But the right to determine who is your “God” is not allowed, so in fact the whole concept is mutable;
Meanwhile the ideal of freedom is not available for entire groups of people, and problems stemming from a lack of regulation can’t be fixed by less regulation.
The notion that it is ‘conservative’ to value freedom above all – instead of recognizing the importance of civic responsibility – is ludicrous, as is ignoring all the Founding Fathers said and did to make the Constitution a mutable document. And what about the term “well regulated”? Apparently the FFs weren’t as ‘conservative’ as has been claimed by half of the population.
The only way the Republican platform makes sense is if you remember that they define words differently than what you’ll see in a dictionary. They call themselves ‘conservative’, but they’re reactionaries, which is what their platform actually represents.
I’m claiming that it’s “conservative” to think that if your parents were “good people” for the time, and you have exactly the same values that your parents did, that you should be considered a “good person” in this time as well.
Conservativism seems rooted in the idea that what is right and what is wrong can’t, or shouldn’t, change. Progressivism, on the other hand, says that we must always find ways to be better.
Again, I’m not saying that their values themselves are conservative; I’m saying that their inability to critically examine those values and acknowledge they’re out-of-date is.
I totally agree with you there, I just think that the claims made in their platform are logically inconsistent…well, OK, lies basically. I know you were quoting them. It’s been a long day and I don’t think I’m expressing myself well. Sorry about that!
This guy:
hast won the Michigan Republican Primary election for State House Representative. He’ll be facing Abdullah Hammoud in a no-DQ match at November’s big PPV.
As I mentioned in another thread, I’m certain this is to court people who consider themselves old line Republicans/conservatives but have hit the end of their willingness to toe the party line with Trump. She’s not going to win if only the committed left-wing faction votes for her. She needs the Bell Curve bump in the middle.
I get that, but there has to be a point at which that “committed left-wing faction” gets sick of the lip-service they’re getting. Clinton can try to build a coalition a mile-wide, but she can’t govern that broadly. Courting sane Republicans,yes. But Kissinger?
Maybe she’s just looking for statements from them about Trump being utterly unsuitable, rather than outright endorsements.
The article’s so vague it’s hard to know what to make of it, though the response of “had not yet taken a position on Trump” sounds more like the Clinton campaign was trying to add to the list of GOP leaders condemning Trump. Not enough data to even know whether anything in there’s reliable. If Kissinger showed up on a podium stumping for Clinton I’d write in my (irrelevant) vote for Giant Meteor.
