The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

I would also allow that "conservatism" is a spectrum unto itself. Like "violet" covers portions of the light spectrum - visible and invisible.

But, as noted above, perhaps the commonly accepted range has shifted considerably away from my own. And this is even excepting social issues.

Undoubtedly, conservatism itself is a spectrum - which is why I left the definition as vague as I did, articulating principles rather than specifics. And under my definition of "conservatism", using the government to legislate morality would fall outside of that spectrum, and would instead be part of the statist spectrum.

As for shifting definitions: that is true, and known. In fact, "liberal" and "conservative" have almost completely exchanged definitions over the past half-century.

 

[T.Lex]

Undoubtedly, conservatism itself is a spectrum - which is why I left the definition as vague as I did, articulating principles rather than specifics. And under my definition of "conservatism", using the government to legislate morality would fall outside of that spectrum, and would instead be part of the statist spectrum.

As for shifting definitions: that is true, and known. In fact, "liberal" and "conservative" have almost completely exchanged definitions over the past half-century.

Reminds me of college, when I studied the Soviet Union - that country that didn't exist a few years later. "Liberal" meant someone against the socialists, more western; "conservative" meant socialist.

Of course, the basis for that is "liberal" or "conservative" as it relates to the status quo. So, really, we have to agree on what the status quo is to discuss the terms. I think for me and you, "conservative" relates to the role of gov't, with the status quo being (relatively) limited.

 

[tbhausen]

I agree to a point, but my faith in the Supreme Court, even supposed conservative justices, was rocked after the Obamacare decision.

Hey maybe when Trump gets in, we can have an apprentice style show to select the next justice, the masses would love that, they might even pay attention to the highest court in the land.

This can only be stated with certainty by observation after (if) he's elected.

 

[chipbennett]

Reminds me of college, when I studied the Soviet Union - that country that didn't exist a few years later. "Liberal" meant someone against the socialists, more western; "conservative" meant socialist.

Of course, the basis for that is "liberal" or "conservative" as it relates to the status quo. So, really, we have to agree on what the status quo is to discuss the terms. I think for me and you, "conservative" relates to the role of gov't, with the status quo being (relatively) limited.

Better stock up on bottled water...

 

[T.Lex]

Better stock up on bottled water...

... for the apocalypse?

 

[chipbennett]

... for the apocalypse?

Exactly!

 

[T.Lex]

We need a Costco thread. Or to move this to the Survival forum.

Come to think of it... moving the Republican Primary thread to the Survival forum is probably a good idea.

 

[Route 45]

Huh? We should feel free to vote our consciences. The people who could not vote for Romney and therefore stayed home, and the people who voted third party, did not vote for Obama. They voted according to their conscience, which every person has a duty to do.

What if the negative consequences of voting your conscience results in a completely predictable disaster that is even further from your principles than if you had taken a more realistic approach?

You don't live in a vacuum. If the inevitable result of your "principles" is 2 or 3 gun-grabbing supreme court justices in the next few years, maybe you need to rethink your principles.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

WMUR first: Cruz to announce intention to name Fiorina as his running mate | Politics - WMUR Home

 

[MisterChester]

WMUR first: Cruz to announce intention to name Fiorina as his running mate | Politics - WMUR Home

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

 

[T.Lex]

WMUR first: Cruz to announce intention to name Fiorina as his running mate | Politics - WMUR Home

To continue the Kardashian style campaign, Trump may intend to announce Caitlin Jenner as his running mate.

How 'bout THAT for a middle finger.

(Had to post this partly to avoid the apocalypse.)

 

[MisterChester]

To continue the Kardashian style campaign, Trump may intend to announce Caitlin Jenner as his running mate.

How 'bout THAT for a middle finger.

(Had to post this partly to avoid the apocalypse.)

I'd rather see The Apprentice, VP edition.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

To continue the Kardashian style campaign, Trump may intend to announce Caitlin Jenner as his running mate.

How 'bout THAT for a middle finger.

(Had to post this partly to avoid the apocalypse.)

He could name Hillary to be his running mate:

In 2012, as Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.
“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.

When Donald Trump Praised Hillary Clinton

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Moral Majority has been around since 1979 and we continue to have republican candidates (particularly Cruz, but lets not forget all of the other GOP members who ran and dropped out) put their religion in the forefront of their campaign. I don't think "urbanization" has anything to do with the move of the Overton Window to the left. Baby Boomers are pretty well set in their party affiliation at this point. X'ers and Millenials reject much of what the religious right has co-opted from the true conservatives.

Your continuing pejorative reference to "east coast" and "collectivism" shows how seriously out of touch the GOP has become. Observation: Trump.

The defense rests.

As evidenced by Obama and even more so with Sanders, it's not only religious principles that are being rejected by the later generations. They're rejecting capitalism and "freer markets" for free stuff. They're rejecting freedom of speech for inclusivity and acceptance. They're rejecting freedom of religion/conscience for the government force to make you do work against your will. They're rejecting equal opportunity to succeed for the government's socialization of failure

They're getting what they want.

 

[Alpo]

Well, it's going to be their planet pretty soon.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

As evidenced by Obama and even more so with Sanders, it's not only religious principles that are being rejected by the later generations. They're rejecting capitalism and "freer markets" for free stuff. They're rejecting freedom of speech for inclusivity and acceptance. They're rejecting freedom of religion/conscience for the government force to make you do work against your will. They're rejecting equal opportunity to succeed for the government's socialization of failure

They're getting what they want.

Everybody worships somebody/something. Generally speaking, the younger generation has began worshiping the government and/or the environment.

 

[jamil]

This isn't individualism, nor is it conservatism. This is lunacy.
Goldwater was right.

That's a quote of a quote from someone who didn't like Goldwater, but it does fit what I think Goldwater would say. I agree with him on that, but I would narrow the reference to a specific class of the Christian far right. I have no religion. But I have been around devout Christians all my life. They're not all the same. My dad was pretty conservative, and very devout in his faith, and he was against the blue laws back then. I remember when Meijer Thrifty Acres opened on Sundays, he thought that was a good thing.

Who'd a thunk Barry Goldwater would sound like a collectivist? LOL

Who ever said Goldwater was a collectivist?

First, let's get straight what we both mean by "collectivist". When I say "collectivist", it's not like I'm calling these people communists. I mean a person who thinks society is generally more important than the individual, that society's well being has a higher priority than the individual's. I would call that person a collectivist. I'm not talking about individuals simply having a common interests. I'm specifically referring to people who tend to think that the group's rights generally are more important than individual's. For example, most gun control proponents believe that individuals owning or carrying firearms causes societal harm, and that the group's right to avoid that societal harm supersedes the individual's right. I would concede in the same sense, that religious people who favor laws based on their religion, for example,blue laws, since I brought that up, those are a collectivist idea. But that does not mean that such people are generally collectivists on all things.

Second, when I say "collectivist" I don't necessarily mean that as a pejorative. It's just a way of labeling what I described above. In my own observations, with the exception of some religious people, urban people seem to put more emphasis on group rights. Rural people, seem to put more emphasis on individual rights, exceptions notwithstanding.

 

[jamil]

What if the negative consequences of voting your conscience results in a completely predictable disaster that is even further from your principles than if you had taken a more realistic approach?

You don't live in a vacuum. If the inevitable result of your "principles" is 2 or 3 gun-grabbing supreme court justices in the next few years, maybe you need to rethink your principles.

I voted pragmatically for Romney. And I tried to talk the "principled" voters into doing the same. But in the end, I just have to shake the dust from my boots and move on. Those people didn't vote for Romney because they didn't see him as any more reliable on guns than Obama. Romney didn't win and as much that remains to be seen in what Romney would have done, I think most people would think Obama did worse than Romney would have. I think I was more correct about the inevitability of things. But I didn't have crystal ball to tell me I was right. Events had to make that evident.

If you want gun control, and you vote for candidates who want gun control, you voted your conscience. But I'm going to blame you for opposing my right to bear arms.

If you don't want gun control, and you don't vote for someone who wants gun control. I'm not going to blame you for being wrong.

I'm not saying people aren't responsible for how they vote. I am saying that the Puritans have as much right to their principles as I have to my pragmatism. You don't live in a vacuum either. If you want to speak of inevitable results and principles, we can talk about your seemingly unquestionable support for Trump despite the many warnings that he's not what you think. We both believe different things about that. Should I blame you if Trump is elected and you turn out to be wrong? Should I blame you if Hillary gets elected because your unquestioning support of Trump helped him defeat candidates who would stand a better chance against her?

I probably might say I told you so, but I'm probably not going to blame you for exercising your conscience.

 

[Alpo]

I suppose it's "collectivist" to join the military...after all, it's the likely sacrifice of a few for the good of the nation. Or law enforcement, firefighting....lots of things we do as a collective. Individual rights go arm in arm with individual responsibility to society. But, I guess you knew that.

 

[jamil]

I suppose it's "collectivist" to join the military...after all, it's the likely sacrifice of a few for the good of the nation. Or law enforcement, firefighting....lots of things we do as a collective. Individual rights go arm in arm with individual responsibility to society. But, I guess you knew that.

Well, those are some of those common interests I talked about. However, firefighting isn't something that needs to be done in the public realm. We can have private firefighters. Police, no. I haven't thought it out that thoroughly but I don't want private citizens having arrest authority over me. Military? Whether militia or as it's grown into, a standing army, that's a legitimate public interest and none of those things inherently put group rights above individual rights. And I agree that individual rights go hand in hand with individual responsibility. People have a right to bear arems and if they abuse the responsibility that goes with it they can infringe on other peoples' rights.