🇺🇸 Ridin’ with Biden: It's Joever

[InCali]

Conservatives are melting down like they did with Obergefell in 2015. Which means another Democratic President did something right.

A) They AREN'T conservatives......they are bigots.

B) I don't know how you can possibly make that statement.


Is she running for Boehner's old job???

 

[squeekness]

A) They AREN'T conservatives......they are bigots.

B) I don't know how you can possibly make that statement.


Is she running for Boehner's old job???

That tweet says it exactly right.

 

[DKDetective]

A) They AREN'T conservatives......they are bigots.

B) I don't know how you can possibly make that statement.


Is she running for Boehner's old job???

That is a false distinction. Conservatives believe in preserving "traditional" social structures and values, which are inherently racist and otherwise bigoted. Their whole political philosophy is based on the core premise that things were better in the past or that trying to change things will make things worse. Given that the past world order, especially in Western liberal democracies, was based upon white supremacy, heteronormative sexuality and the criminalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, Christian religious supremacy, etc., They are fighting for and trying to preserve systematic and systemic discrimination and bigotry. Conservatism is bigotry, full stop.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is a false distinction. Conservatives believe in preserving "traditional" social structures and values, which are inherently racist and otherwise bigoted. Their whole political philosophy is based on the core premise that things were better in the past or that trying to change things will make things worse. Given that the past world order, especially in Western liberal democracies, was based upon white supremacy, heteronormative sexuality and the criminalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, Christian religious supremacy, etc., They are fighting for and trying to preserve systematic and systemic discrimination and bigotry. Conservatism is bigotry, full stop.

This is what makes the idea of saying, "I'm just a fiscal conservative" so meaningless. That fiscal policy is based in bigotry. What the Republican party and conservative in general has had to tackle, isn't a change in policy. It's a change in the presentation of that policy. It's more overt and harder to escape the true implications.

 

[Lily Adler]

Ron DeSantis Holds Early Lead Over Donald Trump Among GOP Primary Voters, WSJ Poll Shows - WSJ

 

[Flint Marko]

That is a false distinction. Conservatives believe in preserving "traditional" social structures and values, which are inherently racist and otherwise bigoted. Their whole political philosophy is based on the core premise that things were better in the past or that trying to change things will make things worse. Given that the past world order, especially in Western liberal democracies, was based upon white supremacy, heteronormative sexuality and the criminalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, Christian religious supremacy, etc., They are fighting for and trying to preserve systematic and systemic discrimination and bigotry. Conservatism is bigotry, full stop.

Perfectly said.

The whole idea of “limited government, free markets, individual liberty” in a vacuum is one thing, but as conceived and practiced in America it has always been a sanitized cover for maintaining the status quo at the expense of others.

The backlash to the Civil Rights movement tore apart the New Deal coalition amongst white Americans and allowed movement conservatism, which at the time was a relatively fringe position held only by affluent cranks, to take over the Republican Party. Movement conservatism is now synonymous with the GOP, and its intellectual forefathers were all open racists concerned about the “mudsills” of society getting “handouts”.

Obviously I don’t think everyone who identifies as a “conservative” is inherently a racist bigot but there’s no separating racism and bigotry from modern conservative principles whether they realize it or not.

 

[Teelie]

DeSantis could be a good thing if his brand of ******* politics isn't as popular outside of Florida. I'm not betting on that though.

 

[samsnee]

Republicans always fall in line

 

[Tempus Fugit]

That is a false distinction. Conservatives believe in preserving "traditional" social structures and values, which are inherently racist and otherwise bigoted. Their whole political philosophy is based on the core premise that things were better in the past or that trying to change things will make things worse. Given that the past world order, especially in Western liberal democracies, was based upon white supremacy, heteronormative sexuality and the criminalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, Christian religious supremacy, etc., They are fighting for and trying to preserve systematic and systemic discrimination and bigotry. Conservatism is bigotry, full stop.

Something along these lines is the reason why so many "Constitutionalists" no longer call ourselves "Constitutional Conservatives". The word "Conservative" has become too charged with negative meaning (and rightly so) to allow for discussion without having to spend 30 minutes explaining that you're not "that kind of Conservative".

 

[DKDetective]

Something along these lines is the reason why so many "Constitutionalists" no longer call ourselves "Constitutional Conservatives". The word "Conservative" has become too charged with negative meaning (and rightly so) to allow for discussion without having to spend 30 minutes explaining that you're not "that kind of Conservative".

That depends on what your philosophy of "Constitutionalism" entails. The US Constitution is a deeply, deeply flawed document of very questionable legitimacy given that it was imposed upon the people of the United States by property owning white men who disenfranchised women, POC, and the working poor, drafting it to preserve and serve their particular interests, including such odious practices as slavery. It is not a democratic document and cannot be said to fairly represent the will of "the People" whether at the time it was drafted or adopted or any time since.

If said "Constitutionalist" philosophy involves any form of "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation, it is morally bankrupt and actually completely contrary to 1000 years of "English" common law thought and doctrine, including the very same common law legal framework with which the drafters were familiar. There is a reason why US "conservative" or "textualist" jurists like Scalia and the current cabal are the only proponents of originalist interpretation in the common law world.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Something along these lines is the reason why so many "Constitutionalists" no longer call ourselves "Constitutional Conservatives". The word "Conservative" has become too charged with negative meaning (and rightly so) to allow for discussion without having to spend 30 minutes explaining that you're not "that kind of Conservative".

You know the constitution was written by white slave owners, to benefit white slave owners, and when written they did not consider black people full human and didn't allow women to vote, right?

 

[InCali]

That is a false distinction. Conservatives believe in preserving "traditional" social structures and values, which are inherently racist and otherwise bigoted. Their whole political philosophy is based on the core premise that things were better in the past or that trying to change things will make things worse. Given that the past world order, especially in Western liberal democracies, was based upon white supremacy, heteronormative sexuality and the criminalization of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, Christian religious supremacy, etc., They are fighting for and trying to preserve systematic and systemic discrimination and bigotry. Conservatism is bigotry, full stop.

I don't entirely think it's a one stop shop, but there is certainly some truth to what you are saying. I know people who brand themselves as conservative who are pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, etc. Barry Goldwater, who I almost would have never agreed with, said back in the 1960s that someone's sexual orientation was nobody's goddamn business and keeping gays out of the military was ridiculous.

 

[DKDetective]

I don't entirely think it's a one stop shop, but there is certainly some truth to what you are saying. I know people who brand themselves as conservative who are pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, etc. Barry Goldwater, who I almost would have never agreed with, said back in the 1960s that someone's sexual orientation was nobody's goddamn business and keeping gays out of the military was ridiculous.

You are picking and choosing a handful of policy positions. No one's policy philosophy is perfectly consistent and everyone will have opinions that differ from the textbook definition of that ideology. What matters is the big picture.

In the case of fiscal conservatives, who profess to support all of those progressive social positions, their fiscal/economic policy positions render their positions on social issues hollow. A fiscal conservatives who is pro-choice, but who is also anti-government single payer health care keeps access to such medical services out of the hands of the poor.

A professed anti-racist who is against graduated income tax, wealth tax, student debt relief, making the rich pay their fair share or who is pro school vouchers, etc. in the name of "choice" handicaps public education and the various social programs that aim to undo the profound economic and social disadvantages that are the result of generations of slavery and institutionalized and systematic racism.

My point still stands that fiscal/economic conservatism still reinforces and propagates the entrenched and discriminatory systems that allow inequality to flourish. The fiscal is the social.

 

[InCali]

You are picking and choosing a handful of policy positions. No one's policy philosophy is perfectly consistent and everyone will have opinions that differ from the textbook definition of that ideology. What matters is the big picture.

In the case of fiscal conservatives, who profess to support all of those progressive social positions, their fiscal/economic policy positions render their positions on social issues hollow. A fiscal conservatives who is pro-choice, but who is also anti-government single payer health care keeps access to such medical services out of the hands of the poor.

A professed anti-racist who is against graduated income tax, wealth tax, student debt relief, making the rich pay their fair share or who is pro school vouchers, etc. in the name of "choice" handicaps public education and the various social programs that aim to undo the profound economic and social disadvantages that are the result of generations of slavery and institutionalized and systematic racism.

My point still stands that fiscal/economic conservatism still reinforces and propagates the entrenched and discriminatory systems that allow inequality to flourish. The fiscal is the social.

Sure. I am picking out specific positions that "some" (so called) conservatives take. My point is that "conservatism" in and of itself (and you can add progressive if you like) isn't a monolithic structure where everyone fits in a nice, neat little box.

I said, and think, you make some valid points. By and large, we are trying to emerge from discrimination, bigotry, or whatever you want to call it and trying to stay in the past keeps us from doing that. I just don't like blanket statements that block everyone together across the board.

For example, there are republicans out there who will support certain positions that I do. That should neither stop me from working with them on those specific issues or stop me from calling them out on the positions that I think are retrograde.

I'm reminded of a union guy I used to know who was extremely conservative, mainly from an economic perspective, and we used to go at it almost constantly, but when it came time for a collective, union action, he was the first guy in line and there were a lot of issues upon which we agreed. I just can't lump him in with a lot of republicans these days. He was also pro-choice, didn't give a S*** about someone's sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

I've had this discussion on these boards before and if people think my aversion to throwing out blanket statements makes me some sort of retrograde thinker. I'm fine with that.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The hardcore constitutionalist and Libertarians are a fraction of the Republican party. 90% are either pro-DeSantis or pro-Trump.

So the whole "not all Republicans" is just intellectually dishonest.

We all know beyond the primaries, Republicans will fall in line. Except the nutjobs who genuinely think voting is rigged against them.

I do give props to the smidgen of never-Trumpers who vote Libertarian. Their numbers are big enough to make a difference in certain swing states which is why the white nationalist took over the Libertarian Party.

 

[InCali]

The hardcore constitutionalist and Libertarians are a fraction of the Republican party. 90% are either pro-DeSantis or pro-Trump.

So the whole "not all Republicans" is just intellectually dishonest.

We all know beyond the primaries, Republicans will fall in line. Except the nutjobs who genuinely think voting is rigged against them.

I do give props to the smidgen of never-Trumpers who vote Libertarian. Their numbers are big enough to make a difference in certain swing states which is why the white nationalist took over the Libertarian Party.

I would say "all republicans" is intellectually dishonest. I would be more friendly to the phrase "vast majority" as accurate. Some repubs, and dems, are going to vote for the other party for whatever reason, but most will vote for the party they are registered in. I mean, they registered for a particular party for a reason.

IMO, what is also intellectually dishonest is this idea that the policies espoused by both parties somehow have equal weight and that the differences are an honest attempt to help the average citizen. Clearly, the economic and social policies espoused by the vast majority of the republican party are meant to promote the business interests in the country and exert large scale social control over the workforce. All you have to do is look at attempts to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The cowards only back off in these attempts when it's clear that they will lose their positions of authority if they move forward with that part of their agenda. It's called leading from behind.

In case people are wondering, a substantial portion of the democratic party leadership does the same thing; just not to the same extent. In almost every case, all you have to do is look at who is donating to whom in order to figure out where they will stand when push comes to shove. People like Bernie Sanders are the anomaly in the democratic party, but, overall, their policies aren't quite as discriminatory as are the republican's.

 

[Tempus Fugit]

That depends on what your philosophy of "Constitutionalism" entails. The US Constitution is a deeply, deeply flawed document of very questionable legitimacy given that it was imposed upon the people of the United States by property owning white men who disenfranchised women, POC, and the working poor, drafting it to preserve and serve their particular interests, including such odious practices as slavery. It is not a democratic document and cannot be said to fairly represent the will of "the People" whether at the time it was drafted or adopted or any time since.

If said "Constitutionalist" philosophy involves any form of "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation, it is morally bankrupt and actually completely contrary to 1000 years of "English" common law thought and doctrine, including the very same common law legal framework with which the drafters were familiar. There is a reason why US "conservative" or "textualist" jurists like Scalia and the current cabal are the only proponents of originalist interpretation in the common law world.

The simplest explanation for my philosophy as a Constitutionalist is "What does the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say about that? Does the text contradict itself? (ex. 'Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness' but we're ok with slavery.) If it does contradict itself what correction needs to be made. If it doesn't (contradict itself) then do that.

I wouldn't put myself in the "originalist" camp. I don't have any issues with women voting (their U.S. Citizens) or gay people marrying (Freedom of Expression). I AM a fairly strong believer in what I believe was the original intended philosophy. The whole "Liberty and Justice for All" thing.

You know the constitution was written by white slave owners, to benefit white slave owners, and when written they did not consider black people full human and didn't allow women to vote, right?

My apologies but I find this take on the entire body of work encompassing the constitution and bill of rights overly simplistic.

It's a living document.

You know there are mechanisms inside the document to correct for injustices it may embrace as time moves forward and society evolves right?

No document or idea will perfectly survive the passage of time and evolution of society. That's not a reason to abandon the concepts or structures it lays out but rather a reason to examine and improve them to become more inclusive for all citizens. At least in my opinion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My apologies but I find this take on the entire body of work encompassing the constitution and bill of rights overly simplistic.

It's a living document.

You know there are mechanisms inside the document to correct for injustices it may embrace as time moves forward and society evolves right?

No document or idea will perfectly survive the passage of time and evolution of society. That's not a reason to abandon the concepts or structures it lays out but rather a reason to examine and improve them to become more inclusive for all citizens. At least in my opinion.

You're side stepping the point, while ignoring the practical use of the document for the majority of the US existence and the continued abuses of it by conservatives. This is why constitutionalism is popular in conservative circles and not on the left. It's why it's a conservative position. And that's what this conversation was about. The inherent bigotry of US conservatism.

If one is a constitutionalist, but wants to stay out of the bigotry, they wouldn't be a conservative. Because conservative values are retrograde, and do involve the oppression of minority groups, including using that document as a bludgeon to do so.

 

[Tempus Fugit]

You're side stepping the point, while ignoring the practical use of the document for the majority of the US existence and the continued abuses of it by conservatives. This is why constitutionalism is popular in conservative circles and not on the left. It's why it's a conservative position. And that's what this conversation was about. The inherent bigotry of US conservatism.

If one is a constitutionalist, but wants to stay out of the bigotry, they wouldn't be a conservative. Because conservative values are retrograde, and do involve the oppression of minority groups, including using that document as a bludgeon to do so.

1. I never said I was a conservative, though I do hold some conservative views they're mostly with regards to foreign policy.
2. Even at the founding of the U.S. there were dissenting voices concerning how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. Paraphrasing John Adams: "The Revolution will not be over until slavery is abolished".

I think we're arguing past each other. I'm a "conservative" in that I want to see the ideals espoused in the Constitution and Bill or Rights (Life, Liberty, Justice for All, Freedoms of Expression, Government appointed by the people working for the people etc.) upheld.

What you're arguing seems to be against Fascism, which is a point that we can agree on.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

1. I never said I was a conservative, though I do hold some conservative views they're mostly with regards to foreign policy.
2. Even at the founding of the U.S. there were dissenting voices concerning how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. Paraphrasing John Adams: "The Revolution will not be over until slavery is abolished".

I think we're arguing past each other. I'm a "conservative" in that I want to see the ideals espoused in the Constitution and Bill or Rights (Life, Liberty, Justice for All, Freedoms of Expression, Government appointed by the people working for the people etc.) upheld.

What you're arguing seems to be against Fascism, which is a point that we can agree on.

I didn't say you were. This is what you wrote:

Something along these lines is the reason why so many "Constitutionalists" no longer call ourselves "Constitutional Conservatives". The word "Conservative" has become too charged with negative meaning (and rightly so) to allow for discussion without having to spend 30 minutes explaining that you're not "that kind of Conservative".

The line about not being "that kind of conservative" ignores what conservative means in the US. It breaks down the idea as a misunderstanding of the phrase. Your final point divorcing conservatism from fascism in the US, where the country's largest conservative party overwhelming voted for a fascist, champion fascism, is a distinction without a difference. As I'm told they say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and ten other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with eleven Nazis.

No slavery being the finishing line is telling AF.

 

[Teelie]

You know the constitution was written by white slave owners, to benefit white slave owners, and when written they did not consider black people full human and didn't allow women to vote, right?

I will give the Founders this much: they wrote it in such a way knowing it could not stand still as it was and needed amending and altering in the future. Whether they were all progressive enough in their time to see that slavery would end and women having rights is doubtful.

Obviously they were men of their time and could not abolish slavery and give women rights without outright failing to secure a stable government with the prevailing mentality of the era, nor could they foresee the future, I want to believe at least some of them knew it was inevitable and wanted to give future generations a path towards equality.

Clearly it has not gone that way entirely. There are always going to be regressives parading around as conservatives who want a revisionist history of "better times" for them but not "others" so it's a fight.

I'm not "it was a different time" defending it but pointing out it was of the time they were writing this. Ideas as radical as women having equal rights was too far for them to accept let alone ending slavery. It's just too easy to dismiss the era and say they should have done that when it had no way in hell of succeeding. These guys weren't saints and they weren't selfless but they at least had some sense to give us a way to amend and alter the document.

The current mess we are in is from Regressive Republicans, especially in SCOTUS that have hamstrung any progress and advancement that the Constitution explicity called for.

 

[mclay18]

DeSantis could be a good thing if his brand of ******* politics isn't as popular outside of Florida. I'm not betting on that though.

DeSantis is not ready for prime time. He may project a strong “Trump but smarter” vibe in his state propaganda speeches and controlled media coverage, but he won’t have that safety net if he wins the R primaries. Look at how pathetic and pouty he looked when Biden came to visit Ian victims.

And his track record is repulsive to anyone not part of the MAGA base. Especially the Rust Belt.

 

[Tempus Fugit]

I didn't say you were. This is what you wrote:


The line about not being "that kind of conservative" ignores what conservative means in the US. It breaks down the idea as a misunderstanding of the phrase. Your final point divorcing conservatism from fascism in the US, where the country's largest conservative party overwhelming voted for a fascist, champion fascism, is a distinction without a difference. As I'm told they say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and ten other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with eleven Nazis.

No slavery being the finishing line is telling AF.

You're quite right that I did write that at one point in my life I would have referred to myself as a "Constitutional Conservative". I also wrote that I've since dropped the "Conservative" from it because how that word is commonly used in the U.S. has changed to much to be an accurate descriptor.

That said, calling the current iteration of the mainstream Republican Party "Conservative" is a bit...misleading? The platform they present is by and large a watered down (often not so watered down) fascist one. THEY call themselves "conservative" but they aren't that. (I think we're agreeing on this? It's difficult for me to tell.)

The "actual" Right of Center "Conservative" party in the U.S. currently is by and large the Democrat party. PotUS Biden is a conservative with some centrist positions by any measurement I can find. THEY (Democrats) don't by and large call themselves that but it's what they are.

As far as no slavery being the finishing line, take it up with John Adams. The point I was trying to illustrate was that even during the time the Constitution and Bill or Rights were being written and adopted there were dissenting voices that understood that there would need to be revisions if the stated ideals and reality of the documents were going to match up.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Associated Press - What Trump promised, Biden seeks to deliver in his own way

President Biden Urges Veterans to Seek Health Benefits Under New Law – NBC10 Philadelphia

 

[InCali]

DeSantis is not ready for prime time. He may project a strong “Trump but smarter” vibe in his state propaganda speeches and controlled media coverage, but he won’t have that safety net if he wins the R primaries. Look at how pathetic and pouty he looked when Biden came to visit Ian victims.

And his track record is repulsive to anyone not part of the MAGA base. Especially the Rust Belt.

Let's be honest about it. DeSantis has the charisma of a pollywog and is about as likable as a nursing home burglar.