Progressives are a danger to the United States, freedom, and liberty.

You state that to win this debate you must demonstrate that it does not constitute a danger to the United States, freedom, or individual liberty, yet fail to address any of the obviously dangerous issues I discussed, which are issues to the country here in the now. The Argument is not, rather or not Progressives in the past were beneficial to the development of a more civil system, but rather or not progressives of the NOW, are dangerous to America. We cant have this argument, because youll say Bush, Ill say Woodrow Wilson. You'll say the New deal, Ill say emancipation of slaves, and so on and so forth. The danger of progressives to America in the past, has no bearing on the danger of progressives in the present. Also, many of those points can be successfully argued against as not being ideals solely owned or perpetuated by progressives. You even go on to state, that traditional democrats of the past are, in fact different from new progressives, and that their ideology is not rigid, but does in fact evolve, further making the case that progessivism of the past, is unrelated to the progressivism we witness today. My argument here is made more solid by your own comments, when you state things such as, "In the modern context, the Progressive Movement has certainly changed.." and "Contemporary progressives have often found themselves to be at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party." Which would mean, you are in fact trying to give credit to modern progressives for achievements of more traditional Democrats of the past. You mention things like "The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All," which includes things such as protecting voting rights and fighting against discrimination. I would argue that this is again an attempt to demonize others, with the implied meaning, being that progressives are the only ones who care about these types of issues, which is not the case. These are stated issues most of society cares about greatly. Outlining issues which concern everyone in America, and trying to label them as "progressive" issues, is merey a way to make others seem less caring, and, a tactic which actually spawns more issues. For instance, if a minority believes progressives are the only ones who care about discrimination, he may view other parties as his enemy, possibly even believing they support racism. In this way many minorities are duped into supporting progressive policies which actually harm their own demographic, as demonstrated when I showed the realtionship of fatherless homes in black communities to fatherless prisoners. The progressive ideas blame all inequity in society on things such as institutionalized racism, rather than acknowledge the possibility of other factors, and, this is perpetuated by mainstream media, which is currently generating a wider and wider divide between people in this country. One needs only watch the news to see how wide the racial divide has become in this country under the last 8 years of progressive leadership. I believe this is intentional, which makes it even more underhanded. Climate change. I already outlined my views concerning the reasons for the push toward climate change, none of which you have addressed, simply. Your evidence of climate change does not address that from its inception the original data was incorrectly construed and a carbon tax was attempted to be instated due to this false correlation of data. An attempt to fleece the public based off a lie, or a mistake. The question does however arise, that if this agenda for a new tax on individuals is still a goal. When viewed individually, this topic would have more credit, but, I correlated its end vision of globalist regime control, with many other globalist funded movements in America. The combined efforts of many grass roots organizations began not by Americans but by foreign interests, paired with funding to individuals in government from the same sources, which, openly state their disdane for our country, is problematic, and very concerning. In essence, if the corruption and globalists interests were not involved, it would lend much more credibility to an issue which may or may not be in need of serious inquiry. Simply, if you get your funding from an enemy, why should we assume your intentions are good? If someone says, I am here to help you. Yet their financial backers say, I want to destroy your economy, someone would be a fool to believe the conviction of trying to help.