'Conservativism' is no longer enough; it's time for something new

[roamer_1]

@Right_in_Virginia  @roamer_1

Not only that,but the US Constitution states we have "Freedom OF Religion",which means we have the freedom to avoid it because it is NOT a requirement.

Remember,many of the Founding Fathers grew up in environments where going to church on Sundays and "playing the game" was a REQUIREMENT if you wanted to run a business or do anything else other than live in the woods like a hermit.

"Freedom OF Religion" also means "Freedom FROM (mandatory) Religion.

Fairly true - But not exactly... You should research the term 'True Religion' in comparison to the state religions you are so intent upon. Because the founding documents were written through the prism of desiring to practice true religion before God... Not founded in dictate, but according to conscience. AGAIN - A very Protestant notion.

In that certainly the liberty to disbelieve - But that was not the focus.

And in that, a defined and universal moral sense that was imbued in this country, that was largely agreed upon which was not the doing of unbelief.

And it is that moral sense which has been utterly lost in so much of the nation - It still lives in rural locations, less so in suburbia, and is all but absent in liberal cities where that moral sense, that Christian ethic of right and wrong, is being redefined... And that is our catastrophe in the end... and will be our downfall. Watch and see.

[roamer_1]

@libertybele

Nope!

It was founded on the principle of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.

Individual liberty is in fact yet another very Protestant doctrine.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

So,you are saying we need to replace a popular movement with a unpopular movement?

A principled movement, of course. And the only one that works.

[Fishrrman]

aligncare wrote:
"But I have reservations.
Firstly, getting states signed on to this daunting undertaking"

I sense this scenario will become very much like "South Carolina in 1861".
That is to say, after the first state "makes the move", like-minded states will follow, as a matter of course.

It will immediately become apparent which states will belong in "the new Union", and which do not.

"next, the long term effects of creating Balkanization on the North American continent"

Are not the existing contiguous states already becoming "Balkanized"?
If not by "borders", certainly so by their political leanings.

I'll go so far as to predict that if a new "Heartland States of America" was to be born from the existing states, those that are left will experience decline so rapidly, as to spurn the possibility of "breakaways" of some "old Union" states that make overtures to join the new nation. Or... as with eastern Oregon and Washington states, we may see significant portions of the blue states secede and ask to join the new Union.

In time, the blue states will reach a point of near-total collapse.
The main concern of Heartland America will be in keeping out the Chinese however possible, as the old Union may go "full communist" and request direct assistance from the CCP.

It's quite possible that the "old states" may not be able to remain unified, but rather break down into separate east/west coast nations of their own.

"and finally, finding leadership with the moral and intellectual qualities of our founders, and to adhere scrupulously to the intent of both The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.  No easy task."

No, it will not be.
But consider what the alternative is almost certainly to become.

I would hope that -- as happened in the 1770s -- capable and able men will arise who will lead the way. They're out there. They MUST be "out there".

For, if they are not... then we certainly have no hope at all for the future.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not true. Populism feigns support... runs hot and cold, believing only what matters today, and something else tomorrow.

Populism holds to no doctrine, and never has... Which is why it is always ineffective.

 

[DefiantMassRINO]

Other "principled" movements:

The French Revolution (republic devolved into miltary dicatorship)
The Russian Communist Revolution (proletariat utopia devolved into totalitarian dictatorship)
The German Nationalist Socialist Movement (republic co-opted to totalitarian dictatorship)
The Chinese Communist Revolution (was always Mao's campaign for absolute power)

"principled" movements have been lead or co-opted by unprincipled persons seeking absolute power

If you want to live in a country with a state-sanctioned Protestant religion, you can always go to England and submit to King Charles.

The Fouding Fathers were principled men who were in disagreement of principles, but coalesced around a system of goverment where the means - popularly elected representative government with checks and balance of power - is the end.

Too many elected officials have replaced this with a revolutionary mentality that put the ends over the means to impose their policies on the people with the smallest of majorities in the US House and US Senate.

"Budget Resolution" is circumspection of debate, discussion, and votes on the House and Senate floors; it is House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader dictates.

Judicial "precedents" are not laws; they are Court dictates.

Executive Orders are not laws; they are Executive dictates.

The Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of Goverment are issuing dictates to circumvent the deliberative legislation process for the sake of expedient wins for the next election cycle.

The greatest threat to our Representaive Constitutional Federal Republic today is partisanship, just like at the begining of the American Experiment.

The Dem and GOP parties are the means by which monied donors run our nation.

[Right_in_Virginia]

A principled movement, of course. And the only one that works.

MAGA is a principled movement and they're YOUR principles.  It just frosts you that it's not wearing your label.   

[roamer_1]

MAGA is a principled movement and they're YOUR principles.  It just frosts you that it's not wearing your label.   

No, it is quite literally not.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What are the enumerated "principles" of thr MAGA movement?  I'd like to know.

[aligncare]

What are the enumerated "principles" of thr MAGA movement?  I'd like to know.

There’s only one: Make America great again. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

That implies "Make America Great Again" by any means necessary - which is not a very representative principle.

How and what will the MAGA movement do to make America great again?

[Right_in_Virginia]

That implies "Make America Great Again" by any means necessary -

It didn't mean that in 1980 and it doesn't today.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, it is quite literally not.

Yes. It quite literally is.  MAGA is the embodiment of your principles -----  whether you like it or not.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What are the enumerated "principles" of thr MAGA movement?  I'd like to know.

How can you argue against something you know nothing about?

[DefiantMassRINO]

I admit I know knothing about MAGA.  Educate me.  How do you explain MAGA to potential converts?

[roamer_1]

Yes. It quite literally is.  MAGA is the embodiment of your principles -----  whether you like it or not.

No, it is not, or I would not oppose it so. *Just* fiscal conservatism alone proves the case. And I could easily go on from there. Nothing any different than every other pretender to the crown.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, it is not, or I would not oppose it so.

Yes, it is. You oppose it because MAGA doesn't bear your label.  It really is this simple.

[libertybele]

I admit I know knothing about MAGA.  Educate me.  How do you explain MAGA to potential converts?

I'm not out to convert anyone nor do I proclaim to know all the ins and outs of the MAGA movement.

All I do know is that under Trump we were energy independent, NAFTA was renegotiated (a terrible H. Bush agreement), fair trade was implemented, our border was fairly secure, our economy was roaring and we were respected around much of the globe. 

Trump was the voice of millions of people. He brought American patriotism back into focus.

I must admit I was very much anti Trump for quite awhile and he absolutely amazed me at how quickly he moved this country in a better direction. I also was never willing to give Trump a free pass.

Was he perfect?  No, of course not.  The left put him through the wringer because of his successes and the Russia collusion was drummed up because he represented opposition to their country club and they needed to stop him immediately.

IMHO during his tenure Trump MAGA and our country is in severe distress under Joe.

[roamer_1]

Yes, it is. You oppose it because MAGA doesn't bear your label.  It really is this simple.

ROTFLMAO!!!

So you know me better than I do. I have already said, on fiscal conservatism ALONE your movement is an utter failure, and is not... that is, *NOT* conservatism.

ETA: And MAGA IS my label... Stolen from Reagan... and it rightly belongs to Conservatism.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I admit I know knothing about MAGA.  Educate me.  How do you explain MAGA to potential converts?

Nope, won't do it for you.  I'll spend all the time I can talking with patriots who are genuinely interested ------ and not waste one moment on someone who has already made up his mind and is a proud self-proclaimed RINO.

[Right_in_Virginia]

ETA: And MAGA IS my label... Stolen from Reagan... and it rightly belongs to Conservatism.

As I said, it frosts you big time that Reagan's mantle wasn't brought back to life by a member of the exclusive principled conservative brain trust.  You're now more comfortable burying all your principles rather than admit it took someone else to bring them back from the dustbin of political history.

I figured you might be having trouble sitting ------ but it appears your frontal lobe may be affected by the frost, too.  You may want to get this checked.   

Good night,  Roamer.   See you around campus.

[roamer_1]

As I said, it frosts you big time that Reagan's mantle wasn't brought back to life by a member of the exclusive principled conservative brain trust. 

That's just it - It's not. The divisiveness between conservative factions born of Tump and company is the exact OPPOSITE of Reagan. The whole point of Reaganism is that no faction is thrown under the bus. ALL the conservative factions are cared for in their unmovable principles. THAT is Reagan. That is NOT Tumpy.

Funny, ain't it, that I was in the TEA Party with all four feet, and won't give y'all the time of day... The reason for that is that the TEA Party was a Conservative movement, right out of the Right wing. Right out of Goldwater.

Tumpy... not so much.

[sneakypete]

That implies "Make America Great Again" by any means necessary - which is not a very representative principle.

How and what will the MAGA movement do to make America great again?

@DefiantMassRINO

Elect a President that can only serve one term,and who is determined to go down in the history books as "the President that saved America."

[Sighlass]

Yes. It quite literally is.  MAGA is the embodiment of your principles -----  whether you like it or not.

MAGA is a term a NY liberal used to get elected..... A person that espoused being pro-abortion, pro-homosexual (even waved their flag at a rally and told a transsexual to use any bathroom he wanted at his hotel), a person that said he wanted gun control on national tv. A person that had no idea what a social conservative even meant... much less fiscal. A person that flip flopped so bad that one debate he said he wanted to stop funding PP and the next claimed they did great things.

MEGA in Donald Trump's hands means nothing but the next polled talking point (usually about himself). This new conservatism wrapped in bluster without backbone just gives up half of what conservatives used to fight for, now it is all about just giving the left what they want as long as one's savings accounts don't take too hard a hit. Now we have laws being passed that makes even explaining oneself from not accepting homosexuals is a hate crime. At what point does it not become personal and relevant to understand that moral front also needs defending.

Like I have said time and time again, the election of Trump was the split from social conservatism (that didn't quite make it under McCain/Romney) and even though some Christians blindly followed Trump's tune, the music was death to true values they were suppose to espouse. The title of this thread is right on target, except the "something new" should be tried and true Christian values.... something that in today's world is not likely without a whole lot of hurting reminding folks where their anchor should be.

Anything contrived without the above anchor is doomed to fail... thus IMHO... America is no more likely to save itself by a last breath fling at lassoing God to come to her rescue.

“[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist's shop.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters 

[Smokin Joe]

what sparsely occupied, fertile territory do you suggest conquering that will give enough of a buffer zone to prevent the left from crushing us? Our first revolution only succeeded because the Royal Army was headquartered thousands of miles across an ocean in an era when it took months to travel that far.

And how would you sustain it when all the women of child bearing age have sided with the enemy? With no children, it becomes like the Ebenezer Society and dies.

Your fanciful dreams of revolution and a new apartheid state are no more plausible than any other proposal.

There is only one escape from this and it is death.

Well, thanks for the cheerful encouragement.