Cruz: Those who bolstered Trump 'will bear that responsibility going forward'

[DiogenesLamp]

That's his proof? Hahahahaha!

That the Constitution would contain an acknowledgement of "Our Lord"  is funny?   Why is that funny? 


It also specifies that the President does not have to work on Sundays. 


Is that also funny?   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Last I checked,  he didn't so much define words as speak in parables as well as speaking through acts of God.   You can find the nearest equivalent to what you asked for at this link.


This, and others of a very similar nature,  were the reference books the founders used when setting up the nation.

I feel like sticking a fork in my eye and then pouring in salt....

Look, I'm talking about the argument over the definition of the word "conservative".  I'm not talking about what policies are best, or what we should or should not do as a country.  And I'm saying that there is no accepted higher authority or arbiter regarding the meaning of the word "conservative." So people arguing among themselves about who is and who is not entitled to call themselves a "conservative" is pointless, because there is no concrete definition anointed by God, and people are going to continue to use their definitions anyway.  So it is a pointless exercise, as these last few pages demonstrate.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That the Constitution would contain an acknowledgement of "Our Lord"  is funny?   Why is that funny? 


It also specifies that the President does not have to work on Sundays. 


Is that also funny?

"Year of our lord" is clearly a colloquialism, nothing more.

So yes, they are both funny.

[DiogenesLamp]

If there is no higher authority to play arbiter, unscrupulous vain, ambitious and jealous men will become that highest authority.

And tyrants will rule.

Well said.  All of it,  not just the excerpted part.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I immediately dismiss the 'thoughts' of someone who posts a dopey picture of Church Lady as someone who doesn't believe his arguments can stand on their own without derision of those who disagree.

I was trying to have a civil conversation, but I guess you don't wanna..........   

I do.  Here's the issue:

There are not only different aspects to conservatism, but how strictly each aspect is interpreted.  So sure, conservatism includes a belief in a limited role for government, but exactly how limited?  That's tougher.  And at what point do we draw the line as to when you've crossed the line into extreme libertarianism/anarchy on one end, or full-on nanny state at the other?  I don't know, but that also complicates the definitional issue.

That gets particularly dicey when it gets to "cultural/moral" issues.  Who, exactly, is the arbiter of when personal morality crosses the line into no longer being "conservative"?  Is pre-marital sex the line?  Does watching South Park mean you are not a social conservative, and therefore not a conservative at all?

That's the problem I have in particular with the argument that you cannot be a conservative unless you are a social conservative.  Because that raises the stereotype of the Church Lady conservative who allegedly wants to tell other people how to lead their lives.  And I don't think that's actually "conservative" at all.  Where I see "social conservatism" being legitimately part of a political philosophy (as opposed to a personal philosophy) is when the discussion is about things that necessarily involve the state -- do we recognize gay marriage, or no?  Or to go further, back to the days of Bowers v Hardwick and the outlawing of consensual sodomy, is supporting that a prerequisite for being a "conservative" as well?

So that's the issue I see -- conservativism as a political philosophy should be defined with reference to politics, and to those things that are necessarily in the public sphere.  But defining whether or not someone truly espouses a political philosophy by referencing their personal morality or cultural preferences that are not part of the function of government seems to me to be going beyond a reasonable definition of "conservative".

But, like I said earlier, there's no higher authority to define the word and control its use, so people will use it however they want.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

    Yes, maintain your sanity.

You know what, you guys are right.  I think I made a wrong turn ending up on this board.  Thought it would be different, but it isn't.

[DiogenesLamp]

I feel like sticking a fork in my eye and then pouring in salt....

Look, I'm talking about the argument over the definition of the word "conservative".  I'm not talking about what policies are best, or what we should or should not do as a country.  And I'm saying that there is no accepted higher authority or arbiter regarding the meaning of the word "conservative."

There is indeed a great deal of disparity in how people regard that word.  People have decided to divide the concept into two sections which some regard as distinctly different. 


Fiscal conservatism is generally regarded as descending from Adam Smith through the Austrian school of economics,   and Social conservatism is generally regarded as descending from Edmund Burke.   


Just because an agreed upon definition is not universal,  doesn't mean that one cannot be derived from the available and historical facts.   

So people arguing among themselves about who is and who is not entitled to call themselves a "conservative" is pointless, because there is no concrete definition anointed by God, and people are going to continue to use their definitions anyway.  So it is a pointless exercise, as these last few pages demonstrate.

I think arguing/discussing things with people on the internet is itself generally a pointless exercise. 


Personally I do it for the entertainment value.  :) 

[RoosGirl]

I agree, but why do you suppose that is?  I can come up with two hypothesis, but I'm sure there are more:

1) It doesn't cross their mind because they have false understanding of the popularity of their views.  They don't see the need to build alliances or coalitions because they believe they are the "Silent Majority" (or some such) and someone need only intone the correct words for that majority to stand up and be counted.

2) it does cross their minds, but they'd take greater joy in being absolute right and losing, than in being 80% right and winning.  In short, winning control of the government just isn't that important to them.

I don't think it has to do with either of those.  You just have to have some starting point with which to discuss the issues.  You let conservative mean whatever you want it to and everything is a moving target. 

[musiclady]

I do.  Here's the issue:

There are not only different aspects to conservatism, but how strictly each aspect is interpreted.  So sure, conservatism includes a belief in a limited role for government, but exactly how limited?  That's tougher.  And at what point do we draw the line as to when you've crossed the line into extreme libertarianism/anarchy on one end, or full-on nanny state at the other?  I don't know, but that also complicates the definitional issue.

That gets particularly dicey when it gets to "cultural/moral" issues.  Who, exactly, is the arbiter of when personal morality crosses the line into no longer being "conservative"?  Is pre-marital sex the line?  Does watching South Park mean you are not a social conservative, and therefore not a conservative at all?

That's the problem I have in particular with the argument that you cannot be a conservative unless you are a social conservative.  Because that raises the stereotype of the Church Lady conservative who allegedly wants to tell other people how to lead their lives.  And I don't think that's actually "conservative" at all.  Where I see "social conservatism" being legitimately part of a political philosophy (as opposed to a personal philosophy) is when the discussion is about things that necessarily involve the state -- do we recognize gay marriage, or no?  Or to go further, back to the days of Bowers v Hardwick and the outlawing of consensual sodomy, is supporting that a prerequisite for being a "conservative" as well?

So that's the issue I see -- conservativism as a political philosophy should be defined with reference to politics, and to those things that are necessarily in the public sphere.  But defining whether or not someone truly espouses a political philosophy by referencing their personal morality or cultural preferences that are not part of the function of government seems to me to be going beyond a reasonable definition of "conservative".

But, like I said earlier, there's no higher authority to define the word and control its use, so people will use it however they want.

Well, I will repeat that the Church Lady reference was derisive as well as stupid, but I'll continue the conversation anyway.

There are societal mores that are accepted well above any one religion or philosophy.  We have morals engrained in our culture in our laws because they were based on Judeo-Christian laws.

Why do you think it's against the law to murder?  There are 'cultures' out there who offer child sacrifices, and who stone adulterers and kill their own children and wives for "honor."  If you open up the proverbial can of worms that allows to have everyone live as they please, then you have chaos.

That's why libertarianism in its logical progression, is anarchy.

There is something inside the heads and hearts of libertarians, that in MY opinion, is child-like and irresponsible.  YOU can't tell ME how to live.

There is a societal structure in the family, that is what leads to well-functioning societies.  When morality is removed (as it is now), the entire culture begins to crumble (witness the inner cities).

It's a pretty silly question, again in MY opinion, to ask whether pre-marital sex is what defines conservatism (viewing South Park even worse).  It's a straw dog argument.

What people are talking about here is not some arbitrary theocracy run by the Southern Baptist Church, but rather a social structure than honors the moral founding of this country.

@Maj. Bill Martin

[DiogenesLamp]

"Year of our lord" is clearly a colloquialism, nothing more.

This is a person speaking from 2016 ignorance,  and not a person speaking from an understanding of 1787 America.   


The proceeding document (Articles of Confederation ratified in 1781)  says "Great Governor of the World",  and the Declaration of Independence says "to which the Laws of Nature,  and of Nature's God entitle them". 


Are those references irrelevant colloquialisms too?  And if not,  what major societal change took place between 1781 and 1787?   


The fact is,  that society was filled with "religious nuts"  by modern standards. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What people are talking about here is not some arbitrary theocracy run by the Southern Baptist Church, but rather a social structure than honors the moral founding of this country.

Morals and values change over time. It just happens. At one point you'd be jailed if as a woman you showed your ankle. Because while we do need a strong moral foundation (like murder is wrong) not all values are equal.

[mlizzy]

When God and the Judeo-Christian religion is no longer considered the highest authority - all you have is what the authority of men decide.

Men will decide if you have a right to defend yourself or not.  Men will decide if you are allowed to make a living or not.

Which is why I say, if a people will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by the tyrants and tyranny of men.

So here we sit, arguing about and against the very principles that established us because they are offensive to most of the population today that no longer consider God, and the biblical religions to have any authority or validity beyond one's own closet.

Because if we have no higher authority from whence our Rights and Freedoms originate,  we have no right to complain about where this nation now sits, or complain and worry about the loss of liberty, and the abolishment of freedom as we once understood it.  Because we no longer agree on what the definition of liberty is, much less Conservatism.  So the rulings of men will decide.

Liberty and freedom will be whatever the whims of men say they are.

Which is why we now have laws allowing perverts to use women's bathrooms and private businesses must bake cakes for homosexual unions.

Tomorrow freedom and liberty will defined as limiting where you can live and how much wealth you are permitted.

If there is no higher authority to play arbiter, unscrupulous vain, ambitious and jealous men will become that highest authority.

And tyrants will rule.

And you have no recourse except to submit - because the mob has decided that what you see as tyranny, is for the larger good of those persons and agendas they serve.

Excellent post!

After which time will come the chip! Of which Trump has shown interest in for tracking immigrants.

[RoosGirl]

No, Republican is a terrible word for that.  It's a political party, so you can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obamacare, whatever, and still call yourself -- with 100% complete accuracy -- a "Republican".

Now me personally, I think there's nothing wrong with one person referring to themselves as a "Social Conservative" and another as a "Libertarian conservative".  Both are descriptive.  But apparently, that's not acceptable, and the only correct definition of "conservative" is "social conservative".

You can push for that if you'd like, but that's not how everyone else uses the term, so you're bound to be disappointed.

I am not the one that defined conservatism.  It means what it means based on a historical context of what conservative has meant to the founding of the country.  I don't necessarily have a problem with the label "social conservative" if that's what someone wants to label themselves and it is accurate for what they actually are.  But social conservative is not the same thing as conservative.  Conservative means one thing and it doesn't include accepting pro-any of the things you mentioned above.  You have got to have and stick to a definition of a word to have any kind of meaningful conversation about the subject.

[Hoodat]

Which was Abraham Lincoln?  A Conservative who adheres "to the traditional principles and values upon which this country was founded"   or a Liberal "that deviate or move away from the Constitution in order to fulfill their own agenda quite often in the name of political correctness."?

Lincoln did save the Union, but his legacy was not at all a model of limited government.  If not for the slavery issue, his Presidency would not be regarded so highly.

In fairness though, his term was preceded by a President worse than Baraq Obama.

[aligncare]

You know what, you guys are right.  I think I made a wrong turn ending up here.

No you didn't take a wrong turn. I appreciated your presence and your cogent points and agree in toto.

I love it when posters breathlessly shout at me "you're not a conservative!" (because I support Mr. Trump) That's news to me.

I suspect the primary reason so many of the members here despise Trump is precisely because of the moral/cultural arguments discussed here on this thread, which many of the social conservatives accuse Mr. Trump of lacking. However, his campaign positions are solidly conservative.

[geronl]

Because if you're not a rock-ribbed conservative then you're a dirty filthy hippie commie homosexual pervert!!!!! It's either or, no in between!!!

There is in-between

Unconcerned Trolls,
Don't Know, Don't Care Voters,
Whatever Dude Voters,
MALLEABLE voters,
Useful Idiots...

[roamer_1]

However, his campaign positions are solidly conservative.

Campaign promises. Tell me, with what do you secure those promises?

[Hoodat]

However, [Trump's] campaign positions are solidly conservative.

Are you referring to Trump's positions?  Or are you referring to the ones that someone else posted on the campaign website - positions that ignore what Trump has actually said?

[geronl]

The fact is,  that society was filled with "religious nuts"  by modern standards.

Women had more freedom and "rights" in the Plymouth Colony than they did back in England at the same time. In the Plymouth Colony a woman could be a property owner, a business owner, had standing in court, the ordinary woman had none of this in England. A widow was guaranteed a good portion of the estate if the husband passed on, he could not will it all to his kids and leave her broke. A widow could challenge the will in court and would win.

[musiclady]

Morals and values change over time. It just happens. At one point you'd be jailed if as a woman you showed your ankle. Because while we do need a strong moral foundation (like murder is wrong) not all values are equal.

You said it yourself.  We DO need a strong moral foundation, or society crumbles.

That's exactly what we're witnessing now.  Actually, Donald Trump's success among so-called "conservatives" is proof of that.

The fact that he's a serial adulterer who has violated the most significant vow in his life many times over, is no big deal to his followers.

There was a time, not long ago, when his sordid past would have kept him from being even considered as a candidate (remember Gary Hart?  Not that long ago).   Our moral structure has disintegrated so rapidly that what was once valued............... HONOR ............. now means nothing to at least 30% of the Republican primary voters.

I see that as a tragedy.

Morality.  Keeping ones vows.  Honor.  Telling the truth.  Work ethic.  Family.

They're part of a culture we have lost because we have tossed our moral foundation aside.

[INVAR]

That gets particularly dicey when it gets to "cultural/moral" issues.  Who, exactly, is the arbiter of when personal morality crosses the line into no longer being "conservative"?  Is pre-marital sex the line?  Does watching South Park mean you are not a social conservative, and therefore not a conservative at all?

The answer to that question lies in whether or not the behavior you are engaging in is an agenda you are pushing to be accepted, promoted or forced upon others via the government.   If you have personal sins and enjoy them or think they are okay for you - then your behavior is your business and doesn't cross into the realm of politics.  Same with watching filth, porn or vulgarity as entertainment. 

Scripture says plainly that a little leaven leavens the entire lump, which is in reference to how sin infects a group, body, culture and nation.  Immoral behavior rarely remains just within the confines of the personal and private.  Eventually it influences society - good or bad - and that is when Conservative values impact whether or not that behavior involves using government.

A moral and religious people are the only ones who could maintain the kind of liberty and freedom the Founders intended for us.  A limited government is impossible with a morally debased people because law and order go out the window.

Where morality comes into the equation of whether or not you are Conservative I think has to do with supporting or opposing those behaviors in the government realm or political platform.  Promoting premarital sex as just a lifestyle choice that needs government protection or promotion is not a Conservative value and should be rebuffed. 

Conservative values are more expected or less expected to be adhered to depending on where you are.  If you are in a Baptist church, and are engaging in premarital sex, and it is discovered - the congregation has the duty to counsel you to desist the behavior or disfellowship you from their midst until or upon repentance, because your behavior does not comport with their values.

Because that raises the stereotype of the Church Lady conservative who allegedly wants to tell other people how to lead their lives. 

Is that what Dany Carvey's Church Lady did?  Tell everyone how to live their lives?  I must have missed a few then because every time I saw it, the character often pointed out hypocrisy.

So that's the issue I see -- conservativism as a political philosophy should be defined with reference to politics, and to those things that are necessarily in the public sphere.  But defining whether or not someone truly espouses a political philosophy by referencing their personal morality or cultural preferences that are not part of the function of government seems to me to be going beyond a reasonable definition of "conservative".

We're in agreement then with excepting whether or not personal morality affects the future and thus necessitates the public sphere of involving government.

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom to quote Franklin.

[aligncare]

Campaign promises. Tell me, with what do you secure those promises?

I looked into his history. When Donald Trump says he's doing something, building something, it gets done. He has a good reputation in the banking, business and real estate communities in that regard.

His long track record is public record and easily searchable.

[musiclady]

Women had more freedom and "rights" in the Plymouth Colony than they did back in England at the same time. In the Plymouth Colony a woman could be a property owner, a business owner, had standing in court, the ordinary woman had none of this in England. A widow was guaranteed a good portion of the estate if the husband passed on, he could not will it all to his kids and leave her broke. A widow could challenge the will in court and would win.

Have you ever considered the fact that that was because the Plymouth Colony was founded by "religious nuts" who followed God's laws, and England was not?   Respect for women is right up there in the New Testament, and that's what they were relying on for wisdom.

[Bigun]

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”

John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. "

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775


I wonder what those gentlemen were talking about.  Anyone have any ideas?

BTW: I can find and post plenty more just like those three!

[geronl]

I looked into his history. When Donald Trump says he's doing something, building something, it gets done. He has a good reputation in the banking, business and real estate communities in that regard.

His long track record is public record and easily searchable.

A long string of fraud, scams, bankrupted deals starting as a front man for his slum lord father...