You'd think it would be better....

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

I think it's more about exerting caution about being an "early adopter." What you're describing is more like being a reactionary.

I find it hard to draw a clear distinction between conservative and reactionary. It's all neophobia to me.

For example, although historically religion has often been an implement for political control of a population, it has not always been conservative (supporting the powers that be), it has just as often been a force for radical change, back as far as the pharoah Akhenaten and his got Ahten. and Moses and the Hebrew god Ywh (vowels are not written in ancient Hebrew.), continuing into the modern period with The Troubles in Ireland.

Yes, in the same way that there is a connection between radical protestant sects in the 1600's and the ideas of socialism. That we are custodians of God's earth and no man can own it, that kind of thing.

Religion doesn't have to be conservative, but conservatives do tend to love religion (and distort it to their own preferences and benefit).

[nobby]

upstairs edit: yes, I know we need an easier system for complex quotes

Why do you think it took Di-Fi so long to do anything with Ms. Ford's evidence against Kavanaugh? That. my friends, was deliberate sabotage.

No, it was because Ford was reluctant to come forward.

Well, if you're talking about rank-and-file that would be health care.

Wrong. It's military spending, but thanks for playing. Even in this case Most Democrats (like myself ) would like less military spending but conservatives have successfully turned that into a third rail over the years that no one dares touch.

I also think that if you separate the hard core Trumpie fascists you find that most run of the mill republicans are not the racists that the Democrats characterize them as and are a lot more open other things as well.

It isn't just racism, though. It's also misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, assorted forms of ignorance, stupidity and superstition as well as pure greed.

"Fiscal conservatism" is bollocks as well; public money flows easily into deficit when there are wars to be fought or corporations to subsidise, but not when their own citizens are starving or dying of disease.

Rape-ubliKKKans are ALWAYS the party to spend like drunken sailors on massive tax cuts for the rich, starting with Reagan. And ALWAYS the party that uses the threat of deficits to try to cut social programs. EXTREMELY clear party line divide.

That's because the Republican leadership is bought and paid for by big corporate interests and lie through their teeth on matters of economics. But so do a lot of Democrats. Starting with Di-Fi and Pelosi, but not to forget Clinton, although she's pretty old news at this point. (I liked Bill, but disagreed sharply with a lot of his actions.)

Corruption is a totally bi-partisan disease, although the Party of Cowardly Greed and Fascism is more open about it these days.

Populist claptrap. Rape-ubliKKKans are to corruption what Google is to search engines. Democrats are barely in the game, statistically, where as corruption is an absolute Rape-ubliKKKan core value. That isn't to say there are no criminals among Democrats, but it's more of an aberration than a specialty.

Who wants to pollute the land, air and water with absolute impunity? Who wants to suppress the vote? Foist the tax burden of the rich onto the middle class? Take away Social Security? Take away health care? Allow Wall Street to rape the treasury?

The Republicans and ONLY the Republicans EVERY FUCKING SINGLE TIME

So give me a break with your false equivalence

[nobby]

I've been trying to explain to you why people in states like Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. are very defensive about their guns - a large percentage of them hunt for food, because that's how the economics of their states work.

Cool. Has anyone been able to get through to you that that has fuck all to do with gun control? That there aren't and have never been any plans to take away people's hunting guns?

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

What about the Financial Services Modernization Act, or the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act?

How about extrajudicial assassinations by cruise missile and drone? Or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?

Just because you're less evil, doesn't mean you're not evil.

[nobby]

I never claimed to be completely unevil

[keks]

I find it hard to draw a clear distinction between conservative and reactionary.

This is kinda the rub of it, in my opinion.
Conservative meant to stand for something.
Law and order, for example, which meant sticking to the actual legislation and defending due process.
Or the concept of sustainability is conservative by design.

Traditionally conservative positions and causes are more or less deserted, all over the globe.
And traditionally progessive-left-ish positions are in dire need of conservation, like medicare, environmentalism, equality and tolerance.
And all over the globe the left is no there,yet, to see that conservatism is, de facto, the new left.


All the best,
the keks

[nobby]

Conservative meant to stand for something.
Law and order, for example, which meant sticking to the actual legislation and defending due process.

In the US, that was never the case. Firstly, "sticking to the actual legislation"? It used to be legal to own slaves and illegal for women to vote. Sometimes the laws need to be changed.

It's about the nature of the laws, and conservatives prefer laws that are medieval.

In fact, that's one way to look at liberals vs. conservatives in the US:

Both want to be more like Europe. Liberals want the US to be more like modern Europe, conservatives want it to be more like medieval Europe except with smart phones, fancy cars, etc.

[Bob Olhsson]

What drives progressivism is fear of a labor revolution. Today we are dealing with the children of those who were afraid in the 1920s and '30s.

That fear also historically drives fascism which is the divide and conquer approach of switching the blame so the victims fight among each other while ignoring those who actually screwed them over.

[weedywet]

Conservative meant to stand for something.
Law and order, for example, which meant sticking to the actual legislation and defending due process.

Really?
So liberals aren’t or weren’t for law and order?
Or due process?

That’s total nonsense spin.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

So what would be an example of a moral and fiscally conservative Republican administration?

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

What drives progressivism is fear of a labor revolution. Today we are dealing with the children of those who were afraid in the 1920s and '30s.

That fear also historically drives fascism which is the divide and conquer approach of switching the blame so the victims fight among each other while ignoring those who actually screwed them over.

Hit the nail on the head.

I am 100% certain that British and US intelligence services are keeping a close eye on Jeremy Corbyn. Just as they did with Harold Wilson.

The dream of Communism may have turned out to be a nightmare, but the idea that Western capitalists were defending "freedom" is laughable. They were terrified of losing their spot at the top of the status quo.

3/4 of wealthy English families in 1086 are still wealthy now. Social mobility my arse.

[keks]

Really?
So liberals aren’t or weren’t for law and order?
Or due process?

That’s total nonsense spin.

And that's a totally unneccessary attack, weedy.
Being for law and order is neither an exclusively conservative nor an exclusive liberal token.
But openly breaking law and acting against the constitution or amendments is not a conservative thing to do. There is no "conservative" any more.
And this is all I wanted to say.
I'm not about glorifying ye conservatives of old, mind you.

Al the best,
the keks

[nobby]

But openly breaking law and acting against the constitution or amendments is not a conservative thing to do. There is no "conservative" any more.

People who call themselves conservatives in the US are doing exactly that right now, acting against the constitution and openly breaking the law.

Other conservatives along with all liberals are trying to stop it.

The "president" installed a criminal who is under investigation for fraud by the FBI as the Attorney General of the US.

I think we may have to differentiate between what is called conservative in the US vs. abroad.

AFAIC conservative became a synonym criminal with the Iran Contra scandal but Nixon was a conservative criminal.

Some Americans who identify as conservative are now panicking because they want to skate up to the line of obvious fascism and Trump went over the line and is costing them votes.

Conservatism in the US means the worship of money and power and the exploitation and subjugation of the powerless.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics, which conservatives consider character flaws of the weak.

[John Eppstein]

For example, during the Viet Nam war, conservatives bombed Viet Nam liberally.

Actually it was mostly liberal Democrats =- JFK and LBJ. Nixon just kept it going, mostly to distract from all the crooked shit he was pulling behind the scenes.

[John Eppstein]

So what would be an example of a moral and fiscally conservative Republican administration?

Eisenhower, more or less.

[John Eppstein]

What drives progressivism is fear of a labor revolution. Today we are dealing with the children of those who were afraid in the 1920s and '30s.

That fear also historically drives fascism which is the divide and conquer approach of switching the blame so the victims fight among each other while ignoring those who actually screwed them over.

Hit the nail on the head.

I am 100% certain that British and US intelligence services are keeping a close eye on Jeremy Corbyn. Just as they did with Harold Wilson.

The dream of Communism may have turned out to be a nightmare, but the idea that Western capitalists were defending "freedom" is laughable. They were terrified of losing their spot at the top of the status quo.

3/4 of wealthy English families in 1086 are still wealthy now. Social mobility my arse.

Obviously you need more gambling clubs.

[John Eppstein]

But openly breaking law and acting against the constitution or amendments is not a conservative thing to do. There is no "conservative" any more.

People who call themselves conservatives in the US are doing exactly that right now, acting against the constitution and openly breaking the law.

Those aren't "conservatives" those are radical Fascists.

Other conservatives along with all liberals are trying to stop it.

What's left of the old style conservatives. Those who still believe in the Rule of Law.

The "president" installed a criminal who is under investigation for fraud by the FBI as the Attorney General of the US.

I think we may have to differentiate between what is called conservative in the US vs. abroad.

The term always varies with context.

AFAIC conservative became a synonym criminal with the Iran Contra scandal but Nixon was a conservative criminal.

Nixon was an opportunistic criminal in conservative's clothing. Not unlike Rump, except that he was smarter and still maintained some respect for our institutions. Kinda. Maybe. Nixon did know a bit about history and really did want to be remembered as a great man.

Some Americans who identify as conservative are now panicking because they want to skate up to the line of obvious fascism and Trump went over the line and is costing them votes.

Yep!

Conservatism in the US means the worship of money and power and the exploitation and subjugation of the powerless.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics, which conservatives consider character flaws of the weak.

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons. Which we've had with us since the mid 19th century, at least. They can be useful if carefully collared and controlled.

[John Eppstein]

But openly breaking law and acting against the constitution or amendments is not a conservative thing to do. There is no "conservative" any more.

People who call themselves conservatives in the US are doing exactly that right now, acting against the constitution and openly breaking the law.

Those aren't "conservatives" those are radical Fascists.

Other conservatives along with all liberals are trying to stop it.

What's left of the old style conservatives. Those who still believe in the Rule of Law.

The "president" installed a criminal who is under investigation for fraud by the FBI as the Attorney General of the US.

I think we may have to differentiate between what is called conservative in the US vs. abroad.

The term always varies with context.

We need to be aware that organized crime is totally agnostic as to which ideology they pervert to serve their ends.

AFAIC conservative became a synonym criminal with the Iran Contra scandal but Nixon was a conservative criminal.

Nixon was an opportunistic criminal in conservative's clothing. Not unlike Rump, except that he was smarter and still maintained some respect for our institutions. Kinda. Maybe. Nixon did know a bit about history and really did want to be remembered as a great man.

Some Americans who identify as conservative are now panicking because they want to skate up to the line of obvious fascism and Trump went over the line and is costing them votes.

Yep!

Conservatism in the US means the worship of money and power and the exploitation and subjugation of the powerless.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics, which conservatives consider character flaws of the weak.

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons. Which we've had with us since the mid 19th century, at least. They can be useful if carefully collared and controlled.

[John Eppstein]

But openly breaking law and acting against the constitution or amendments is not a conservative thing to do. There is no "conservative" any more.

People who call themselves conservatives in the US are doing exactly that right now, acting against the constitution and openly breaking the law.

Those aren't "conservatives" those are radical Fascists.

Other conservatives along with all liberals are trying to stop it.

What's left of the old style conservatives. Those who still believe in the Rule of Law.

The "president" installed a criminal who is under investigation for fraud by the FBI as the Attorney General of the US.

I think we may have to differentiate between what is called conservative in the US vs. abroad.

The term always varies with context.

We need to be aware that organized crime is totally agnostic as to which ideology they pervert to serve their ends.

AFAIC conservative became a synonym criminal with the Iran Contra scandal but Nixon was a conservative criminal.

Nixon was an opportunistic criminal in conservative's clothing. Not unlike Rump, except that he was smarter and still maintained some respect for our institutions. Kinda. Maybe. Nixon did know a bit about history and really did want to be remembered as a great man.

Some Americans who identify as conservative are now panicking because they want to skate up to the line of obvious fascism and Trump went over the line and is costing them votes.

Yep!

Conservatism in the US means the worship of money and power and the exploitation and subjugation of the powerless.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or ethics, which conservatives consider character flaws of the weak.

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons. Which we've had with us since the mid 19th century, at least. They can be useful if carefully collared and controlled.

[Bob Olhsson]

Rump, aka Mango, aka CryBaby is RayGun II.

[nobby]

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons.

Robber barons are just the most successful conservatives. As opposed to the more typical robber baron wannabe conservatives.

These conservatives whose main concern is the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful should not be confused with their allies, Social Conservatives whose main concern is making abortion illegal, with a side order of racism, homophobia and misogyny.

Social conservatives are robber barons' useful idiots. Without the help of social conservatives, robber baron conservatives wouldn't have enough votes to rape the treasury like they did last year.

[John Eppstein]

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons.

Robber barons are just the most successful conservatives. As opposed to the more typical robber baron wannabe conservatives.

No.

It may be difficult to differentiate in today's climate, but the difference is that real conservatives have a more or less well thought out political/economic philosophy based to some degree on caution.

Robber Barons, OTOH have no philosophy except "More for ME!" and are anything BUT cautious if they think it will fill their pockets. In fact Robber Barons can be quite radical in their own way.

For example, it was conservatives who set up the national park system. It's the Robber Barons who want to sell off all the public lands (to themselves) for pennies on the dollar so they can strip mine, drill, and chop it all into short term profits for themselves.

These conservatives whose main concern is the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful should not be confused with their allies, Social Conservatives whose main concern is making abortion illegal, with a side order of racism, homophobia and misogyny.

Social conservatives are robber barons' useful idiots. Without the help of social conservatives, robber baron conservatives wouldn't have enough votes to rape the treasury like they did last year.

Now you're talking about Robber Barons and Theocrats. If you know anything about the history of world religions you know that religions are actually political organizations with two associated goals - (1) achieving total political control of the populace by manipulating popular superstition and (2) Transferring as much wealth and land as possible into the hands of the Priest class. Why do you think the Catholic Church is so rich? Because since priests have not been allowed to marry any wealth the accumulate is inherited by the Church. A great many of the rules of Catholicism are actually there for political reasons harking back to the medieval feudal system. No abortion/birth control because they need serfs to work the fields. In medieval society the kings were vassals of the Pope.

Theocrats and Robber Barons are similar but often conflicting groups (when they're not working together in an often shaky alliance), the difference being that Theocrats use popular superstition as the primary tool of control while Robber Barons find technology to be a more effective method.

[nobby]

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons.

Robber barons are just the most successful conservatives. As opposed to the more typical robber baron wannabe conservatives.

No.

It may be difficult to differentiate in today's climate, but the difference is that real conservatives have a more or less well thought out political/economic philosophy based to some degree on caution.

Right. Like I said, they skate up to the line of fascism but cautiously don't cross it.

Robber Barons, OTOH have no philosophy except "More for ME!" and are anything BUT cautious if they think it will fill their pockets.

You aren't making a case that robber barons aren't conservatives on a grander scale unless you can tell me what exactly the philosophy is that you think separates conservatives from robber barons.

For example, it was conservatives who set up the national park system.

When was the last time that conservatives acted like socialists? Was that it?

Conservatives have been trying to sell off the Nat'l park system since 1981 -- get with the times.

Not just robber barons, everyone else who wants to profit from it. Mining companies, mine workers, construction workers, developers, real estate people, oil companies, oil company workers, lumber companies, lumber company workers -- all profit from selling off public land and self identify and vote conservative.

These conservatives whose main concern is the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful should not be confused with their allies, Social Conservatives whose main concern is making abortion illegal, with a side order of racism, homophobia and misogyny.

Social conservatives are robber barons' useful idiots. Without the help of social conservatives, robber baron conservatives wouldn't have enough votes to rape the treasury like they did last year.

Now you're talking about Robber Barons and Theocrats.

I called them social conservatives, you call them theocrats -- semantics. I'll call them theocrats if it makes you happy -- the media usually calls them social conservatives but I defy you to tell me the difference.

If you know anything about the history of world religions you know that religions are actually political organizations with two associated goals - (1) achieving total political control of the populace by manipulating popular superstition and (2) Transferring as much wealth and land as possible into the hands of the Priest class.

That's old school. The Koch brothers and Robert and Rebekah Mercer aren't priests.

Theocrats and Robber Barons are similar but often conflicting groups (when they're not working together in an often shaky alliance), the difference being that Theocrats use popular superstition as the primary tool of control while Robber Barons find technology to be a more effective method.

With few exceptions theocrats interpret their religions in such a way that they can use technology. Their superstition wouldn't be so popular if they deprived their flocks of it.

ISIL, for example is big on technology. They have engineers, web page designers, use drones. Not a chance that they would still exist without the internet.

[John Eppstein]

Those aren't conservatives, those are Robber Barons.

Robber barons are just the most successful conservatives. As opposed to the more typical robber baron wannabe conservatives.

No.

It may be difficult to differentiate in today's climate, but the difference is that real conservatives have a more or less well thought out political/economic philosophy based to some degree on caution.

Right. Like I said, they skate up to the line of fascism but cautiously don't cross it.

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism, which is about social repression. Traditional conservatism, OTOH, is grounded in economic theory. It's a totally different thing, although fascists often attempt to hide their true ideology behind a facade of conservatism. The thing is, fascists aren't conservatives at all - they're radicals. Fascists are bigots and control freaks. Conservatives are, if anything, the opposite - they believe in minimal governmental control and (wrongly, IMO) rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to prevent abuses. Me, I'm a cynic - I don't think all people are inherently good and I believe the ones that aren't have an unfair advantage in a society with minimal institutional social controls. You DO understand that legislation against racial discrimination, thievery, and murder are actually social controls, right? Taking it a step father, conservatives believe that, sans interference, market forces will balance things out economically. I personally believe that anybody who thinks that is a fool because some people are not inherently good, the Orange Headed Baby being a prime example, Putin being another.

Robber Barons, OTOH have no philosophy except "More for ME!" and are anything BUT cautious if they think it will fill their pockets.

You aren't making a case that robber barons aren't conservatives on a grander scale unless you can tell me what exactly the philosophy is that you think separates conservatives from robber barons.

For example, it was conservatives who set up the national park system.

When was the last time that conservatives acted like socialists? Was that it?

Conservatives have been trying to sell off the Nat'l park system since 1981 -- get with the times.

Not traditional conservatives, Robber Barons. And 1981 is just yesterday. What we're talking about (or I'M talking about, anyway) has much deeper historical and philosophical roots than that.

Not just robber barons, everyone else who wants to profit from it. Mining companies, mine workers, construction workers, developers, real estate people, oil companies, oil company workers, lumber companies, lumber company workers -- all profit from selling off public land and self identify and vote conservative.

Mining companies, developers, real estate speculators, oil companies, and lumber companies are all robber barons to a greater or lesser degree, as well as railroads, airlines, banks, stock brokers, pharma companies, Big Tech, etc.

The employees of such companies can be viewed as dupes or serfs, depending on the harshness of your vision. They're all sharecroppers working for Massa. And they're gonna vote to protect their measly jobs because they see no alternative. They need to be presented with an alternative.

These conservatives whose main concern is the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful should not be confused with their allies, Social Conservatives whose main concern is making abortion illegal, with a side order of racism, homophobia and misogyny.

Social conservatives are robber barons' useful idiots. Without the help of social conservatives, robber baron conservatives wouldn't have enough votes to rape the treasury like they did last year.

Now you're talking about Robber Barons and Theocrats.

I called them social conservatives, you call them theocrats -- semantics. I'll call them theocrats if it makes you happy -- the media usually calls them social conservatives but I defy you to tell me the difference.

If you know anything about the history of world religions you know that religions are actually political organizations with two associated goals - (1) achieving total political control of the populace by manipulating popular superstition and (2) Transferring as much wealth and land as possible into the hands of the Priest class.

That's old school. The Koch brothers and Robert and Rebekah Mercer aren't priests.

No, but Peter Popoff, Creflo T. Dollar, and the Rev. Billy Graham are. And all those other right wing bible thumpers and god botherers.

The Kochs and the Mercers are robber barons. So are Larry Page and Mark Schmuckerberg.

Priests and Barons are very similar at heart but differ in their techniques and public ideologies.

Theocrats and Robber Barons are similar but often conflicting groups (when they're not working together in an often shaky alliance), the difference being that Theocrats use popular superstition as the primary tool of control while Robber Barons find technology to be a more effective method.

With few exceptions theocrats interpret their religions in such a way that they can use technology. Their superstition wouldn't be so popular if they deprived their flocks of it.

ISIL, for example is big on technology. They have engineers, web page designers, use drones. Not a chance that they would still exist without the internet.

That's the modern world for ya! Theocrats are willing to use most anything that's convenient to achieve their ends, often including things that they vociferously preach against publicly.

ISIL/ISIS most definitely WOULD exist without the internet, but they wouldn't be nearly as effective or be as great a threat. You seem to think they're something new - they're not. Radical Islamic cults like that have a lineage that goes all the way back to the Hashishim, which originated in 1060, only a couple of centuries after formalized Islam itself.

https://erenow.com/common/the-most-evil ... ory/9.html

Incidentally, I don't much care what terminology the media is currently using - the media has become shockingly loose in their definitions of terms over the last several decades. At this point they're about at the stage of calling any fruit an "apple".

[John Eppstein]

I'd like to point out that when you're involved in a "game" that contains strong elements of strategy and tactics it's best to try to understand your opponent as deeply as possible. And when your opponent consists of a large group containing several various factions it helps to be able to understand how those factions diverge from each other so one can plot one's own strategy. Simplistic thinking (and planning) is bad "gamesmanship".

[Bob Olhsson]

So much of this crap traces to European colonialism it's ridiculous.

Racism was the way the upper class explained away their un-Christian treatment of the local people in the various countries around the world they conquered. Let's not forget that every European monarch had purchased their divine right to rule from Rome. Part of the "deal" was that they had to give the Church a central role in their country's culture.

Anti-whatever traces to this colonial nonsense spiced with the anti-Islamic propaganda that was created around Spain being conquered by people whose religion taught there could be no class divisions, much less a divine right to rule.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism...

Just wanting to say that it looks as if conservatives are becoming confused about this.

The state corporatism of fascism is anathema to Keynesianism and neoliberal economics (even if capitalist poster boys such as Ford are willing to participate in it for profit).

Then you get an idiot like Trump, who's idea of market deregulation is imposing trade tariffs.

Trump's brand of populist protectionism brings the GOP closer to fascism than ever before.

[nobby]

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism, which is about social repression.

American conservatives who identify as social conservatives, and whom everyone else with the possible exception of you considers to be
social conservatives SPECIALIZE in social repression.

I don't know if you've been watching the news for the past couple of years but some of these evil-gelicals want people put to death for being gay.

They are both social conservatives and radicals. Just because there are conservatives who aren't racists doesn't mean there aren't PLENTY who are. There is no magical line of demarcation between conservative and radical, between conservative and fascist. It's a matter of degree. There is also no clear line between socialism and communism, which allows the conservative propaganda machine to convince low info voters that they are one and the same.

The thing is, fascists aren't conservatives at all - they're radicals.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If they are, show me the line that divides them.

Fascists are bigots and control freaks. Conservatives are, if anything, the opposite - they believe in minimal governmental control and (wrongly, IMO)

No, conservatives are absolutely control freaks. Got gerrymandering? A minority of Americans ramming conservative judges down the throats of the majority so that social conservatives can make abortion and homosexuality illegal and the so-called fiscal conservatives want to control government to make it small. They don't want minimal gov't control, they need maximum gov't control in order to make our democracy small enough to drown in a bathtub.

And they only believe in minimal gov't control when the opposition is in power, just like they only believe in fiscal responsibility when the opposition is in power.

So, to recap and try to avoid a semantic quagmire, conservatives need maximum control over gov't in order to make it small so it has the minimum ability to control them through taxation and regulations that only benefit 99% of the people.

and (wrongly, IMO) rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to prevent abuses.

I don't think they are all that naïve, judging from the large number of conservative criminals that make it to positions of high gov't. I'm not being metaphorical, I'm talking felony convictions and huge fines for fraud and a plurality of evil-gelicals will let them get away with almost anything if they claim they want to make abortion illegal.

The current acting AG -- highest law enforcement position in the country -- is a KKKard KKKarrying KKKon$$eЯvative KKKЯi$$tian.

This fascist thug is under investigation by the FBI, whom he oversees, for fraud and his company had been sued and had to pay $26M in fines for fraud (John this is background for others, I think you already know this stuff)

He was installed by Trump as part of his hilariously obvious and transparent criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

There are self identifying conservatives who want to destroy the middle class for profit but want to avoid destroying our system off checks and balances and becoming a fascist state.

And there are self identifying conservatives -- millions of them, apparently -- who simply call themselves conservatives instead of fascists because the word fascism got its brand tarnished in the 20th century so people won't vote for a candidate that refers to himself as fascist.

I consider poisoning the land, water and air to be crimes. Defrauding consumers is a crime. Deregulating the financial industry is dangerous. That's a Democratic, liberal view.

Conservatives want to decriminalize all of those things because of greed and ignorance.

You DO understand that legislation against racial discrimination, thievery, and murder are actually social controls, right?

You DO understand that you take a condescending tone with me at your peril, right?

Taking it a step father, conservatives believe that, sans interference, market forces will balance things out economically.

What makes you think they all actually believe that? What makes you so sure most of them care about any negative consequences of their sickeningly irresponsible tax cuts? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

One of the core values of American conservatism is basic dishonesty. It goes so well with their other core values of greed, hypocrisy and ignorance.

[Bob Olhsson]

The only way the market can balance things is by having no limits at all on liability for owners and investors. Corporations would simply be illegal.

The desire for liability limits has always been exchanged for the imposition of government oversight and regulations.

[John Eppstein]

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism, which is about social repression.

American conservatives who identify as social conservatives, and whom everyone else with the possible exception of you considers to be
social conservatives SPECIALIZE in social repression.

First, I'm not a conservative, by any means. (Technically a case could be made that I'm, still a member of SDS, since I never actually quit...) I identify as a Radical Centrist - I pick and choose based on issues and history, not propaganda.

Second, you've been deeply affected by noxious propaganda from the so-called "left" (who IMO aren't real leftists at all, I'm not sure what the correct term would be), which is just as bad in its own way as a lot of the stuff spewing from the (amalgamated) right. My lawyer friend up in Maine is certainly not a bigot and doesn't want to socially repress anybody. He is, unfortunately, something of a sheep (as are YOU), reluctantly going along with some fairly odious stuff because "that's what Republicans do", although he finds a lot of it distasteful in the extreme.

What I'm saying is that what the Democratic party has to do is establish a dialog and be understanding of the FACT, which will not change, is that people who live in conditions that are vastly different from the conditions enjoyed by the urban middle class do have valid points as pertaining to the reality they live in, and furthermore, we need these people for society to work.

We need to do something about this partisan divisiveness. We need to understand that people living in different circumstances have different needs and we need to meet the needs of others without bludgeoning them over the head with ideology.

You have to start by discarding your assumption that you are representative of "everybody else." That's the same way of thinking as that of the die-hard Rumpie.

Who was that on The Womb who had a sig that went "Rednecks call me a tree-hugger and tree-huggers call me a redneck. I must be doing something right!" We need more of that.