to libs who think conservatives are inventing issue of sexualizing kids in scho

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You want to ban "conservativism" because you really, really, really hate it. But you do love using the expansion of the particular into the general propaganda trick.

banning pornography = banning books, right out of Orwell.

but liberals banning To Kill A Mockingbird is ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You want to ban "conservativism" because you really, really, really hate it. But you do love using the expansion of the particular into the general propaganda trick.

The irony is that conservative principles are actually the antidote to Trumpism. Trumpism violates norms, upends US institutions, destabilizes the transfer of power, treats corruption as a spoil of office & abuses gov’t power to punish domestic enemies. It conserves nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The irony is that conservative principles are actually the antidote to Trumpism. Trumpism violates norms, upends US institutions, destabilizes the transfer of power, treats corruption as a spoil of office & abuses gov’t power to punish domestic enemies. It conserves nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the reasons I put "conservative" or "conservatism" in quotes is that it depends on who is defining what the principles of it are. Their are various and numerous definitions. It is what you want it to be.

Here is one defining list of principals for political "conservatism" provided by Congressman Mike Johnson--the rule of law, limited government, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity. Trump has abided by the laws until proven otherwise. He is far more for limited government than Progressives and you are.He certainly provided for American strength, he was typically fiscally responsible/irresponsible with government spending, he was more free market oriented then Progressives (even his China tariffs were an attempt to free up Trade for American products with China), and he valued human dignity more than Progressivism would, as in: "Because all men are created equal and in the image of God, every human life has inestimable dignity and value, and every person should be measured only by the content of their character. A just government protects life, honors marriage and family as the primary institutions of a healthy society, and embraces the vital cultural influences of religion and morality. Public policy should always encourage education and emphasize the virtue of hard work as a pathway out of-poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for those who are truly in need. In America, everyone who plays by the rules should get a fair shot. By preserving these ideals, we will maintain the goodness of America that has been the secret to our greatness."

"Norms" have a bit of the same problem. Whose "norms"? Yours? Your political norm says that conservatism leads to tyranny.

Progressivism has been "upending," as you put it, U.S. institutions far more effectively than you think Trump has since it began gripping power.

The transfer of power has been stable, regardless of complaints and demonstrations. It's a politicized red herring to claim that Trump destabilized it, or that there is some principle of "Trumpism" to destabilize the transfer of power.

Corruption as a spoil of office and using government power to "punish" anyone, including domestic enemies are nothing new or uncommon or particularly "Trumpist." Progressives are no more pure in office than anyone else. Actually, they are pretty efficient at "punishing" their enemies.

I don't know if I am a "conservative." I have not labeled myself. Except possibly to the degree that I want to conserve many of our founding principles, especially the protection of individual liberty protected by our constitutional order.

Progressivism seeks to change that order, and create a central State that controls every aspect of our lives, dictating exactly what our rights as individuals are depending on the current whims of elitist "experts." It seems to me that you would prefer such a State.

[Pete F.]

It really is just a question of whether you believe that government should be: (A) competent, efficient and non-intrusive, or (B) discredited and ultimately destroyed.

Conservatives have always straddled between A and B. Trump just ended the straddle and went all B.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It really is just a question of whether you believe that government should be: (A) competent, efficient and non-intrusive, or (B) discredited and ultimately destroyed.

Conservatives have always straddled between A and B. Trump just ended the straddle and went all B.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most forms of government can be (A). The NAZIs were very competent and efficient.

All governments are (B). Our constitutional republican form is one of the least intrusive. Progressivism is far more intrusive than our founded constitutional order.

Your choice of what "It really is just a question of" doesn't value freedom or individual liberty or unalienable rights as part of the question. Which is right in line with Progressivism. Probably because Freedom, individual liberty, and unalienable rights mess with the efficiency of government. That's actually one of the reasons Progressivism doesn't embrace those values. Authoritarian forms of government consider it right and competent when the ruling elite "experts" distribute whatever rights it deems efficiently workable in and through the governing system they impose.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Most forms of government can be (A). The NAZIs were very competent and efficient.

All governments are (B). Our constitutional republican form is one of the least intrusive. Progressivism is far more intrusive than our founded constitutional order.

Your choice of what "It really is just a question of" doesn't value freedom or individual liberty or unalienable rights as part of the question. Which is right in line with Progressivism. Probably because Freedom, individual liberty, and unalienable rights mess with the efficiency of government. That's actually one of the reasons Progressivism doesn't embrace those values. Authoritarian forms of government consider it right and competent when the ruling elite "experts" distribute whatever rights it deems efficiently workable in and through the governing system they impose.

You always seem confused about what you think the founders thought and where we are close to 250 years later.

As in what books, marriages, speech and religions are allowable?
Qualified immunity for police so they can be above the law?
Government control of corporate decisions as in Floriduh?
Political parties having control of government?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You always seem confused about what you think the founders thought and where we are close to 250 years later.

As in what books, marriages, speech and religions are allowable?
Qualified immunity for police so they can be above the law?
Government control of corporate decisions as in Floriduh?
Political parties having control of government?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I am confused about is your point.

[Pete F.]

You keep claiming to have the simple answers, meanwhile your party had years to pass an alternative to “Obamacare”
Never did it
Had years to pas an infrastructure bill
Never did it
Had years to change the status in the Middle East
Never did it
Governing isn’t attacking the other side.
Governing is getting #^&#^&#^&#^& done.
The Trumplicans or Christian Dominionists are not a governing party, because they’re all about power and it’s not that they're particularly religious really--they just want to use belief as a means to force a restrictive society in which they are on top and they can go after people they dislike.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You keep claiming to have the simple answers,

Your lack of specificity leaves no basis for a reply.
WTF are you talking about?

meanwhile your party

It's not my party. It's the lesser (much lesser) of two evils.

had years to pass an alternative to “Obamacare”
Never did it

I don't want an alternative. I don't want the federal government mandating any form of health care. If the people want government health care it should be left to the individual states and their citizens to concoct it.

Had years to pas an infrastructure bill
Never did it

Party politics is a b*tch. I would like the federal government to pass a whole lot less bills. Passing bills is an area that I want the fed to get a lot less "done." If the need for a bill that the fed is constitutionally responsible for is really needed, ALL parties should get together and make it so.

Had years to change the status in the Middle East
Never did it

The status in the Middle East is ever changing and it is not the sole responsibility of American government to dictate the change. Several administrations of both parties claimed they had "solved" something there that they actually didn't. I assume by change there you mean make it better there for the US. I don't think that's doable until the people of the Middle East have a major change in their culture and religion. Unless you want us to go in there like the Communists and other dictatorial, authoritarian, despotic regimes have done throughout history and just destroy those countries and "nation build."

Governing isn’t attacking the other side.
Governing is getting #^&#^&#^&#^& done.

Depends on the type of government. Our constitutional system is geared to leaving most of the "getting things done" in the hands of the people first, their local and state governments responding to the people's will second, and a distant third to the federal government taking care of the very limited responsibilities given to it in the constitution.

Your authoritarian Progressive idea of government getting things done is the federal or some central government authority lording over the entire country and telling us what needs to "get done." And spending exorbitant amounts of money, and creating scads of regulatory agencies and thousands of bills to "get done" stuff whether the people want it or need it or could do it better at local levels. And getting the entire country constantly into greater unsustainable debt. And leaving less and less room, in the midst of this constant getting things done, for the people's expression of their once unalienable rights.

The Trumplicans or Christian Dominionists are not a governing party, because they’re all about power and it’s not that they're particularly religious really--they just want to use belief as a means to force a restrictive society in which they are on top and they can go after people they dislike.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Christians and Theists never wanted to be an earthly, secular, governing party. They did want a society in which they were free to practice their religion and godly beliefs. That's one of the main reasons they created a governing document that made sacrosanct all the individual rights that they did not grant government power over.

PeteFicans see that as an impediment to competent and efficient government, and see centralized authoritarian government as the solution to whatever ails us--and "as a means to force a restrictive society in which they are on top and they can go after people they dislike"--and so much more. That is the efficient, competent, beauty of the Progressive way.

And what does all that nonsense have to do with your point in "You always seem confused about what you think the founders thought and where we are close to 250 years later.

As in what books, marriages, speech and religions are allowable?
Qualified immunity for police so they can be above the law?
Government control of corporate decisions as in Floriduh?
Political parties having control of government?"

I still don't see whatever point you were making with that unhinged cluster of words.

[Pete F.]

Not very observant are you
There’s a party that wants to control books that are allowed, who’s allowed to marry, what’s acceptable speech and what religions are permissible.
Supports qualified immunity.
Thinks that financial retribution is appropriate reaction to criticism of a political act.
And as McConnell said, one party places itself above country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not very observant are you
There’s a party that wants to control books that are allowed,

I don't know which party wants to control books or not allow books. As far as which books are in public schools, that's a local issue, and rightly so. I don't know which party or which constituents in our various local districts throughout the US would allow every and any book in their public school systems. And selectivity of books has always been part of our public and private school systems.

I would guess that Democrat or Progressive school systems would not allow books that had anti-lgbtqetc. content, among others.

who’s allowed to marry,

Don't know which party prescribes who can marry. Their are differences in legal conceptions of what marriage is.
For purposes of supporting and sustaining the birth of children in order to be able to generate and maintain society, specified requirements were created by our government(s). It was taken for granted that a union of a man and a woman was needed to create children. Now, of course, men can be women, so the distinction no longer seems to be necessary as, no doubt, men who identify as women can menstruate and so must be able to have babies. Progressives, as you see, follow the science.

In any case, it was not a party issue whether any two or more people could have some ceremony that says they are married. It simply wasn't a legally binding "marriage" and could not, if the brides and grooms were the same sex, tap into government resources which were meant to support child bearing.

Although I understand the child bearing argument, I don't think government, certainly not the federal government, should regulate marriage.

what’s acceptable speech

Concern for which party wants to decide what's acceptable speech coming from you is amazing. You have stated that conservatism should not be tolerated. That conservative speech should be ignored, not given any tolerance or consideration. And that point of view holds sway with our Progressive cancel culture which shouts down conservative speakers on campus, and the canceling is mostly backed by the Progressive university and college administrators. Conservative speech is more likely to be censored on social media. Anti-lgbtqetc. speech is not allowed in our public and higher education systems, or social media, or legacy media--most all of which are Progressive (Democrat). And Progressives definitely do not consider racist speech acceptable and they have made racism out of things that do not actually pertain to what used to be considered race. Almost everything for them can somehow be considered racial. Their pet Critical Race Theory centers race as the reason for all inequality in America.

In the case of "what's acceptable speech" part of the Progressive tactical procedure is to command the redefinition of societally critical words, such as racism--command the language and you command the discourse. Commanding what words mean and which words are acceptable will determine what acceptable speech is.


and what religions are permissible.

Progressivism, socialism, communism, and to a great extant if we are honest about it, the Democrat Party are anti-religion. As for conservatives, all religions are "permissible" so long as they do not espouse and encourage the destruction of our constitutional order. That would apply to any group, religious or not.

Supports qualified immunity.

Democrats certainly say they are against it more than Republicans do.

Thinks that financial retribution is appropriate reaction to criticism of a political act.

It could well be, depending on the circumstances. Of course, labeling it "financial retribution" could be inappropriate. And "criticism" of a political act could be more than that, it could be an attempt to sabotage the act, and the act could be supported by the people. And the critic/saboteur could be a giant corporation, an oligarch that influences government and people at all levels and benefits from Citizens United--which should make it a controller of government that you disapprove of.

And as McConnell said, one party places itself above country.

We know how you love McConnell.

[Pete F.]

Pres Trump: “We grew the conservative movement into a working people’s movement… And we are never ever going back… Our movement must continue to pursue a populist-nationalist economic agenda that puts working families before globalist politicians…”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You can always follow the money

Ron DeSantis has banned all K-5 math textbook publishers from the state of Florida except one: the company owned by fellow GOP governor Glenn Youngkin's private equity firm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You can always follow the money

Ron DeSantis has banned all K-5 math textbook publishers from the state of Florida except one: the company owned by fellow GOP governor Glenn Youngkin's private equity firm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently that was the only publisher that didn't have inappropriate content. Good choice.

[Pete F.]

The alleged conservatives here have claimed for years that the private sector does things better than government. Reedy Creek is a great example of this. Republicans have now abandoned that philosophy over their hurt feelings.
Locals joke when they cross over into Disney property how the roads are flawlessly smooth asphalt. “Why can’t Mickey take over I-4?”

Maybe Disney will secede from Floriduh, though since DeathSantis only won by 32,000 votes in 2018, there’s 80,000 Disney employees in Florida and 70,000 Floridians died of COVID…….I would guess they’ll let him be like Jafar and watch him turn himself into a Genie in a bottle

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Maybe Disney will secede from Floriduh

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Key West did in the early 80's....they still celebrate it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The alleged conservatives here have claimed for years that the private sector does things better than government. Reedy Creek is a great example of this. Republicans have now abandoned that philosophy over their hurt feelings.
Locals joke when they cross over into Disney property how the roads are flawlessly smooth asphalt. “Why can’t Mickey take over I-4?”

Maybe Disney will secede from Floriduh, though since DeathSantis only won by 32,000 votes in 2018, there’s 80,000 Disney employees in Florida and 70,000 Floridians died of COVID…….I would guess they’ll let him be like Jafar and watch him turn himself into a Genie in a bottle

]

Hypocrite anti-corporations-running-government Pete sides with huge corporation and gleefully suggesting it secedes and creates its own corporately run government. And he so deftly demonstrates how the private sector does things better than the government--even though he is in favor of authoritarian government "getting things done."

[Pete F.]

Yea, fascism works well

Gov. Greg Abbott's "enhanced" truck inspections turned up zero drugs or migrants, but cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.2 billion.
Delays resulted in $240 million in spoiled produce alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yea, fascism works well

Gov. Greg Abbott's "enhanced" truck inspections turned up zero drugs or migrants, but cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.2 billion.
Delays resulted in $240 million in spoiled produce alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not fascism. But you would probably prefer fascism.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yea, fascism works well

Gov. Greg Abbott's "enhanced" truck inspections turned up zero drugs or migrants, but cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.2 billion.
Delays resulted in $240 million in spoiled produce alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The conservatism of DeSantis and Abbott is perfectly recognizable. It’s not the American conservatism of Reagan to Romney (which may well prove an anomaly in the history of conservatism), it’s the European conservatism of the 1920s and early 1930s.

The $4.2 billion that Greg Abbott burned at the border could have fixed the Texas power grid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The conservatism of DeSantis and Abbott is perfectly recognizable. It’s not the American conservatism of Reagan to Romney (which may well prove an anomaly in the history of conservatism), it’s the European conservatism of the 1920s and early 1930s.

The quality or character of "conservatism" in different decades of American history changed with the social and political challenge that it faced in each era. The political persuasions of DeSantis and Abbot far more resemble Reagan and Romney's "conservatism" than that of Biden and the Dems.

My favorite 20th century "conservative" President was Coolidge. Reagan was close at number 2. They faced different qualities of Progressive leftism. Coolidge fought a Wilsonian Progressivism still somewhat linked to the Constitution and to traditional social and religious values. Reagan's nemesis was the more entrenched Progressivism of the "living, breathing" Constitution created by the FDR administration with its deep infiltration by the Communist Party, and a Democrat Party that had progressed much farther to the left of Wilsons and still had various roots in its FDR era ties to communism.

The "conservatives" of today are up against a thoroughly anti-constitutional, unlimited power Progressive from of government in the Democrat Party which still has ties with the Communist Party, and has created a regulatory system that favors the rise and dominance of both government and corporate centralization--and the symbiosis of both behemoths into a fascistic government, corporate, media, military complex that has a stranglehold on the governance of this country.

The struggle of "conservatism" today is preserving what is left of constitutional limitations on central power, and recovering, bit by bit, the constitutional power of state and local governments and the regrowth of individual unalienable rights that have withered through the onslaught of federally, unconstitutional, rights of centralized (collective) groups.

The comparison is more correctly between eras of "conservatism" in this country than between current American "conservatism" to various eras of European "conservatism" which is far more centralized on a national level than American "conservatism." DeSantis and Abbot "conservatism," whatever that may be, can only be expressed at state levels and may not reflect or even have a connection to national "conservatism" in terms of federal policy. The rise of a Hitler or Mussolini would be very difficult here. Nor even in Texas or Florida. I see no real connection between Abbot and DeSantis to Hitler.

Actually, the only way a totalitarian government can be implanted here is by scrapping the Constitution, or by "interpreting" it out of original existence into some authoritarian governing document, or just disregarding it. Any of those is precisely a goal of the Progressive agenda.


The $4.2 billion that Greg Abbott burned at the border could have fixed the Texas power grid.

30 trillion++ debt that the federal government has burned by overspending could have "fixed" a whole lot more than the Texas power grid.

The federal government consistently spends more than it takes in (and it takes in more than it constitutionally should). Texas is among the most fiscally responsible states. According to Invester's Business Daily--"Alaska leads all states in money socked away. Other states that took in considerably more than they spent included North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Texas."

[Pete F.]

Here is something fascinating to me: Macron had nearly exact same job approval rating as President Biden does today and he just won 58% of the vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is something fascinating to me: Macron had nearly exact same job approval rating as President Biden does today and he just won 58% of the vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does it fascinate you that if Biden and the Dems get reelected we will become more like France?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does it fascinate you that if Biden and the Dems get reelected we will become more like France?

Better France than Hungary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Better France than Hungary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting. Would you prefer the US to be like France? Would you prefer us being like France more than being like Sweden or Denmark or Switzerland? Would you prefer any of those governments to what the US is now?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting. Would you prefer the US to be like France? Would you prefer us being like France more than being like Sweden or Denmark or Switzerland? Would you prefer any of those governments to what the US is now?

Silly fascist, I’d prefer a functioning government that didn’t decide what to support only on the basis of what your leaders told you to support.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The modern Republican playbook. First you lie. Next you lie about lying. And then you lie about lying about lying, ad infinitum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The modern Republican playbook. First you lie. Next you lie about lying. And then you lie about lying about lying, ad infinitum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lying Pete is reduced to blather.

[Pete F.]

Do we care that a former President of the United States has been held in contempt of court and fined for failing to comply with a judicial subpoena concerning potential evidence of financial fraud or is that just #267 on the list of priorities these days
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Do we care that a former President of the United States has been held in contempt of court and fined for failing to comply with a judicial subpoena concerning potential evidence of financial fraud or is that just #267 on the list of priorities these days
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After all the investigations, impeachments, trials, accusations, against him for the past five or six years and that continue on and on . . . one tends to get numb to their existence. But feel free to care.