Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 103 of 103

Thread: Can American conservatism survive intact & unadulterated?

  1. #91
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If she broke the law, do you think she should go to jail? Or do you want to give her a pass because 'we don't jail political opponents.'
    Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

    Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
    You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

    So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

    Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
    You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

    So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.
    The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.

  3. #93
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.
    Everything you said could easily be applied to Trump, Inc.

  4. #94
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,286
    She's already been investigated and if that investigation had revealed she broke the law she should have been prosecuted. Further calls now for new investigations are because the person calling for it doesn't like her politics not because of any new evidence.

    The government should not determine that political opponents face extra scrutiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She's already been investigated and if that investigation had revealed she broke the law she should have been prosecuted. Further calls now for new investigations are because the person calling for it doesn't like her politics not because of any new evidence.

    The government should not determine that political opponents face extra scrutiny.
    So if the people investigating Clinton come up as untrustworthy and politically biased we should do... what exactly? Put the shoe on the other foot. Say the people who are currently investigating Trump declare him innocent. A year later they were shown to be Trump donors who lied about things during the investigation.

  6. #96
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,286
    If the people investigates were biased then maybe they should be investigated.

    Unless there's new evidence then the old case should remain closed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #97
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So if the people investigating Clinton come up as untrustworthy and politically biased we should do... what exactly? Put the shoe on the other foot. Say the people who are currently investigating Trump declare him innocent. A year later they were shown to be Trump donors who lied about things during the investigation.
    What are you going on about?


    Let's get off the Trump Train for a minute, and even set aside investigations and prosecutions. Lewk, I'd like you to define "conservatism", and give examples of conservative principles. It's pretty hard to know these days, since there are so many self-proclaimed conservatives in the GOP acting otherwise.

    I have a friend who considers herself a conservative Democrat (because she cares about fiscal issues, debt, deficit). Her husband calls himself a liberal Republican (because he cares about Civil Rights, equal rights, fair justice). That's how they set the scale for themselves, but when push comes to shove they both vote along party lines....and usually feel disappointed with their party, and politics in general. Fairly common?

    I don't know if it's because our political parties are structured badly, or we expect too much from just two parties, or we're operating with bad definitions, or something else. (It's probably multi-factorial like most everything is). But it seems to me that using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" as loosely as we do, or like a subset within a (R) or (D) poliotical framework, isn't working out so well.
    Last edited by GGT; 05-02-2018 at 03:50 AM.

  8. #98
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    Some questions for "conservatives":

    Why would the 'conservative' Republican Speaker Ryan force the resignation of the House Chaplain for saying a prayer about the poor before a vote on taxation?

    For that matter, why does congress even have a designated Chaplain? Why do they always begin voting sessions with prayer? And why are there congressional prayer breakfasts?

    How can anyone who honors the US Constitution call themselves a "conservative" with that kind of environment?

  9. #99
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    An interesting pov from a conservative. It reminds me of the "Compassionate Conservative" meme from a few decades ago:

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...terview-218364

    ‘Americans are Being Held Hostage and Terrorized by the Fringes’

    An exit interview with the American Enterprise Institute’s Arthur Brooks.

    By TIM ALBERTA
    May 13, 2018

  10. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What are you going on about?


    Let's get off the Trump Train for a minute, and even set aside investigations and prosecutions. Lewk, I'd like you to define "conservatism", and give examples of conservative principles. It's pretty hard to know these days, since there are so many self-proclaimed conservatives in the GOP acting otherwise.

    I have a friend who considers herself a conservative Democrat (because she cares about fiscal issues, debt, deficit). Her husband calls himself a liberal Republican (because he cares about Civil Rights, equal rights, fair justice). That's how they set the scale for themselves, but when push comes to shove they both vote along party lines....and usually feel disappointed with their party, and politics in general. Fairly common?

    I don't know if it's because our political parties are structured badly, or we expect too much from just two parties, or we're operating with bad definitions, or something else. (It's probably multi-factorial like most everything is). But it seems to me that using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" as loosely as we do, or like a subset within a (R) or (D) poliotical framework, isn't working out so well.
    I actually agree. Republican and Democrat are parties with no consistency. Is BIG government that controls you and your actions GOOD or is it BAD?

    Democrats say "government should stay out of the bedroom" but wants government to be in your wallet.

    Republicans say "government should stay out of your wallet" but wants government to be in your bedroom.

    Kinda screwed up? The real debate should be Libertarian vs Authoritarian. Not every issue you will be in favor of more or less government control but in general people should pick what they think is best. Government control over you or not.

  11. #101
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,156
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #102
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I actually agree. Republican and Democrat are parties with no consistency. Is BIG government that controls you and your actions GOOD or is it BAD?
    I think it's a mistake to think of government as either big/small or good/bad. It's essential and necessary for our constitutional republic, full stop.

    Democrats say "government should stay out of the bedroom" but wants government to be in your wallet.

    Republicans say "government should stay out of your wallet" but wants government to be in your bedroom.
    Another mistake is putting political parties in such tight boxes like that, or framing everything in money vs privacy terms. There are overlaps, obviously, and that's where modernity and the constitution intersect, and fuel disagreements.

    Kinda screwed up? The real debate should be Libertarian vs Authoritarian. Not every issue you will be in favor of more or less government control but in general people should pick what they think is best. Government control over you or not.
    Our political parties are what's screwed up. They've let the fringe run the show. And now many Americans view government (and governance) as antithetical to liberty, even justice. That's sad.



    Lewk, you may love Gorsuch tilting the SCOTUS to "conservative", but if it means overturning Roe v Wade to appease the Christian right, then you can't really call yourself a Libertarian.

  13. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,484
    I agree government is essential. The SIZE of it is what the debate is on. Without government you just have lawless killing and looting. The classical 'poor, nasty, brutish and short' paradigm. Government IS necessary however let's not pretend it isn't a necessary evil. It is the willful sacrifice of inherent liberty and dignity over to others in exchange for safety from internal and external threat. This is why I'm in favor of small government but will always support putting down internal threats (criminals) hard and having a robust national defense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •