Tolerant liberals say you can't compliment a conservative friend

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LePeel, my apologizes that you got drawn into the middle of this.    I have asked Vort to agree to disagree . . .  

Vort, first LePeel said:
 

On 8/2/2018 at 7:51 PM, LePeel said:

Yes there's Satanic influence on both sides. But when you read the Family Proclamation and realize that it is contrary to the Leftist orthodoxy at every point, one must conclude the Devil is intimately at work in the Left. I know its a contradiction in terms to call the radical left an orthodoxy. But they determine the direction of the rest of the wing. I don't care for the Republican party either, I should add.

Then he (she?) said

14 hours ago, LePeel said:

I don't even think about the conservatives or the Republicans when I talk.

 

14 hours ago, Vort said:

Huh. Straight from the horse's mouth. I guess that settles it, @LiterateParakeet. LePeel implied no such thing as you claimed he did.

Logically, I just can't accept that he when he expressly said "both" (meaning the Liberals and the Conservatives,) and then also mentioned the Republican party, that he wasn't thinking of conservatives or Republicans.  Nothing is settled here except that as I said before you and I are at an impasse.  

Edited August 4, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

That would seem to be a reasonable definition of when a fetus becomes a person, but I still wouldn't be in favor of an abortion anywhere close to that time period.   It should be done a lot sooner than that unless there are medical reasons.

That's a good question, but I'm only very weakly pro-choice at best and it's only out of sympathy for an unwanted child, and not because of "freedom" of choice.

I just thank God that I don't have to make that decision.

In my opinion:

Abortion = bad

An unwanted child = possibly even more bad

So how to you choose?

We can choose on our own to be responsible, but we can't really force others to be.

As to abortion itself, I am against it, but don't have a good answer on where to draw the line legally.

As you said, until there is a revelation of when the spirit enters the body, we don't know.   Maybe this is intentionally and there won't be a revelation (or it wouldn't be revealed to the Church).  Imagine if there was.    If the First Presidency came out and said, the spirit enters the body as soon as pain were felt, or as soon as there is a heartbeat, what would that do?

People, including church members might use that to justify getting an abortion.  

Obviously the Church doesn't want anyone to get an abortion and neither does God.  Obviously neither want people to have unwanted child to be born either.

So, from a pro-life standpoint, what is the best solution?

If someone gets pregnant and she neither parents want the child, should she be forced to carry the child and then as soon as it is born,  should she then be forced to give it up for adoption either by the State Government or the Federal?

What if she is addicted to drugs that would harm the child?    If she doesn't want the child, she isn't going to make an effort to stay off drugs for the sake of the child?  Is she going to care for the health of fetus growing inside her?   Surely not.    

Abortion is probably the hardest political question to answer.

Behold the twisted fruit of the bitter tree of abortion politics... Weaponized compassion used to justify the murder and shedding of innocent blood.

Lets talk suffering...   Everyone suffers, everyone hurts... and God wants us to help each other.  But to twist that into a justification for murder is to wrest the scriptures to your own destruction. 

In the scriptures God uses suffering to teach and to test.  Take for example Hebrews 5

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Scriptural proof that Christ learned by suffering..  We can and do so to...

Then there is the testing side of it.  A scripture for this is in the D&C 121 :

7 My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment;

8 And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.

Mortality is a small moment (even if it feels longer) and the promise is great for enduring well.

Many people can testify to these promises.  Many here have suffered greatly, but once they past through the refiners fire they see the promised blessing and good that God has pulled from it.

Yes the child might have a hard life and suffer, and yes God commands us to help.  But to use that command to justify murder is such a wrest in such a way that it would be comical if the situation was no so serious.  We have no idea what God can do with that child and what the child suffer, but he can do miracles.

Yes the mother to be might have a hard life and suffer (even if she does not give birth to the child this can still be true), and yes God commands us to help.  But again murder is not justified in the eyes of God. God can work miracles here as well if the Mother lets him.

One final point... if the goal is to reduce suffering ask yourself.. what suffering will be greater?  The mother struggling in mortality with a child she was not ready for.  Or the mother standing before the judgment bar of God with the blood of her innocent child on her hands?  When you answer that question honestly you have the answer of the direction your mercy should go.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Yes the mother to be might have a hard life and suffer (even if she does not give birth to the child this can still be true), and yes God commands us to help.  But again murder is not justified in the eyes of God. God can work miracles here as well if the Mother lets him.

You still haven't answered the following:  

So, from a pro-life standpoint, what is the best solution?

If someone gets pregnant and she neither parents want the child, should she be forced to carry the child and then as soon as it is born,  should she then be forced to give it up for adoption either by the State Government or the Federal Government?  Who is going to force her to give birth and force the adoption (if that is the solution). 

What is your answer?  

 

[Vort]

17 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LePeel, my apologizes that you got drawn into the middle of this.    I have asked Vort to agree to disagree . . .  

Um...

It was YOU, @LiterateParakeet, who claimed that @LePeel implied something that LePeel himself disclaims. If anyone drew him into the discussion, it was you when you made the accusation.

17 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Logically, I just can't accept that he when he expressly said "both" (meaning the Liberals and the Conservatives,) and then also mentioned the Republican party, that he wasn't thinking of conservatives or Republicans.

In other words: "Logically, I just can't accept that LePeel is telling the truth about his own motivation."

17 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Nothing is settled here except that as I said before you and I are at an impasse.

On the contrary, at least two things are settled:

• LePeel disclaims implying any such thing as you claimed he did.
• You openly refuse to believe LePeel's own words that he didn't mean what you claim he meant.

You started this whole subthread back on page 5, where you claimed:

On 8/3/2018 at 10:13 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

@anatess2 and @Vort you are both missing the point.  LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not.  My point was that neither follows the Proclamation.

My response was that you were mistaken; LePeel made no such claim. You have now spent three pages arguing that he did in fact make that claim -- even when he specifically denied any such thing.

This is not a simple difference of opinion where we just have to agree to disagree. This is an obvious point of truth or falsehood, provable by reference to the thread itself.

After your accusation about LePeel's meaning, I asked him to clarify. His response was that he didn't have conservatives in mind at all -- in other words, that you were wrong. Your response? Effectively, "LePeel doesn't know what he really meant. Only I do." This is appalling, much worse than just outright calling him a liar.

(Funny enough, it's also a typical tactic of leftist discourse -- that they, and only they, really understand the nuances of conversation, such that they can gainsay the testimony of a speaker by just stating that they know his meaning better than he does. In such a case, no one can prevail in a discussion with a liberal, because their claims are always true by default.)

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, Scott said:

You still haven't answered the following:  

So, from a pro-life standpoint, what is the best solution?

If someone gets pregnant and she neither parents want the child, should she be forced to carry the child and then as soon as it is born,  should she then be forced to give it up for adoption either by the State Government or the Federal Government?  Who is going to force her to give birth and force the adoption (if that is the solution). 

What is your answer?  

 

Your questions are so loaded and full of presumption it is not even funny.

No one forces her to do anything thing.  Murdering your unborn child is not a right (or we are arguing that it shouldn't be). So we don't allow that to happen (that is not force, that is removing an option.  Like it was for hundreds and thousands of years before Roe vs Wade [and yes I know that means there will be black market options for abortion]). Beyond that the mother has her freedom.

She then gets to do what every single one of us has to do when faced with only options we do not like.  Make the best of things.  Because everyone is an individual there is no ONE BEST SOLUTION.  And absolutely I do not want the government to be "forcing" one.  She can choose to keep the child, or she can give the child up for adoption, or she can try the black market and hope the law (or shoddy medicine) does not catch up with her. What ever she thinks is her best option.

Now if you personally prefer one of those "child lives" options, then set up or join a support network that encouraged your preferred method.  That way you can help persuade to mother to what ever option you think is best (again assuming you have one)

The fact that we as a society are willing to allow the murder of our unborn is probably the biggest thing we as a group stand condemned before the Lord for.

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

She can choose to keep the child, or she can give the child up for adoption, or she can try the black market and hope the law (or shoddy medicine) does not catch up with her. What ever she thinks is her best option.

Yes, she can do all of those things and should do one of the first two.  I still don't see assure that someone will choose those options.

I agree that those are the best options.  

And, no that question wasn't meant to be loaded.   I have seen way too much child abuse to not take such situations lightly.  

Quote

Now if you personally prefer one of those "child lives" options, then set up or join a support network that encouraged your preferred method.  That way you can help persuade to mother to what ever option you think is best (again assuming you have one)

Until a few years ago, LDS Family Services used to do all that and to help with adoptions directly.  That's who we were working with when we were going to do an adoption.

They (sadly) don't do direct adoptions anymore, but they have an adoption site that helps with the process by marching prospective parents with those who want to give a child out for the adoption:

 https://adoption.com/lds

So anyone that is a member of the LDS church already supports such a support network, even if they don't think about it.   It is already set up.   They also cater to everyone, not just the LDS.

Abortion rates, at least in the US are decreasing dramatically, even though they are legal.  Access to birth control is part of it, but so are support services.

So yes, get the word out about such services.  

The only person I know of who has had an abortion (at least the only person who told me she had one), didn't really want to get one, but she was scared of being pregnant and having a baby all alone since her partner didn't want the baby and she was afraid that her family would ostracize her if she found out she was pregnant.  

Rather than condemning those who are thinking of an abortion, we should be loving, understanding, and supportive of her.  Tell her about support groups such as LDS Family Services that help with adoption.   Love her even though she made mistakes.

Support organizations an policies that will help care for an unwanted child, or a child that the parents aren't ready to raise yet.

In many cases, this will be a lot more effective than calling those who might be thinking of an abortion anti-Christ, murders, etc.

At the risk of being called an anti-Christ on this forum, I'd also say that better access to birth control would also help prevent abortions.

And for the record, I myself never had pre-marital or extra marital sex and my 25th anniversary is next week.    Still, I try not to judge people who have different ideas/morals on pre-martial sex because I haven't found it to be productive.  It's perfectly OK to express your own beliefs on morals, but expecting others to agree with them never works and taking the position of the "Holier than Thou" ideal is never effective. 

It's better to be supportive and non-judgmental.  

Post that call all liberals (or conservatives) anti-Christ or whatever are one of the reasons why a lot of people don't want to go to Church.  I'm sure most people who have served in higher positions at the Ward level can confirm this.   

[estradling75]

42 minutes ago, Scott said:

Rather than condemning those who are thinking of an abortion, we should be loving, understanding, and supportive of her.  Tell her about support groups such as LDS Family Services that help with adoption.   Love her even though she made mistakes.

 

Way to move the goal post...  We have been talking about LAW and what the legal system should do/allow.  And the law should view it as murder or akin there of.

We were not talking how individuals should respond... and we already know that answer... Christ-like love support and encouragement to do the right things.

47 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's better to be supportive and non-judgmental.  

Post that call all liberals (or conservatives) anti-Christ or whatever are one of the reasons why a lot of people don't want to go to Church.  I'm sure most people who have served in higher positions at the Ward level can confirm this.   

It would be nice if you were supportive and non-judgmental... but you keep judging  me and accusing  me of horrible things... Like the loaded question on government "Forcing Women" into set actions.  Or that some how we do not know how I should behave when faced with someone struggling with the issue in a personal manner (rather then the abstract as presented in this thread)

And I most definably did not call anyone an anti-Christ.  I did state that I was confident that God would view abortion as murder, so anyone that is considering it or supporting it better be absolutely sure they are ready to face that (or that I am wrong and God views it differently).  And that is not a condemnation...That is a basic warning of danger.

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

 We have been talking about LAW and what the legal system should do/allow. 

That was the question I was asking, though I was also asking the how.

Quote

And the law should view it as murder or akin there of.

What should the punishment be then?   Should it be charged the same as 1st degree murder?  This isn't a loaded question and I won't argue with your answer.

Quote

but you keep judging  me and accusing  me of horrible things... Like the loaded question on government "Forcing Women" into set actions. 

It was a question, not an accusation or judgement.  Why do you think the question is loaded?    I believe that you did answer the question as well. 

Quote

And I most definably did not call anyone an anti-Christ.

No, you did not.  I wasn't referring to you.  I was referring to things that have been said in this thread.  

Edited August 5, 2018 by Scott

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Vort so you want me and anyone else reading this to accept that even though LePeel said Republicans, he was not actually speaking of Republicans?  

What kind of logic is that?  

7 hours ago, Vort said:

This is not a simple difference of opinion where we just have to agree to disagree. This is an obvious point of truth or falsehood, provable by reference to the thread itself.

Yeah the obvious point is that  he said Republicans, THEN said he wasn't speaking of Republicans.  I quoted his post for you.  I don't know how much clearer I can make this. 

[Vort]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort so you want me and anyone else reading this to accept that even though LePeel said Republicans, he was not actually speaking of Republicans?  

@LePeel did not say "Republicans" in the statement you took issue to. That is a blatant, provable untruth. And he specifically disclaimed having conservatives or Republicans in mind when he made the statement about the Proclamation on the Family violating leftist principles, as you accused him of.

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yeah the obvious point is that  he said Republicans, THEN said he wasn't speaking of Republicans.  I quoted his post for you.  I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

On the contrary, I have meticulously laid out for you the thread of conversation. This includes the following two important points:

• You insist that LePeel said what he very clearly did not say. Specifically, you wrote, "LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family", a blatant falsehood. He made no such claim in this or any other thread.
• You accuse him of implying the above when he denies implying any such thing -- in effect, you call him a liar.

Perhaps you really do not understand what it means to "imply" versus to "infer". You accused LePeel of making an implication that he did not make, then waved him off when he disclaimed your accusation. Perhaps what really happened is that you wrongly inferred that he meant that conservatives perfectly follow the Proclamation on the Family. But that's on you, not him. He SAID nothing like that, and he has stated that he IMPLIED nothing like that. So either LePeel is lying/confused about his own meaning, as you claim, or else you INFERRED LePeel's meaning and refuse to accept his statement that you are wrong.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Vort

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

@LePeel did not say "Republicans" in the statement you took issue to. That is a blatant, provable untruth. And he specifically disclaimed having conservatives or Republicans in mind when he made the statement about the Proclamation on the Family violating leftist principles, as you accused him of.

On the contrary, I have meticulously laid out for you the thread of conversation. This includes the following two important points:

• You insist that LePeel said what he very clearly did not say. Specifically, you wrote, "LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family", a blatant falsehood. He made no such claim in this or any other thread.
• You accuse him of implying the above when he denies implying any such thing -- in effect, you call him a liar.

Perhaps you really do not understand what it means to "imply" versus to "infer". You accused LePeel of making an implication that he did not make, then waved him off when he disclaimed your accusation. Perhaps what really happened is that you wrongly inferred that he meant that conservatives perfectly follow the Proclamation on the Family. But that's on you, not him. He SAID nothing like that, and he has stated that he IMPLIED nothing like that. So either LePeel is lying/confused about his own meaning, as you claim, or else you INFERRED LePeel's meaning and refuse to accept his statement that you are wrong.

Once again, I disagree.   I quoted the post in question for you. I've explained my position, which has not changed.  What else can I say?   

Edited August 5, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

That was the question I was asking, though I was also asking the how.

What should the punishment be then?   Should it be charged the same as 1st degree murder?  This isn't a loaded question and I won't argue with your answer.

Time for a history lesson.

Before Roe vs Wade...  Abortion restriction/penalties etc. were decided at the State and Local level.  This in some cases made it legal in one state but not another.

With Roe vs Wade... the morality of abortion was imposed at the Federal Level.  This is the power of the Supreme Count (and Congress and the Office of President)  which is why they are such a big deal.  What the states wanted no longer mattered.

I have a strong stance on the the issue of Abortion (clearly) but I am also a Conservative which means I do not want the Federal Government reaching beyond certain limits even if it were to impose my morality.  Thus I am wanting Roe vs Wade to be removed and nothing put in its place at the Federal Level. (Anyone who wishes the Supreme Court to Flip from allow to deny has shown by such they are not truly conservative)

This will once again let the states handle it.  Each state will do things differently as they always have historically.  I can't tell you what they might do. If one is truly interested one could research the historical positions and laws the states have had on the issue.  This might answer your question of what it might become.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

(Anyone who wishes the Supreme Court to Flip from allow to deny has shown by such they are not truly [politically] conservative)

...For clarification. One could be morally conservative and still want murder to be federally denied.

[unixknight]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...For clarification. One could be morally conservative and still want murder to be federally denied.

Except that what @estradling75 is saying here is that Constitutional law is a Conservative value.  So abortion, not being something the Federal Government is explicitly empowered to deal with in the Constitution, is something that needs to be handled at the state level, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

[anatess2]

On 8/4/2018 at 8:54 PM, Scott said:

You still haven't answered the following:  

So, from a pro-life standpoint, what is the best solution?

If someone gets pregnant and she neither parents want the child, should she be forced to carry the child and then as soon as it is born,  should she then be forced to give it up for adoption either by the State Government or the Federal Government?  Who is going to force her to give birth and force the adoption (if that is the solution). 

What is your answer?  

 

Here's the answer - whatever responsibility of care is needed for a 1-second-old baby is  the same responsibility of care needed for a fetus.  If the mother can't shed the responsibility to another, she holds that responsibility until she can.  This is not "forcing somebody to ... ".  This is bearing responsibility.

Who is going to force the mother to give birth?  Nobody.  She bears that choice on her own.  Each choice comes with consequences.  We can talk about consequences (what goes after "punishable by...") after you agree that the US Constitution recognizes a fetus - the weakest of us who cannot defend themselves against their oppressors - as a person and is, therefore, under obligation for its legal protection.  This eliminates your proposition that the solution to an abused person is to kill the person so he won't suffer - something one would do to one's horse.

Edited August 6, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This eliminates your proposition that the solution to an abused child is to kill the child so he won't suffer - something one would do to one's horse.

Yeah I can't get my head around the bizarre argument that somehow abortion = euthanasia on a baby there's nothing wrong with.

[estradling75]

16 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...For clarification. One could be morally conservative and still want murder to be federally denied.

Yes I was meaning politically conservative.  I am willing to grant that one might be morally conservative and not politically conservative.  And realistically people are more complicated then a simple label might suggest.  For example they can be morally and politically conservative, and yet in one instance go a different way... People are complicated like that.

As for laws against Murder we have them... so... done.  The problem is not that we do not have laws against murder, but rather we have a ruling (Roe vs Wade) that basically says a Fetus is not human.  If you are not human it is not murder to kill you.  Thus the reason earlier in the thread we say we need to define what is human.

Now it seems possible that the up and coming Supreme Court will over turn Roe vs Wade (to some degree or another).  But it is very unlikely that they will put down an abortion ban... because that would be a job for Congress (if it is going to happen on the national level).  The morally conservative might like that, the politically conservative would not because that is a battle to have on the state level rather then on the federal level.  Doing not only the right thing, but doing it the right way, is for me the hallmark of what being conservative is about (Politically, Morally, and any other prefix you might think of)

[anatess2]

@LiterateParakeet, so here's a good article on how the thing I most don't like about the Right is currently getting stamped out of the Republican Party.  So, the Republicans are getting better.  Unfortunately, the Democrats are currently making their problems worse because their old guard are still manning the gates and their youthful leadership are going full speed fascists.  It's going to take a while for the Democrats to be healthy again.  In the meantime, the Left is dragged to the mud as these fascists control the propaganda machine.  Which is another funny American thing - the extreme left are fascists, which in the rest of the world is defined as extreme right.  Makes the labels even more confusing.  And the Nazi's are the fascist socialists - which in the USA are on the left - but it is the Left that calls the Right Nazi's.  Yeah, not quite sure if that's just the failure of American public education or just willful incompetence.

http://buchanan.org/blog/the-never-trumpers-are-never-coming-back-129609

[unixknight]

On 8/6/2018 at 2:19 PM, anatess2 said:

@LiterateParakeet, so here's a good article on how the thing I most don't like about the Right is currently getting stamped out of the Republican Party.  So, the Republicans are getting better.  Unfortunately, the Democrats are currently making their problems worse because their old guard are still manning the gates and their youthful leadership are going full speed fascists.  It's going to take a while for the Democrats to be healthy again.  In the meantime, the Left is dragged to the mud as these fascists control the propaganda machine.  Which is another funny American thing - the extreme left are fascists, which in the rest of the world is defined as extreme right.  Makes the labels even more confusing.  And the Nazi's are the fascist socialists - which in the USA are on the left - but it is the Left that calls the Right Nazi's.  Yeah, not quite sure if that's just the failure of American public education or just willful incompetence.

http://buchanan.org/blog/the-never-trumpers-are-never-coming-back-129609

Around here, Nazis are most often considered right wing because of the association between right wing politics an authoritarianism.  I think the illusion that the left can't be authoritarian is beginning to crack at last.

Either side, when taken to an extreme, tends toward authoritarian behavior.  That's what we're seeing on the extreme end of the left right now.  That's why balance is necessary.

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Around here, Nazis are most often considered right wing because of the association between right wing politics an authoritarianism.  I think the illusion that the left can't be authoritarian is beginning to crack at last.

Either side, when taken to an extreme, tends toward authoritarian behavior.  That's what we're seeing on the extreme end of the left right now.  That's why balance is necessary.

In the US, you can't end up in authoritarianism being on the right.  Conservatives preserve the Constitution.  Therefore, at the extreme right is an extreme originalist reading of the US Constitution - which is a government limiting law.  Being on the extreme right would be like - originalist reading of the 2nd amendment which means, there should be NO LAW banning firearms - so the government can't ban machine guns.  It's pretty hard to be authoritarian when the people is given that kind of power.  The left, on the other hand, works to weaken the Constitution - weakening the limits on government.  That's why the left leads to authoritarianism in the USA.

Anywhere without the US Constitution (or similar) being the law of the land, the right preserves the law that has no limits.  The left wrests more power to the people to be free from that authority.  So the right leads to authoritarianism, the left can't.

In the USA, the US Constitution is actually where balance is.  Not between the left and the right.  That's why people like the Bush's or McCain are considered non-conservative even as they sit in the Republican Party.  They're right there at the middle kissing the left.  That's not where balance is.

P.S.  The election of Trump changed the political language worldwide.  Now Europe and Asia are starting to change their language from the classic definitions to the American definitions.  It's getting super confusing.

Edited August 7, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In the US, you can't end up in authoritarianism being on the right.  Conservatives preserve the Constitution.  Therefore, at the extreme right is an extreme originalist reading of the US Constitution

While I wish that were true, it has not always been so.  Authoritarian efforts by the left have driven conservatism to a greater awareness of the Constitution, recently but I am old enough to remember when it was the religious right vs. The ACLU over indecency laws relating to adult media and art.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

While I wish that were true, it has not always been so.  Authoritarian efforts by the left have driven conservatism to a greater awareness of the Constitution, recently but I am old enough to remember when it was the religious right vs. The ACLU over indecency laws relating to adult media and art.

Then those religious right were headed left-wards, not right-wards.  Because the end-result of those actions would be a Constitutional Change for bigger government.  A liberal action against the Constitution.

This is why things get confusing in the USA.  The labels just get all screwy because the law of the land gives power to the people.  So the right leads to people power... nowhere else in the world is it like that except for the good ol' US of A.  And that's why it's easy for me to believe that the US Constitution is divinely inspired.

Edited August 7, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Then those religious right were headed left-wards, not right-wards.  Because the end-result of those actions would be a Constitutional Change for bigger government.  A liberal action.

This is why things get confusing in the USA.  The labels just get all screwy.

If your definition is right=Constitution by default then yeah, but that's not the way Conservatism defines itself by default.  Republicans are notorious for calling for smaller Government unless they're the ones in power.  The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and expanded military are all actions done by Republicans and are rarely complained about by conservatives.

In that sense, Trump is doing well by Constitutional originalists in that he actually IS shrinking Government...  but we know it wouldn't have been that way if, say, Cruz had been elected.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

If your definition is right=Constitution by default then yeah, but that's not the way Conservatism defines itself by default.  Republicans are notorious for calling for smaller Government unless they're the ones in power.  The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and expanded military are all actions done by Republicans and are rarely complained about by conservatives.

In that sense, Trump is doing well by Constitutional originalists in that he actually IS shrinking Government...  but we know it wouldn't have been that way if, say, Cruz had been elected.

That's not "MY" definition.  That's THE definition of Conservative.  Conservative preserves the law/authority and is resistant to change.  Liberal is the opposite.

Republicans like Abraham Lincoln were Conservatives - so much so that they waged war against the South to demand adherence to the Law.  But just because you're Republican doesn't mean you're Conservative or even on the Right.

DHS and Patriot Act are under the umbrella of National Defense.  National Defense is a Constitutional authority granted to the office of the President of the USA as his PRIMARY PURPOSE for existence.  So Conservatives are always going to side with National Defense as a primary function of the Federal Government - the more  Right you go, the more you're going to place National Defense and Interstate Commerce as the ONLY purpose of the Federal Government, shedding all the other non-Constitutionally provided responsibilities like Federal Oversight of Education or Federally Managed Social Welfare. 

Of course, just because laws like the Patriot Act are for National Defense doesn't mean it's Constitutional.  The Patriot Act was a reactionary law to 9/11 passed by the majority of Republicans AND Democrats.  It was definitely not passed under the auspices of Conservatism.  Hence, Conservative Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul, et. al., fought against the Patriot Act as an infringement of the limits of government.  Congress replaced the Patriot Act with US Freedom Act which removes its un-Constitutional provisions in a deeply divided Republican majority.

Cruz is actually another Constitutionalist.  That's why he was left duking with Trump in the primaries.  The 2016 Republican Primaries was the result of Conservatives wresting the reigns of the Republican Party from its non-Conservative leadership leaving people like Jeb and Rubio in the dust.  2008/2012 was a deep disappointment for Conservatives who pushed behind Ron Paul and got beaten by globalists McCain and Romney.  Trump won against Cruz as people decided they'd rather have a guy who can't spell Conservative but instinctively decides on Conservative principles rather than a guy who can write the book on the definition of Conservative.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's not "MY" definition.  That's THE definition of Conservative.  Conservative preserves the law/authority and is resistant to change.  Liberal is the opposite.

I used the word 'your' here generically.  For some, that's the definition of Conservatism, and these days it tends to be true.  30 years ago it was the Liberals claiming to be more closely aligned with the Constitution, and in some ways they were right.

 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Republicans like Abraham Lincoln were Conservatives - so much so that they waged war against the South to demand adherence to the Law.  But just because you're Republican doesn't mean you're Conservative or even on the Right.

Lincoln is a bad example here.  Historians debate the question of whether Lincoln's actions during the Civil War, such as suspending habias corpus or imposing martial law in Maryland to prevent the state assembly from voting for secession were Constitutional.  Conservative, yes.  As conservatives valued the preservation of the Union and opposed slavery, but Constitutional.... eh.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

DHS and Patriot Act are under the umbrella of National Defense.  National Defense is a Constitutional authority granted to the office of the President of the USA as his PRIMARY PURPOSE for existence.  So Conservatives are always going to side with National Defense as a primary function of the Federal Government - the more  Right you go, the more you're going to place National Defense and Interstate Commerce as the ONLY purpose of the Federal Government, shedding all the other non-Constitutionally provided responsibilities like Federal Oversight of Education or Federally Managed Social Welfare.

One can do a million things and justify it by calling it part of that umbrella. Look at a few of Obama's abuses for more examples, like wanting an Internet kill switch or expanding the Patriot Act to allow for military power to be used against American citizens.  Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and for Libertarians, the phrase "Department of Homeland Security" sounds uncomfortably close to terms like "MInistry of Love."

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Of course, just because laws like the Patriot Act are for National Defense doesn't mean it's Constitutional.  The Patriot Act was a reactionary law to 9/11 passed by the majority of Republicans AND Democrats.  It was definitely not passed under the auspices of Conservatism.  Hence, Conservative Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul, et. al., fought against the Patriot Act as an infringement of the limits of government.  Congress replaced the Patriot Act with US Freedom Act which removes its un-Constitutional provisions in a deeply divided Republican majority.

First of all, however it was passed, its legacy is such that only Conservatives defend it, and it's been that way for a long time.  The Pauls are Libertarians who ran as Republicans, and no, the Republican party doesn't get credit for their actions when even conservatives sometimes refer to the Pauls, especially Ron, as being nuts.  I heard a good bit of that in 2008 when Ron Paul was seeking the Republican nomination.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Cruz is actually another Constitutionalist.  That's why he was left duking with Trump in the primaries.  The 2016 Republican Primaries was the result of Conservatives wresting the reigns of the Republican Party from its non-Conservative leadership leaving people like Jeb and Rubio in the dust.  2008/2012 was a deep disappointment for Conservatives who pushed behind Ron Paul and got beaten by globalists McCain and Romney.  Trump won against Cruz as people decided they'd rather have a guy who can't spell Conservative but instinctively decides on Conservative principles rather than a guy who can write the book on the definition of Conservative.

That's the whole point.  Cruz made an effort to push back against Government expansion but he lost the nomination because people didn't  believe he had the guts to actually push it as President.  That's the  Republican party in a nutshell.  Promise lots of Libertarian sounding ideas and then act like a Democrat once in office.  The most recent example before Trump: Bush, who never used his veto power a single time, even when a Democrat Congress was running amok and growing the Government - and the national debt. I liked Cruz and supported him for the nomination, but my expectations in the area of shrinking the Government weren't high.