Speaking conservative

[Kenny]

I would be very pleased if anyone put me in this unfortunately box. Nonetheless what I described is very valid, and unfortunately a BOG BOX.

maybe you are tribal?

 

[Brinne]

Disagree, the conservative 'right' would not be inclusive of all you describe, nonetheless they are by far dominantly white evangelical Christian. Groups like traditionalists, and libertarian are too diverse and variable, and include the full range of the political spectrum. They also form a more consistent distinct political block than the other groups you mentioned.

Donald tRump would a traditionalist admirer of Andrew Jackson. I would be a traditionalist admirer of Thomas Jefferson.

I'm speaking in terms of American partisan politics specifically. Both of those groups can be found on the Conservative right, in the GOP. It's not a matter of opinion, there are libertarians in the GOP (Liberty Caucus) and there are traditionalists (in the vein of Russel Kirk) in the GOP. So I would say that I'm correct in that assessment, considering the GOP is the most visible representative of the American right/conservatism.

I'm aware of the diversity in traditionalists and libertarians however in the context of American politics "libertarian" is typically associated with classical liberalism/right libertarian and not necessarily other brands like left libertarianism or anarchism. And traditionalist tends to be associated with earlier (though less popular) right-wingers which favor larger government (again, see Russel Kirk.)

 

[Nakosis]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

Except Fox did spend a lot of time on the Cohen plea. I noticed because I was surprised because while they didn't attack the President, neither did they provide any apologetics which is what I expected. They also pointed out that Cohen's statement contradicted the claims of Rudy Giuliani.

What I see as corruption is creating and taking advantage of loopholes in the law. Using one's position of power to gain an advantage, often financially at the unfair expense of others. To me corruption is not about fear, it's about being fair.

Just a claim not based on anything other than opinion.

 

[Kenny]

I'm speaking in terms of American partisan politics specifically. Both of those groups can be found on the Conservative right, in the GOP. It's not a matter of opinion, there are libertarians in the GOP (Liberty Caucus) and there are traditionalists (in the vein of Russel Kirk) in the GOP. So I would say that I'm correct in that assessment, considering the GOP is the most visible representative of the American right/conservatism.

I'm aware of the diversity in traditionalists and libertarians however in the context of American politics "libertarian" is typically associated with classical liberalism/right libertarian and not necessarily other brands like left libertarianism or anarchism. And traditionalist tends to be associated with earlier (though less popular) right-wingers which favor larger government (again, see Russel Kirk.)

Well said. Again, notice how people want to paint a SMALL box about a group of people. The reason behind it is to vilify the whole of the group.

Both parties do it and both are wrong for doing it.

Let's not paint such SMALL boxes.

 

[Quetzal]

Save Our Seas Act of 2018 (S. 756)

Nice! Thanks for sharing. Maybe there are a few good ones after all!

 

[Quetzal]

Well said. Again, notice how people want to paint a SMALL box about a group of people. The reason behind it is to vilify the whole of the group.

Both parties do it and both are wrong for doing it.

Let's not paint such SMALL boxes.

This is a fair statement and I do it too often myself. What I think ends up happening, at least in my case, is I incorrectly attribute the big mouths to speak for the whole group. Anytime Paul Ryan opens his trap and says something stupid, there is a trigger in my mind that confirms "Ah ha, see, all Repubs are dummy dumbs." In reality, there may be many Repubs who also dislike Paul Ryan.

 

[Kenny]

This is a fair statement and I do it too often myself. What I think ends up happening, at least in my case, is I incorrectly attribute the big mouths to speak for the whole group. Anytime Paul Ryan opens his trap and says something stupid, there is a trigger in my mind that confirms "Ah ha, see, all Repubs are dummy dumbs." In reality, there may be many Repubs who also dislike Paul Ryan.

Thank you for an honest viewpoint.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

I think it has more to do with preservation than a sense of tribalism.

 

[Audie]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

everybody is tribal

 

[Twilight Hue]

Money happened. GOP candidates began accepting monetary contributions from fossil fuel industries.

And the Democrats? Who do you think they take money from? Are they pure angels in all this?

Let's say hi to the PAC Democrats.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Apparently your misread what I said...

Did I say the Republicans were perfect or did I say there is good and bad on BOTH platforms.

and again.. don't paint such SMALL boxes on a group of people than span all types of positions

Sorry, but I have a slightly different take. I have always thought that issues should be addressed head-on, and I perceive that when someone makes a claim (that is generally fairly accurate) about one political leaning, I would prefer that it be answered rather than tidily hidden away with claims to "there's good and bad on both sides."

Then only time a debate has any chance of being meaningful is when issues are addressed, not side-stepped.

Just my way of thinking...

 

[Stevicus]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

America in general doesn't care as much about sexual corruption or innuendo about candidates as they once did. Eisenhower had a mistress. JFK played around a lot, although much of it didn't really come out until later. Clinton's affairs were well known. Other than Gary Hart's peccadillos which killed his campaign, it seems most Americans in recent times haven't really made that much of an issue of candidates having extramarital affairs.

I think corruption is also measured in terms of hypocrisy. The Democrats were once believed to be the party of the working man, but they've since sold out to big business. The GOP is/was the party of big business, so they haven't really changed in that regard. As bad as that may be, at least they're not hypocrites since their pro-business rhetoric matches their pro-business policies.

The Democrats are the ones who talk out of both sides of their mouths, paying lip service to the working classes, yet still supporting a staunchly pro-business agenda. Obamacare was a perfect example of this agenda at work.

I also think that Hillary's tacit acceptance of her husband's extramarital affairs may have also damaged her reputation. After all, she's been quite the feminist icon, yet she can't even stand up and challenge her own husband for his indiscretions. This appeared to be based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism - since her deference to Bill was rewarded with a seat in the Senate, a cabinet post, and a nomination as a presidential candidate. She wasn't a self-made woman who achieved high office on her own merits. She rode in on the coattails of her husband, and in order to do that, she had to play the role of the compliant, dutiful wife who quietly tolerates her husband's philandering. That seems pretty darn corrupt and hypocritical, especially for someone who is touted as some kind of feminist heroine.

 

[Falvlun]

America in general doesn't care as much about sexual corruption or innuendo about candidates as they once did. Eisenhower had a mistress. JFK played around a lot, although much of it didn't really come out until later. Clinton's affairs were well known. Other than Gary Hart's peccadillos which killed his campaign, it seems most Americans in recent times haven't really made that much of an issue of candidates having extramarital affairs.

I think corruption is also measured in terms of hypocrisy. The Democrats were once believed to be the party of the working man, but they've since sold out to big business. The GOP is/was the party of big business, so they haven't really changed in that regard. As bad as that may be, at least they're not hypocrites since their pro-business rhetoric matches their pro-business policies.

The Democrats are the ones who talk out of both sides of their mouths, paying lip service to the working classes, yet still supporting a staunchly pro-business agenda. Obamacare was a perfect example of this agenda at work.

I also think that Hillary's tacit acceptance of her husband's extramarital affairs may have also damaged her reputation. After all, she's been quite the feminist icon, yet she can't even stand up and challenge her own husband for his indiscretions. This appeared to be based in corruption, hypocrisy, and political opportunism - since her deference to Bill was rewarded with a seat in the Senate, a cabinet post, and a nomination as a presidential candidate. She wasn't a self-made woman who achieved high office on her own merits. She rode in on the coattails of her husband, and in order to do that, she had to play the role of the compliant, dutiful wife who quietly tolerates her husband's philandering. That seems pretty darn corrupt and hypocritical, especially for someone who is touted as some kind of feminist heroine.

Feminism doesn’t require you to leave your husband if he has an affair. Not sure where you got that impression from. Also, not particularly sure how it’s corrupt to stay with your husband.

Your characterization of her career, both political and otherwise, as an outcome of her “deference” to Bill and “riding his coat-tails” says much more about your view of woman than Hilary’s actions.

 

[tytlyf]

Speaking "conservative" is easy and pays well. Just depends if you're immoral enough to take advantage of it.

The Russians even know how to speak "conservative."

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but I have a slightly different take. I have always thought that issues should be addressed head-on, and I perceive that when someone makes a claim (that is generally fairly accurate) about one political leaning, I would prefer that it be answered rather than tidily hidden away with claims to "there's good and bad on both sides."

Then only time a debate has any chance of being meaningful is when issues are addressed, not side-stepped.

Just my way of thinking...

If that was the OP desire... ok.

Certainly his statement was way off and I hit that right on the head.

Did you want to open a new thread?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If that was the OP desire... ok.

Certainly his statement was way off and I hit that right on the head.

Did you want to open a new thread?

No, we'll leave this one. I just wanted you to know how I think, for reference in future conversations.

 

[shunyadragon]

maybe you are tribal?

No, just the last remnant of the Grand Old Party.

 

[Stevicus]

Feminism doesn’t require you to leave your husband if he has an affair. Not sure where you got that impression from. Also, not particularly sure how it’s corrupt to stay with your husband.

Your characterization of her career, both political and otherwise, as an outcome of her “deference” to Bill and “riding his coat-tails” says much more about your view of woman than Hilary’s actions.

I just call it as I see it. If you don't agree with that, then I'd certainly listen to your arguments. But your unfounded projections about what you think says "more about [my] view of woman" is neither relevant nor needed for such a discussion.

 

[Falvlun]

I just call it as I see it. If you don't agree with that, then I'd certainly listen to your arguments. But your unfounded projections about what you think says "more about [my] view of woman" is neither relevant nor needed for such a discussion.

Personally, I’m not really sure what was the relevance of your long post attacking Hillary. Just noting that it certainly appears you have strange ideas concerning feminism and a rather chauvinistic view of Hillary’s accomplishments.

 

[Stanyon]

I don’t know if this is a Debate point so much as just a point of discussion. I just found this interesting article.
Trump supporters define “corruption” differently than the rest of us.

The take-away point is similar to many other discussions on the topic of conservative thought processes. i.e. - Conservatives see things through a ‘retrospectoscope’, with everything being better in the past (good ol’ days).
It is food for thought for anyone trying to speak with a conservative thinker, and particularly if trying to convince that conservative of some new viewpoint. The best approach is to try to convince them that the change you propose will make things better by making it more like the good old days, to bring back the good old days, to “Make America Great Again”. Attempting to present something new as a better way of doing things is doomed to failure, since by definition “new” equals “bad”.
Tribalism seems to be in their blood. Or at least in their brains.

I'd say most of this speaks to your own taught prejudices and ignorances