Republicans are leading the country to socialism

[Cyber Liberty]

It would also lead to a clean, determined, and dedicated opposition...
which voting for the lesser evil causes to never occur.

And what happens while that principled "party" develops?  How many Amendments will the Rats, now unfettered, pass to destroy it?

Destroying the Village to save the Village results in a destroyed Village, which is a step too far for this "unprincipled conservative."

[roamer_1]

And what happens while that principled "party" develops?  How many Amendments will the Rats, now unfettered, pass to destroy it?

Destroying the Village to save the Village results in a destroyed Village, which is a step too far for this "unprincipled conservative."

What's the difference? It is happening anyway - and not a little of it aided and abetted by the Republicans... Better to take the hit, and come back with a hammer.

[Jazzhead]

What's the difference? It is happening anyway - and not a little of it aided and abetted by the Republicans... Better to take the hit, and come back with a hammer.

That is both short-sighted and foolish,  at least for anyone not already safely ensconced on a mountaintop.   

[Cyber Liberty]

What's the difference? It is happening anyway - and not a little of it aided and abetted by the Republicans... Better to take the hit, and come back with a hammer.

We'll be coming back to a country neither of us would recognize.  You underestimate the desire and ability of the Rats to lock down their gains while they have no opposition, pathetic as the opposition may seem right now.  If we abandon this field today, nothing short of armed rebellion will get our Republic back.  I'm too old for that.

And this is why I am in favor of retaining the baby without the bathwater.

[roamer_1]

That is both short-sighted and foolish,  at least for anyone not already safely ensconced on a mountaintop.

No, it is not. In fact, it is the only proper thing to do.

To continue to settle for the lesser evil, and swallow the making of 'conservative heroes' of the likes of Turtle and Grahamnesty is turning the whole dang show into a laughingstock.

And liberalism is skating to the finish line entirely unopposed.

[roamer_1]

We'll be coming back to a country neither of us would recognize.  You underestimate the desire and ability of the Rats to lock down their gains while they have no opposition, pathetic as the opposition may seem right now.  If we abandon this field today, nothing short of armed rebellion will get our Republic back.  I'm too old for that.

And this is why I am in favor of retaining the baby without the bathwater.

You underestimate the complicity of the Republican party.

[Cyber Liberty]

You underestimate the complicity of the Republican party.

I recognize we fight with the army we have, not the one that we want. 

[roamer_1]

I recognize we fight with the army we have, not the one that we want.

An ever-present, nonsensical meme.

[Jazzhead]

I recognize we fight with the army we have, not the one that we want.

And that is the difference between my and roamer's positions.  And you're right, CL - if we concede the field in the hopes of building a majority for "true" conservatism/libertarianism,  the country will have in the meantime been changed beyond repair.   

[roamer_1]

And that is the difference between my and roamer's positions.  And you're right, CL - if we concede the field in the hopes of building a majority for "true" conservatism/libertarianism,  the country will have in the meantime been changed beyond repair.   

Y'all have been losing ground, literally my whole life long.

I will cut and paste the conservative successes performed by the Republican party in my life time:

------------------8<------------------


------------------8<------------------

Sooner or later y'all might consider that you're doing it wrong.

How is it that Democrats serve their far left base
but somehow, Republicans get preached at to choose the lesser evil and literally never see a single success.




SUCKERS

[Cyber Liberty]

And that is the difference between my and roamer's positions.  And you're right, CL - if we concede the field in the hopes of building a majority for "true" conservatism/libertarianism,  the country will have in the meantime been changed beyond repair.   

That is exactly my point here.  We will end up with a country so ruined by socialism we'll have to resort to arms to fix it, if we cede the field now.  Are our "soldiers" flawed?  Yes.  They are humans, so they are inherently flawed.

[roamer_1]

That is exactly my point here.  We will end up with a country so ruined by socialism we'll have to resort to arms to fix it, if we cede the field now.  Are our "soldiers" flawed?  Yes.  They are humans, so they are inherently flawed.

You are already there. you just don't know it yet.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This makes me sound like a massive dick, but...did anyone here actually read the article rather than just the headline?

The author's target here isn't domestic social programs, but rather -- according to her thesis sentence:

In truth, Republicans may well deliver the country to "socialism" if they don't ditch Trump's America First ideology — which is every bit as Big Government as socialism, but without any pretense of a higher purpose.

If you read on a bit, you can see what she's really arguing for is open immigration, and considering the interests of non-Americans to be just as important as the interests of citizens:

But America First divides the world into us versus them, insiders versus outsiders — and then uses the full power of the state to advance the interests of the former without much regard for fairness toward the latter. It's a fundamentally tribal approach to politics where (state) might makes right.

See that?  It's an argument for open borders so there are no "insiders" or "outsiders", but everyone has an equal right to come here.   She is equating protecting the borders and prioritizing the interests of our own citizens with socialism. 

Then there's this...anyone mind explaining what this has to do with socialism:

But the more morally troubling example is Trump's recent pardons of American soldiers accused of war crimes.

Say what??  Pardoning soldiers is socialism??  But wait, there's more:

At the same time that Trump is pardoning these Americans, he defends snatching babies from migrant moms as a deterrence measure and building detention camps for peaceful asylum seekers because they were born on the other side of the border.  Supporters of America First claim that its opposition to "endless war" is some kind of high-minded principle. But it matters whether this opposition stems from a concern for the world and its inhabitants — or a contempt for them.

It's pretty clear what she's doing here.  She's a pure internationalist/interventionist, Trump is a nationalist/non-interventionist, so she's trying to weaken him.  Since his base is conservative, she's trying to undermine that support by tossing out the "socialist" label because that's pretty much the worst charge you can make against a conservative.  Whatever appeal that argument may have for other reasons, the points she is raising are simply absurd.

This article isn't about socialism at all.  It's about open borders and equating the interests of other peoples and nations to those of the U.S..  It's a classic extreme libertarian argument except that she also appears to favor more military engagement overseas.

[Absalom]

If you would reread what I wrote, we are largely in agreement. To summarize, I said that Republicans merely pay lip service to Conservatism at election time, and do not practice it in office.
Nevertheless, your post neglects the bare fact that Conservatism, as it intersects politics in the US, resides only in the civil-libertarian right wing of the Republican party, and ONLY in that right wing. As to the moderate wing and back east big money liberal wing of the Republican party, we are in vast agreement.
But American Conservatism in politics, in my lifetime and my father's, is defined by Goldwater and Reagan.
And it irks me, by the way, that you would cause me to rise in defense of Republicans ~ An organization I loathe for its failure to provide defense against the rise of socialism.    Jussayin.

------------------------
Fair enough; so I apologize for my strident tone.
For me, Russell Kirk's words will always resonate.
"Conservatism is a body of enduring principles governing Man's conduct,
involving attitudes, behaviors and sentiments, which are independent of
economics, politics and religion."
Sadly the repubs never heard of him.

[goatprairie]

"and building detention camps for peaceful asylum seekers because they were born on the other side of the border."

Any person who advocates allowing unlimited immigration just because "they were born on the wrong side of the border" is an enemy of the U.S.

[Smokin Joe]

I recognize we fight with the army we have, not the one that we want.

That's fine if the army is at least fighting on your side.

Right now, they're looking like all too many aren't.

They wasted two years, when they had the trifecta. Pissed them away to get the rats back in power when they could have hit the ground running. If they're gonna sit on their rears in the rear, whose side are they on?
More excuses than action, now that they have an excuse again.
How many years did we hear
If we only had the House...the Senate...The White House.
Yeah, right, and then what?
Bupkis.

[berdie]

I don't see it that way @berdie ...
Them Republicans are ultra conservative around election time.
Then they do otherwise once they are in.
The point being that the people are voting conservative...
It's the 'doing otherwise' that is the problem.

The thing I resent in the people is the 'lesser evil' shtick. Nothing will get fixed until that particular lie is put to rest.

I hate to be Debbie Downer...but I am @roamer_1 . I am so cynical that I think that all of the politicians lie like a bunch of dogs (no offense to dogs). Even if a politician says what he believes  and wants to do the right thing they will be trampled. So I pick the least biggest liar that I can discern. Unless it's a Dem/Socialist, that's a no-go. It's a sad sign of our times.

I can't not vote.

[Smokin Joe]

I hate to be Debbie Downer...but I am @roamer_1 . I am so cynical that I think that all of the politicians lie like a bunch of dogs (no offense to dogs). Even if a politician says what he believes  and wants to do the right thing they will be trampled. So I pick the least biggest liar that I can discern. Unless it's a Dem/Socialist, that's a no-go. It's a sad sign of our times.

I can't not vote.

But you touched on a sore point with me.
It shouldn't be a crime to lie to Congress if we really have equal protection under the law.

[berdie]

But you touched on a sore point with me.
It shouldn't be a crime to lie to Congress if we really have equal protection under the law.

Do you mean it "should" be a crime to lie to Congress...not shouldn't be?? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

[Smokin Joe]

Do you mean it "should" be a crime to lie to Congress...not shouldn't be?? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Congress lies to us, and they never get charged.
One of us lies to Congress, it's a Felony.

That isn't equal protection.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you mean it "should" be a crime to lie to Congress...not shouldn't be?? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Congress can (and does frequently) lie to us without legal consequences.  If we were equal under the law, we should not be liable if we lie to Congress.

[Hoodat]

Congress can (and does frequently) lie to us without legal consequences.  If we were equal under the law, we should not be liable if we lie to Congress.

Just to further illustrate the disparity when it comes to rule of law, it wasn't until the Republican takeover in 1995 that Congress became subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In the 30 years of Democrat rule, members of Congress could discriminate against staffers, House and Senate employees, etc. because of race with zero threat of prosecution.

Fortunately, one of the first things the Republicans did was to subject members of Congress to the same rules as the rest of us.  For a while anyway.

[berdie]

Congress can (and does frequently) lie to us without legal consequences.  If we were equal under the law, we should not be liable if we lie to Congress.

@Smokin Joe @Cyber Liberty

O.K....I get it. I'm moving a little slow today. What you are saying makes sense and is true. I guess I just don't like lies.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Smokin Joe @Cyber Liberty

O.K....I get it. I'm moving a little slow today. What you are saying makes sense and is true. I guess I just don't like lies.

I don't either.  Doesn't matter who it is doing the lying.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"and building detention camps for peaceful asylum seekers because they were born on the other side of the border."

Any person who advocates allowing unlimited immigration just because "they were born on the wrong side of the border" is an enemy of the U.S.

The socialism reference in the title of the article was just clickbait to get conservatives to click on her open-borders, internationalist screed.