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan and other European-American predominately Anglo-Saxon racist political and even political terrorist groups. Similar to Nationalists they see themselves as the true American Patriots and the real Americans, but not just people who disagree with them as being Un-American, but people who don't look like them as Un-American. And not just Non-European-Americans like African and Asian-Americans, but other European-Americans like Italians, Jews, Spaniards, Slavs, and other Europeans who have dark hair and olive complexion. And that these people should not just be disallowed to live freely, but in many cases shouldn't be allowed to live at all.

Collectivism, whether it's right-wing or left-wing is this belief that individualism and personal freedom and in the Far-Left's case economic freedom as well are dangerous things. That the world is a complicated place and therefor you need a big centralized government to set people straight so they live moral productive lives and are taken care of. Both right-wing collectivism and left-wing collectivism, are illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) because they oppose individualism and individual rights and that individual freedom needs to be severely constricted if not eliminated so we can have a moral productive society. That's what collectivism is whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- What is a Classical Liberal?

Source:The Rubin Report- There is a little liberal in every non-statist.

Source:The New Democrat

I've been asked many times in the past what are my politics. I'm been accused ( if you want to put it that way ) of being a Libertarian or some other right-winger especially on social media, when I say I'm against government-run health health care and health insurance, especially when there would be no other options for health care and health insurance. Or when I come out against free speech over political correctness. My response has always been I'm a Liberal, Classical Liberal if that helps you sleep better at night.

Source: A Libertarian Future- Liberalism 

This blog is a Classical Liberal or JFK Liberal blog. This is not a social democratic or democratic socialist blog, progressive sure! In the sense that I believe in progress and through government action, but bot total government action. People who work in government God bless them all, but they're no smarter than people who work office jobs in the private sector and have to make payroll and profits every week and month.

Source: AZ Quotes- Friedrich August Von Hayek, on Liberals

So this socialist idea that if you just let government run things and create this new government program or put more money into a current government program even if that means less individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, that things would automatically get better reminds me of the saying that you have to be a narcissist to believe you're the center of the universe and are perfect, well you have to be a Socialist to believe that government at any level not just has all the answers, but always has all the answers. Especially when you're talking about a large organization whether that's run by imperfect people and in some cases mistake prone people because they're overworked and have too much responsibility.

So, that's why I'm not a Socialist democratic or otherwise because I don't believe government has all the answers and therefor you need an educated free society to be able to manage their personal and economic affairs. Which is sort of the definition of the freedom which is the freedom of self-determination and for people to chart their own course in life and be able to make out of it what they put into to. Enjoy the fruits of their labor and productivity and deal with the consequences of their mistakes and hopefully learn from them so they don't make the same mistakes in the future. And if you're wondering why I'm a Liberal, I just explained that I believe the best society is an educated free society. Not a statist society where you have a government big enough to try to manage people's lives for them.

I'm not a Libertarian, because the modern Libertarian ( let's call them ) sound like they're if not more antigovernment than anti-big government, they're at least as antigovernment as they're anti-big government. And especially believe that every form of government tax or rule is somehow some form of slavery or something and they tend to be very conspiratorial and sound like they operating off of a whole bottle of whisky or were released from some mental institution without their medicine, they tend to sound like they've lost touch of reality and live in a different universe or only only on Planet Earth as visitors, but mentally not really here. I'm not antigovernment and I don't bash government programs and government daily. I'm anti-big government, because I don't want government running our lives for us. I want want free educated people to manage their own lives for themselves.

Liberalism, ( or classical liberalism if you prefer ) is not about small government or big government , but a political philosophy that advocates civil liberties and individual rights, liberal democracy with free and fair elections along with all the individual rights both civil and economic that come from a liberal democratic society. And even a safety net for people who truly need it and for whatever reasons aren't living in freedom with the means and tools to pay their own way, but not to manage their lives for them, but to help them back up so they can live in freedom. Liberals, don't believe they're smart enough to not only manage their own lives, but to manage other people's lives as well, so why would government be even smarter and should have any more power over others lives than just themselves.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen.-

Source:The New Democrat

This debate about liberty versus equality as if that is a real choice which it isn't and I'll get into that later, reminds me of a speech that longtime Chicago University Economics Professor Milton Friedman, who described his own politics as liberal ( or classical liberal if you prefer ) gave a speech in 1978 and he talked about liberty in equality in the same speech and made the point to put it simply that you can't have one without the other.

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen 

That without liberty and the ability for people make their own decisions and go as far as they can go on their own and make as good a life that they can for themselves, you can't have equality at least in the sense that most if not all people want equality which is that everyone living and doing well in society and not being denied access in life simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Sure! You could essentially outlaw wealth and have the central government collect most of the wealth in society and then try to spread that wealth back to the people based on what they believe people need to do well.

Source: Conservative Video News- Dave Rubin & Nadine Strossen

But when you discourage people to do well and be successful you get a lot less of it, because people will expect the government to take care of them, or they'll believe it's not worth it to be free and successful in life because government will just punish then for that by taking most of their wealth from them. Or you could have government just outlaw individual initiative and creativity and just have government try to run the economy for everyone like you would see in a Marxist-Communist state and have a country where everyone is poor like in North Korea and a society where only people with government jobs and connections are able to live well.

But when people talk about equality, they tend to talk about it in a sense where everyone is able to live well. Not where everyone is equally poor, but where people are able to succeed in life and live well. And for true equality to occur you have to have good deal of personal liberty and the freedom for people to do well and be able to make their own decisions in life and then be able to collect the rewards from their success. Which comes with investments, risk taking, and even failures.

As far as the main point of Nadine Strossen's book ( former President of the ACLU ) a woman that I have a lot of respect for and who I love politically for her liberal politics, she's just damn right about this. You way to counter hate speech is not trying to shut it up through force, but by counteracting it through intelligent free speech. Make the case for why some hateful asshole is exactly that and why what they believe is hateful.

But when the First Amendment was written, our Founding Fathers ( the Founding Liberals ) didn't have in mind protecting the rights for intelligent Ivy Leaguers to say whatever they want and have the freedom to say as many intelligent things as possible. Even though the First Amendment protects intelligent speech and love as much as hate speech.

The First Amendment was written for people who think outside of the box and say controversial things. Even to the point that they're not just criticizing people, but saying things that can be hurtful. And even saying things that are hateful, but just plain wrong like labeling an entire ethnic or racial group as criminals, invaders, rapists, etc. And perhaps you're familiar with a certain national politician who has done those things in the last few years.

I can't end this piece without talking about personal liberty here as well since that it part of the title of the piece. There is so such thing as freedom without personal liberty. Not just talking about economic freedom which is also critical in any liberal democratic free society, but also the freedom for people to think and say what they want short of inciting violence and falsely accusing people, or harassing people. But the freedom for people to make their own personal and private decisions and live their own lives and do what they want to do, short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Freedom of choice and the right to privacy which I believe as a non-lawyer protects freedom of choice in America and engage in activities that some religious folks might see as immoral, is just as important as our economic freedom and right to free speech.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Bob Saget- Comedy, Full House & Dirty Jokes

Source:The Rubin Report- Back to you, Bob Saget. 

Source:The New Democrat

Talking about Bob Saget, comedy, and dirty jokes, reminds me of the great but unfortunately short-lived comedian Lenny Bruce. Who was actually arrested on stage in the late 1950s and through the 1960s for telling dirty jokes. Joking about sexuality and using what was called back then dirty language. Clear violations of Lenny Bruce's First Amendment rights, but back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, American culture was a lot different. We were a lot more collectivist as a society and culture and similar to how women weren't required by law to stay home and raise their kids, while their husbands went out and worked to pay the bills, dirty jokes weren't considered acceptable to the point that people could literally get arrested and face jail and prison time for using them.

Forget about Bob Saget for a minute who I'm sure in his own right is a swell kind of guy, but this interview is starting to put me to sleep and just because someone is boring doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad guy. Of course you can be boring and a bad person, but Saget I believe is just boring at least as an interview. But to tell you what I think about comedy personally, comedy to me whether you're talking about dirty jokes or clean jokes, comedy to me it about expression. It's about how the comedian communicates to their audience what they're thinking and what they're experiencing. But does it in a humorous way.

You have comedians who talk about their most personal of relationships. Rodney Dangerfield's wife was his personal target practice and he was always making fun of his wife. You have comedians who joke about  travel experiences and what life is like on the road for them and make a living simply by having an excellent memory and joke about the hotel rooms they stayed at and the meals they ate. Plane flights, renting cars on the road. You have comedians who joke about politics, current affairs, American culture. Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, and many others. Comedians tend to joke about what they're personally experiencing and what they're currently thinking.

I believe the best comedians are the comedians who have great accurate memories. Who don't necessarily write down everything that they see and experience, but make mental notes and situations, people that they experience and find an intelligent way to talk about that in their acts. Who make fun of people and situations, but not to bash someone or something and try to make that person look like the worst loser since the 1976 0-14 Tampa Buccaneers ( sorry for the NFL joke ) but instead make fun of things that person did or experienced and talk about their own funny experiences with those people.

Jerry Seinfeld who is a great comedian but not buy favorite comedian, is an expert of of the personal comedy. Johnny Carson who is much better than Seinfeld, was even better at this style of humor as well as being a great political satirist. Comedians who takes notes of life and do a great job of analyzing it in a fun, humorous, intelligent way.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Thaddeus Russell- 'Socialism, Authoritarianism & Liberalism'

Source:The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin & Thaddeus Russell.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Thaddeus Russell (Author, Professor) about growing up in a socialist family in Berkeley, the evolution of politics, authoritarianism vs libertarianism, political labels and the meaning of the word liberal, the debate around using the N-word to discuss racism, and much more. This is part of our collaboration with Learn Liberty featuring interviews with classical liberals….

From The Rubin Report

I disagree with Dave Rubin at least one point here and it gets to my main beef ( for lack of a better word ) with Libertarians today who are not Classical Liberals, but hardcore Libertarians and even Anarcho-Libertarians. Who believe they're the only defenders of freedom and everyone else right or left are big government statists and fascists.

But if you're familiar with American politics you know it's not as simple as ordering a meal when you're a patient at a hospital. And you're essentially choosing between two things you don't want to eat because they'll both taste bad, but you're smart enough to know that you don't want to die from starvation in a hospital and you order the least bad tasting of the two choices. You decide that if you're going to die in a hospital, it will be on the operating table, not from starvation on your hospital bed.

When it comes to people who believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, personal responsibility, free speech, it's not Libertarians versus everyone else. With Libertarians being the only believers in freedom in America, versus the statists. That everyone else including Liberals and Progressives on the center-left and Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians on the center-right, are really just big government statists. And are no better than the Christian-Nationalists on the far-right and Socialists and Communists on the far-left.

This libertarian fascism ( which might sound like an Oxymoron ) where there Libertarians even who believe they have all the intelligence and all the bright ideas and the only believers in freedom, is the main reason why I can't be a Libertarian and will always be a Liberal, even if you prefer to call me a Classical Liberal. Because as a Liberal I can't look at politics as good versus evil with one side having all the morality and the other side being evil.

There good Liberals, there good Progressives, there good Conservatives, there good Conservative-Libertarians, there even some good Socialists. Democratic generally, but there are good Socialists. There good Christian-Conservatives who by enlarge are good Christians even, who I just tend to disagree with on social issues, but who aren't racists and people who do care about others and always looking to help people in need live better lives. American politics to me is not about good versus evil, but debating what's the best approach and what are the best ideas and leaving it to the voters to figure this out and who they select to lead them to govern. Not about the good conquering the evil.

Now, where I agree with Dave Rubin is that political labels are losing their meaning. If you were just getting into American politics yesterday, you might think liberal is just another way of saying socialist or communist. And are people who are simply involved in politics to eliminate all forms of individuality and individualism and put women in charge of everything. And believe Caucasians are basically bad people, especially Anglo-Saxons and men, are bad people.

And that if you were just getting into American politics yesterday, you might believe that conservative is another way of saying Christian-Nationalist militarist fascist, who hates all non-Europeans and even hates some Europeans as well who aren't of English or British background. Like Jews, Italians, Slavs, and other Southern Europeans. Who want to force their religious and moral values on the rest of the country and want to eliminate our liberal democratic federal republic and replace it with an fundamentalist Evangelical Christian theocracy.

But if you're actually familiar with American politics, you know that both liberalism and conservatism, are not about authoritarianism and they are similar, but not because they're both about authoritarianism, but because they both believe in a high degree of individualism and personal autonomy. Both believe in capitalism and private enterprise, property rights, civil liberties, strong national defense, that America has an important role in the world to promote and defend human rights  and freedom, but differ when it comes to the role of government especially as it relates to the economy. Liberals tend to be more in favor of a public safety net for people who truly need it and regulations to protect consumers and workers. And Conservatives tend to be more in favor of privatization when it comes to the economy.

Of course there are people who believe that individualism and personal autonomy, are horrible things and that European-Americans tend to be bad people and everything else that comes from the Far-Left. And there are people who basically believe that non-Europeans are bad people and that there are even Europeans who are bad people. Who want to enforce their moral and religious values on the rest of everyone else in America. But you have Socialists and Communists on the far-left, who believe in these far-left anti-individualist, anti-male, anti-European-American values. And you have have Christian-Nationalists on the far-right who believe their religious and moral values are superior to everyone else and therefor should be forced on everyone else in America. But these people aren't Liberals or Conservatives. There authoritarians, but from different factions ranging from the far-left to the far-right.

But I go back to my point about ordering a meal in a hospital ( that I would only wish on my worst enemies to have to do ) that American politics is not a choice between a bad chicken dinner and a bad spaghetti dinner. That the American political spectrum is more like what you would see at a good diner or restaurant and it might take you five minutes to read the whole thing, maybe ten if you haven't been to that diner or restaurant before or because you have so many good choices. That it's not about liberal and liberal representing the entire left-wing in America and that conservative represents the entire right-wing in America. Liberals represent the center pro-freedom left in America. Conservatives represent the center pro-freedom  right in America. And you have you all these fringe factions on both wings that make the Liberals and Conservatives look like they're something that they're not, which are authoritarians. 

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- 'Donald Trump, Russia & Impeachment'

Source:The Rubin Report- Conservative David Frum, on Donald Trump & Russia.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic) about his new book “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic,” his thoughts on Trump and Russia, the possibility of impeachment, views on immigration, his political standing, and more.” 

From The Rubin Report

When it comes to Donald Trump, I lean on the side that Donald Trump is not the disease itself when it comes to our political system, but he's the beneficiary of it. He's benefited from an American political system where the term politician is used as a political insult. Calling someone a politician in America now is like calling them an asshole. "That politician, you can never trust what he says." Same thing can be said about assholes, I mean what do assholes know about anything, they're assholes and speaking out of their asses are natural acts for them.

Americans tend to now hate politicians and hate politics at least in the sense the political games that politicians play. Always looking for the upper hand against their opponent, instead of doing their jobs which is governing. These are the problems, this is what can be done about it right now and it needs to be addressed right now before the situation becomes so bad that a lot of people will get hurt by it. That is how government used to work up until 15-20 years ago in America even if that meant Democrats working with Republicans together in order to make the country better.

Today politics in America is how do we blame the other side and make them look like they're unreasonable obstructionists so the voters don't like them and vote for us instead. Donald Trump didn't create this system of hyper-partisanship and gridlock, he just came in and took advantage of it with the promises that he would come in and fix the problems and make government work again. We now all know ( or at least anyone with a brain is who mentally sane ) that Donald Trump was selling Americans three months old steaks and burgers for full price and literally just selling people a lot of junk ( to put it mildly ) that he was literally bullshitting Americans in order to get into power and then profit from his presidency.

But again without the hyper-partisanship from both parties in America where you have these two large political parties literally in the business now to try to destroy the other and claim absolute power in America, instead of offering Americans a positive agenda and giving then positive reasons to vote for them and looking to govern while they're still trying to gain additional power, the Donald Trump that we see today as President would still be an actual celebrity star on TV. Because he wouldn't have a movement that he could speak to because Americans by in large wouldn't hate politicians and not distrust government.

I blame Donald Trump for his actions as President of the United States and what he did when he was running for President, as well as his private political activism with the so-called birther movement against President Barack Obama, but I don't blame him for the political system that he inherited. Even though he's made it worst and represents a threat to our federal checks and balances form of government. Trump is simply a beneficiary of a political system and government that was already there where Americans tend not to trust government and politicians and hate the two political parties because they see both parties as not much more than partisan hacks looking to destroy the other party. Instead of offering a positive agenda for why they should be elected.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- 'Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump'

Source:The Rubin Report- Conservative writer David Frum, talking to Dave Rubin. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic) about his background, his unique conservative views, problems with conservatism, the health care debate, Trump, the state of the modern left, multiculturalism, and more." 

From The Rubin Report

The first part of this interview Dave Rubin and David Frum are talking about Canada and Canadian politics and what I'm interested here since David Frum is Conservative ( as he puts it ) is that what it means to be a Canadian Conservative is even different from what it means to even be a British Conservative. And certainly different from what it means to be an American Conservative whether you're talking about Conservative-Libertarians ( the real Conservatives in America ) and extremely different from what it means to a a Religious-Conservative. Whether you're talking about Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else when it comes to Religious-Conservatives.

Canadian Conservatives are to the right of British Conservatives. British Conservatives operate in a socialist unitarian social democratic state in the United Kingdom, where Conservatives there in many cases are just less socialist than the Labour Party. Especially Jermey Corbyn ( the Leader of the Labour Party ) who represents the Far-Left of the Labour Party. But Canadian Conservatives are to the left of both Conservative-Libertarians on economic policy at least, and to the left of Christian-Conservatives in America are on social policy.

The main differences between Canadian Conservatives from lets say the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative-Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, is that Canadian Conservatives believe limited government, fiscal responsibility, a large private sector where private enterprise and economic freedom are encouraged, but where there is a large generous welfare state for people who truly need it. That taxes and regulations on businesses should be fairly low, but individuals are taxed fairly high to fund their welfare state like their national health insurance system.

When I think of a Conservative and yes of course I'm looking at this from the perspective of an American and maybe if I had duel citizenships I could look at Conservative from multiple national perspectives, but just as an American I look at Conservative from a U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, individual rights, traditionalist, standpoint. That the job of government is to defend the republic and defend our individual rights. Encourage individual freedom instead of using big government to try to manage people's lives for them either from an economic or personal perspective. Sounds very similar to my own liberal politics but we differ on the role of government as it relates to welfare policy. But tend to share very similar if not identical principles.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Brian Domitrovic- Who Was JFK?

Source:The Rubin Report-

Source:The New Democrat

When you're talking about people who are called Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) I believe John F. Kennedy has to at the top of the list. Or at least towards the top of the list. Former Republican presidential nominee businessman Wendell Willkie, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others today. Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, ( one of my favorite Liberals ) is a JFK Democrat and would be on that list as well. People who believe in both personal freedom and economic freedom. Limited but good government that should be used to protect our individual rights and even be used to help people help themselves.

Not that then Vice President Richard Nixon wasn't a strong anticommunist in 1960, because he was but then Senator John Kennedy was the strongest anticommunist in that presidential election. The Liberals were the anticommunists, as well as FDR Progressives and of course Conservative Republicans. Like Senator Barry Goldwater, to use as an example. Liberals are still anticommunists and antiauthoritarian across the board today, but generally when you think of the Left today there's not much of a center on the Left anymore. The center-left seems to be dying in America and you talk about the Left in America today you're generally talking about Socialists. In some cases Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, but in a lot of cases you're talking about just pure Socialists and even Communists. Socialism including communism, is very popular with Millennial's today.

But back in the 1950s and even the early 1960s, Liberals were very prominent in America. People who believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans. Who believed in free speech and property rights for all Americans. People who believe in personal autonomy for all Americans. Who believed in a strong but limited national defense to be able to defend America from any possible threat, as well as defeat communism and other authoritarian government's around. And a safety net for people who truly need it to help low-income and low-skilled people in the short-term, while they're preparing themselves to not just go to work, but get themselves a good job and become self-sufficient. This is the liberalism that Jack Kennedy represented and had it not have been for his unfortunate assassination in 1963, this is the liberalism that he would've run on for reelection in 1964 and probably had gotten reelected.

Think about what would've happened had President Kennedy not have been assassinated in 1963. He gets reelected in 1964 and we don't enter the Vietnam War in 1965 and as a result the Democratic Party doesn't collapse in the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the socialist New-Left perhaps doesn't emerge as well. At least not to the extent that it became where they could actually get themselves elected to major offices and become a major part of the Democratic Party which nominates Socialist Senator George McGovern for President in 1972.

As far as the JFK tax cut, it was actually President Lyndon Johnson ( Progressive Democrat ) who gets that passed through Congress in 1964. That of course President Kennedy proposed in 1962. And it was also President Johnson who got the JFK 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress as well. And the tax cut wasn't a supply side tax cut. They lowered tax rates across the board which was the right thing to do, but he paid for those tax cuts by eliminating tax loopholes. Which is something that so-called Conservatives ( supply siders, really ) today don't seem to ever mention. They say JFK cut taxes for everyone without cutting spending which lead to all of this great economic growth of the 1960s and the tax cuts paid for themselves. Which is the argument that they used for the Ronald Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Which simply didn't happen. JFK's tax cuts were paid for upfront by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

I'm a JFK Liberal Democrat personally and unfortunately one of the last of the Liberal Democrats in the Democratic Party. The classical liberal wing of the Democratic Party seems to be dying as the Socialists are taking over to the point that in 2020 the Democratic choice for President might be either Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren. But liberalism is how Democrats win national elections and how they can appeal to blue-collar voters., which is what Jack Kennedy was able to do. By pushing for both personal and economic freedom, equal rights, civil rights, a safety net for people who actually need it. Instead of saying that big government can take care of everyone for everyone and individualism and freedom is too risky. Which is what the Socialists in party seem to represent today.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Source:The Rubin Report-

Source:The New Democrat

Dave Rubin makes one mistake about socialism up front which is common for people on the Right especially, but sometimes on the Left as well, which is to lump all Socialists into one political box. As if all Democrats fit into one political box, or all Republicans fit into one political box, or even all Libertarians fit into one political box. There are Socialists and then there are Socialists. The Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, the democratic wing of socialism and then there are Communists, which make up the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Where Dave Rubin is right is that all Socialists have one thing in common. Which is what they view as the greater good and collective, is more important than the individual. That individual freedom is somehow bad and perhaps even racist, if it means that there are people who do very well economically and live well in society, when there are poor people who's struggle just to survive. Perhaps skip meals so their kids can at least have something to eat that day. That is what Socialists believe that what you should do instead is to see that all the recourses in the country are divided up equally so no one is rich and no one is poor. Even if that means putting strict limits on individual economic freedom and even individual personal freedom.

The title of Dave Rubin's video is "Socialism Isn't Cool" and yet he doesn't mention why socialism is not cool, but instead just mentions the negative aspects of socialism and socialist countries like Venezuela. Tell that to the millions if not tens of millions of Millennial's who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries for President and the perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Jill Stein for President during the 2016 general election. To them, socialism is the new awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist to them, must be a racist or a bigot or someone working to protect the man and keep women and minorities down. To them socialism is like totally awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist is not awesome.

My issues with socialism gets to what Dave Rubin laid out which is the collectivist nature of it. That it's somehow unfair and selfish for individuals to get a good education and then take those skills to the private market and imply them and be rewarded handsomely for them. But what they may never understand is that once you discourage wealth, opportunity, success, and individualism, you get a hell of a lot less of it and leave yourself less resources to help people who for whatever reasons aren't doing well in society. And you also leave yourself with a lot less innovation and creativity, because people are left to wonder why they should do well in school and at work, when big government is just going to take most of their resources from then to subsidize people who aren't doing well.

You want a free developed society with as many people as possible doing well in life, then you have to subsidize and promote the things that make freedom and success possible. Which is education, opportunity, equality under law, equal rights, success, and yes wealth. Which is what you don't get in a socialist society whether it's a communist society like Cuba and now Venezuela which essentially functions as a one-party unitarian communist state, or a social democratic society like Britain where even when the Conservatives are in charge individualism and individual freedom, is discouraged and even punished for the sake of the collective.
Source:The Rubin Report

The Rubin Report: Scott Adams & Dave Rubin- Donald Trump's Persuasion & Presidency

Source:The Rubin Report- talking to political cartoonist Scott Adams.

Source:The Daily Review

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) about his newest book “Win Bigly” about how Donald Trump used the power of persuasion to win the election, Trump’s negotiating strategies and tactics, the trend of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ the crumbling mainstream media, the Trump/Russia controversy, his predictions for future candidates and the future of Trump, and more."

From The Rubin Report

Is Donald Trump the best salesman we've ever seen in American politics as far as getting people to buy what he's selling regardless of the quality of products that he's selling, or is he the best conman we've ever seen in American politics? If you look at his agenda and how unpopular it is and his lack of success in getting anything that he ran on 2016 passed in Congress, he's not a very good salesman.

Running for president and even getting elected President, is obviously a hell of a lot different than doing the job and getting people to support what you're doing. A 33-35% approval rating out of 100% by the way, is not a very good record as far as selling your presidency and your agenda. So in this sense at least he's the worst salesman perhaps we've ever seen in American politics, at least to this point, because only a third of the country is buying what he's doing right now.

Donald Trump literally operates in a fact free world. It's not what the truth actually is that concerns him, because the truth is generally bad about him. It's what he can literally get away with that concerns him. This is why I mentioned the conman part because if the conman literally operated from the truth and told people he has all of this junk to sell you or this scam you should invest in and give the conman most of the money that the customer would never see a dime on and would lose a lot of money instead, the conman would never be successful, obviously. Donald Trump operates in the same fact free world that a conman operates from. It's not the truth thats important, but what he can get away with and what he can get people to believe.

One thing I'll give Donald Trump credit for is that he's a master salesman/conman at getting people who now hate American politics (thanks to the Republican Party and Democratic Party) to buy what he's selling. He's great with labeling people and situations and great with political catch phrases. "Make America great again." Well, if you get past the small point that most Americans including myself already think America is great and thought America was great back in 2008-09 when George W. Bush was still President, who could possibly disagree with that catch phrase. Who doesn't (except for Socialists and Communists) want America to be great?

I agree with Scott Adams on one thing, but I would have one qualifier to that: I believe a popular inspirational well-funded Democrat would have beaten Donald Trump in 2016 just because Trump s Trump and the campaign he ran. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania and Michigan because Democrats there voted for Trump. Imagine someone with Hillary's personal and professional qualifications, but without the baggage. Who was likable and viewed generally as fairly honest at least. Barack Obama if he were eligible to run for a third term as President in 2016, I believe beats Trump going away.

What Donald Trump had going for him if that even though America finally broke away from the Great Recession and the economy was firmly strong again, you had millions of blue-collar Caucasian-American voters in the Midwest who weren't feeling the economic recovery. And if anything were worst off than they were ten years ago. Who saw immigration and perhaps even Latinos and Middle Easterners, as a threat to their way of life. Which is the base of voters that Donald Trump spoke to and claimed to represent. Even though just 6-8 years ago Donald Trump was a damn Yankee from New York City and even a Liberal Democrat (in the real sense, not stereotypical sense) who was friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and who liked The Kennedy's.

To go back to the conman part of Donald Trump: Trump was able to sell bag of goods that had probably already expired years ago and was able to sell these people that he represented them and was going to fight for them. And ran this tribalist nationalist campaign of us against them. What they would call the real Americans, against people who hated America, as they would argue. And when you have a section of the country who believes their America is disappearing and your opponent is Hillary Clinton or someone as unpopular as she is and a Democratic Party that rather not vote at all, than to vote for either Hillary or The Donald, a presidential campaign that Trump run can be effective and even win. 

The Rubin Report: David Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- 'Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama'

Source:The Rubin Report- Radical Feminist Laura Kipnis 

Source:The Daily Review

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Laura Kipnis (author and professor) about her personal fight with Title IX, why she identifies as a “Leftist Feminist,” her take on modern day feminism, the effect of social media on the rape culture debate, sexual victimization on campus, and more."

From The Rubin Report 

At risk of sounding flip here (which I risk almost all the time) I don't consider myself a Feminist, because I'm a man. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and in the private sector and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe in equal rights or equal opportunity. Being a Liberal or just a good intelligent person, is all you have to be to believe in equal opportunity. I'm a Liberal, I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. Men and women, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. So feminism and equal opportunity to me, aren't controversial, but commonsense.

Feminism is not controversial, but what's called radical feminism or what I prefer to call feminine supremacy, this idea that women are simply better than men and therefor women shouldn't be treated worst or equal than men, but better than men and if you don't believe in this you're a women-hating Fascist, this philosophy on the Far-Left in America is obviously very controversial. This idea that men, (well, straight men) are over masculine animals simply looking to conquer women. And that masculinity in itself is a bad thing (unless you're a man-hating dyke Lesbian, or just a Lesbian)  and the reason for all the problems in America and in the world, are because of men and especially Caucasian men especially in America.

So-called radical feminists or what I call feminine supremacists, hate everything that is masculine. They see straight men and straight activities like football, (just to use as an example) as promoting violence in America especially against women. What feminine supremacists don't seem to understand (and this is just one example) is that maybe 1/2 American football fans are women. You watch an NFL or college football game on TV or go to one and just about every other fan there and some games are women. So I guess a lot of women in America and probably most of them believe in feminism, (not including Ann Coulter) again that men and women should be treated equally, but most American women missed the last train on feminine supremacy and don't view men and masculinity in general, as some dangerous narcotic that must be wiped out in order to save society.

I know this is a Hollywood movie and everything, but if you are familiar with the 1970 social satire comedy Myra Breckinridge, Raquel Welch plays Myra a former queen Gay man who becomes a woman and not just a women, but what would be called today a radical feminist or what I call a feminine supremacist that saw her job as eliminating everything that is straight and masculine about men. Other than maybe the physical romantic relationships between straight men and women. Myra Breckinridge bombed as badly as a heavy metal concert in Harlem, or a country music festival in Compton, (not that it was a bad movie) but that movie perhaps has served for the 3-5 feminist supremacists who saw the movie as an inspiration for their feminist-supremacist movement in America.

Laura Kinpis described her politics as back in the day at least as a Marxist-Feminist. Well, that makes sense if you look at what's called radical feminism and what I call feminine-supremacy today. You're either totally in agreement with them, or you're part of the enemy and deserved to be destroyed. And have someone on Twitter who stalks you and has a nasty reply to everything that you tweet. Maybe if someone of these female-supremacists got a job and went to work, they would have less time for Twitter and our unemployment rate would go down even further.

Apparently Laura Kinpis has moderated from Marxist to just being a mainstream Socialist-Feminist, who believes in equality and complete redistribution, but not supremacy. Which goes to show you that there's hope for all radicals in America. If they just cut back on their caffeine intake, try to find hobbies outside of social media and looking at every radical article that is published and do this old fashion thing of thinking for yourself and looking at the world for how it really is and what people really believe. Instead of what the latest hot political celebrity is telling them as some type of God and viewing every word that person says as the golden truth who can never be wrong about anything. 

The Rubin Report: Lalo Dagach and Dave Rubin: Regressives, Religion & Politics

Source:The Rubin Report-

Source:The Daily Review

Just to respond to Lalo Dagach’s question about what should Liberals do (and I mean real Liberals) when the question is about what should be done when it’s a question of tolerance or standing up for liberal values. Like equal rights and women being treated equally and not worst under law. The answer to that is pretty easy. The Liberal always stands up for liberal values. Liberal values mean nothing when Liberals don’t stand up for them.

Even if that means telling people that they’re wrong and they have real serious regressive faults. Where a lot of people and in this case women, are hurt from a result of religious authoritarianism in the Middle East. When pointing out the real faults of people becomes a form of bigotry, then we’re in real trouble. You might as well move to North Korean and oh by the way, leave all your personal-decision making and individualism there, because that won’t be tolerated there. If you want to live in a place where the truth doesn’t matter, because someone might be offended by it.

Nothing bigoted about the truth. Especially when the truth is negative, because without negative truth and facts we would never be able to improve ourselves. Because someone is always giving up medals for showing up and participating when life is so much more than that and being there is just the beginning. When instead of getting participation medals you need a verbal slap in the face. And for someone to tell us, ‘you fucked up buddy and this is where you come up short and this is what you should’ve been doing all along instead.’

Now these Far-Left Commie Regressive’s who has this Che Guevara notion or wherever the hell they got it that says putting down or critiquing non-Caucasian-Christians, especially Anglo-Saxon Christians, is a form of bigotry even when the critic is correct, what are they smoking? And can I get some of that when I need to take a break from reality? What’s progressive about putting now Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they show bigotry against women and gays, but you ignore the exact same things that happen in the Middle East and in some cases even worst. Like being put to death simply for being gay and sometimes for not being a Muslin.

I’ve argued this before, but Liberals believe in liberal values. I know, that’s just commonsense and now I’m going to tell you that business people believe in enterprise and Vince Lombardi believed in the power sweep and Air Force generals believe in a good air attack and etc. But what’s the point of liberal values if Liberals don’t believe in them. People have the right to call themselves whatever the hell they want. If a red-haired Irishmen wants to call himself Frank Sinatra or Jesus Christ, who am I to say he can’t.

But if you want to be taken seriously for what you say you are then you have to believe in the values of your self-identification. You’re not a Liberal if you don’t believe in liberal values and tolerance is just one of them. Liberalism is based on factually based evidence and the truth. And the first liberal value if free speech. And when you say certain things shouldn’t be allowed to be said even when they’re true, because they may tend to offend, you’re not being liberal.

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris & Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Source:The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin & Sam Harris.

Source:The Daily Review 

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.