@unknown
Reading back through it this morning, I'll apologize for this bit - I meant the sentiment, but the volume was more than intended... And it sounds more personal toward you exactly - Also unintended... I tend to use 'y'all' a lot to maintain a 3rd person distance, and I regret the overt directness.
Yours is the sort of position that is exasperating for me - I can hear 'conservative' in your words. You seem to pine for it. But then you actually support the opposite, which agitates me to no end. I'm sorry for that. I would have rather pointed it out and receive a reply that might explain the disparity... Because i find it wholly inexplicable...
You see what voting for RINOs does to the party and to the Conservative cause, but yet, here you are, defending what is unarguably one of the most liberal Repub candidates for POTUS in the history of the party.
How does that work?
Thanks for this.
I wasn't initially going to respond back to this thread at all, but your courteousness is refreshing. So I will re-engage.
I will address this point a bit more:
From unknown: This "modern conservatism" has never been Conservatism. You and I know this.
From roamer_1: Then stop concatenating the two. You accuse me with them - That is neither right nor true.
I have been concatenating the two because it is the theme of the original posted article. So I was trying to keep my discussion within this context. And you are correct, I am not "conservative" with respect to the "modern conservative" definition, and neither are you.
The issue in todays society is that you and I are now being equated with the new definition. We have lost control of the proper label of conservative. This is seen with the general definition of anyone with an R. Anyone with an R is generally defined as "conservative." Regardless of any of their positions on any topic. If Hillary had run for president as an R, and Biden had run as a D, Biden and the media would have been painting Hillary as a conservative while he would be considered the liberal. I believe this is part of the point that this article is making.
[Another example of this type of redefining is "Christian." How many people and churches today are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, willing to throw real "Christians" in jail, etc., and yet claim to be "Christian?" This is how the muslims claim that everyone in the western society is "Christian." We could almost take your and my discussion and replace "conservative" with "Christian" and I think this helps make my point.
An example:
From unknown: Conservatism has been usurped.
From roamer_1: Nonsense. Conservatism is a way of life.
Replacing "Conservatism" with "Christian" gives:
From unknown: "Christian" has been usurped.
From roamer_1: Nonsense. "Christian" is a way of life.
] From roamer_1: The FIRST backlash? Where have you been?
I was making a general statement. The Tea Party was a recent and large backlash of which most people today would recognize.
From roamer_1: Oh, horseshit. If you want an outsider, look to Cruz. Look to Castle.
I voted for Cruz. Cruz was excellent, but is still on the inside, and this is why I believe the people voted for Trump over Cruz. They wanted a total outsider. So now, the ONLY two people that will be president is Hillary or Trump. Cruz is no longer running. Castle is great, but no chance to win.
From roamer_1: Good. Then bring it all down. Right now. Better now than on my kids. If we have become so very faithless that we, as a people, cannot even hold to the truths that our fathers called self-evident... Then we deserve to lose it.
God will certainly give us what we deserve. If we end up with Hillary, I pray that we survive to vote in another 8 years. (I figure Hillary will be in for two terms, that is usually typical, but maybe her health would prevent this.) Her supreme court nominees will be the most leftist liberal we will have ever seen. (I won't discuss the pro/cons of Trump here. This article posted does this well enough.)
From roamer_1: Your vote is your endorsement. That is ALL it can ever be.
I don't believe this to be true. There are many examples and analogies that I could give, but I won't do that here.
From roamer_1: You see what voting for RINOs does to the party and to the Conservative cause, but yet, here you are, defending what is unarguably one of the most liberal Repub candidates for POTUS in the history of the party.
How does that work?
He is a total outsider, only an outsider has the possibility of breaking the stranglehold of corruption by both R's and D's, has given us a list of PRO-LIFE supreme court nominees, is PRO-2nd Amendment, anti-illegal immigration, pro-Christian, etc. etc. I will accept the risk with Trump; compared to the no-risk hardcore leftist Hillary who has threatened to force Christians to leave their faith or she will throw them in jail, bring in more islamicists, steal more of our money, take away everyone's right to 2nd A, surround herself with more corruption, etc. etc. This is the point of this article! I am willing to accept the risk. Hillary is a no-risk, Trump is a risk.