Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Your rational explanation of why you support Tweety is that he is an authentic conservative, that’s hysterical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say Trump was an authentic conservative? When did I even claim to have an idea of what an authentic conservative is supposed to be? I have often, if not usually, put quotes around "conservative" when I use the word because I don't have a solid understanding of a politically conservative philosophy. Same with "liberal." I certainly don't consider Democrats and their agenda to be liberal in any meaningful definition of the word outside of politics. And in politics it's just a phrase meaning to the left of some undefined "center," or the opposition to "conservative," whatever that is.
I have said that Trump has governed more conservatively than most recent Republican Presidents. But that was just a lazy, convenient use of the word as it is commonly used. If you think that's hysterical, tell me how so. I'm open to being corrected from some faulty notion, one that I admit, I picked up from so-called "conservative" commentators.
In any case, it doesn't concern me in terms of why I "support" him in the next election. I am not supporting him because of him, not because of whatever ism he is. As I have said many, many times, in case you haven't noticed, for me it is not about Trump or Biden. It is about stopping our march toward an unlimited Progressive regulatory, administrative state. One which will first de facto completely replace our constitutionally limited government system (which, BTW, it has already partially, even greatly, replaced) with its own unconstitutional regulatory agencies. Then it will ultimately replace it de jure by continued progressive interpretation of the Constitution, along with the ultimate actual rewriting, and/or replacement of the Constitution with its own preferred unlimited system of government.
Many, or most, Republicans have acted progressively or are actual Progressives. As I've said, we have been trending in that direction for a hundred years. But there are still enough folks around who oppose that, whether philosophically or unconsciously by dint of their notion of "rights" and some familiarity with the often referred to bill of rights, or some familial or other tradition to which they adhere.
But any meaningful difference between the Dems and Repubs is some residual, latent, adherence to the idea of constitutionally limited government in the Repubs, and the overwhelming desire at the core of the Progressive agenda to be in total power, to be rid of checks and balances, to not have any impediments to what they consider good government regardless of what some "outdated" parchment says.