A new word is needed

[YoursTruly]

Since I discovered "conservatism" I've started realizing just how unconservative republicans are. People like Reagan & Trump. The MSM, and republicans alike, will claim that both of those guys are/were conservative. Regardless of their actual record of supporting things that are not conservatism at all. Not even close.
I use Trump and Reagan as exampled because their unconservative record is so clear, that it can't be refuted legitimately. Things like tax cuts with HUGE spending increases. There's nothing conservative about that. In fact, the act is extremely liberal.
So after much ado, I've come to the realization that I'm not going to convince enough people, especially Trump supporters, that real conservatives would never increase spending, without cutting enough of something else, to pay for the new spending.

So, we need a new word.

A word that describes a person who believes in taxing ONLY as much as needed to run a government that strictly adhere's to the constitution. And someone who would never pass laws like the NDAA, Patriot Act, HSA, Real ID act (that gives government officials the authority to go onto peoples property without a warrant), FISA 702. (warrantless spying on Americans)
Some who respects the Bill of Rights and understands that "all men are created equal. And have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And that that statements has no caveats.


For the record, some republicans and democrats support some of those things listed above. But not all of it. That's a fact. And a quick glance at their voting records would prove it.

One word comes to mind, libertarianism. But I don't think that would work, because the media, the left and the right have deemed even the most honorable libertarian leaning folks, lunatics. (or some other childish irrelevant name)
So let's see some new words. Try to be serious.

 

[BlindBoo]

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Cato's Mission

 

[jc456]

Since I discovered "conservatism" I've started realizing just how unconservative republicans are. People like Reagan & Trump. The MSM, and republicans alike, will claim that both of those guys are/were conservative. Regardless of their actual record of supporting things that are not conservatism at all. Not even close.
I use Trump and Reagan as exampled because their unconservative record is so clear, that it can't be refuted legitimately. Things like tax cuts with HUGE spending increases. There's nothing conservative about that. In fact, the act is extremely liberal.
So after much ado, I've come to the realization that I'm not going to convince enough people, especially Trump supporters, that real conservatives would never increase spending, without cutting enough of something else, to pay for the new spending.

So, we need a new word.

A word that describes a person who believes in taxing ONLY as much as needed to run a government that strictly adhere's to the constitution. And someone who would never pass laws like the NDAA, Patriot Act, HSA, Real ID act (that gives government officials the authority to go onto peoples property without a warrant), FISA 702. (warrantless spying on Americans)
Some who respects the Bill of Rights and understands that "all men are created equal. And have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And that that statements has no caveats.


For the record, some republicans and democrats support some of those things listed above. But not all of it. That's a fact. And a quick glance at their voting records would prove it.

One word comes to mind, libertarianism. But I don't think that would work, because the media, the left and the right have deemed even the most honorable libertarian leaning folks, lunatics. (or some other childish irrelevant name)
So let's see some new words. Try to be serious.

Roe vs Wade. which side are you on? That's the new conservative position.

 

[YoursTruly]

Roe vs Wade. which side are you on? That's the new conservative position.

Roe V Wade was fought on the grounds of privacy. I'm all for one's privacy. It's allows for personal responsibility. Which I'm a huge supporter of.
On the subject of abortion, you're question is too vague and/or open ended. What are the factors involved? Rape, incest? medical condition of the baby? Was it a drunken one night stand? Are their drugs involved? Is the house the baby will be raised in an abusive one?

I need details to understand the question. Because there so many different scenarios. Some I'm opposed to. Some I'd agree with.

Life is too important to just broad brush this issue.

 

[SavannahMann]

I love discussions like this. Because then I get to point out that both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, embrace segments of Socialism. As one example, the Republicans are pushing the “NOPAIN” act. An act which guarantees that the Government is even more involved in your medical care, but which does nothing that it would seem to claim in the title. It limits prescription pain medication to a last resort.

Federal bill would make opioids 'last resort' prescription

When Obamacare was being debated, I remember clearly the same Republicans arguing loudly, and often, that the medical treatment you received should be left to the Doctor, and the Patient, and nobody else should have a say. Honestly, while I felt that the health care system needed some fixes, I could not disagree with the Republican position. Each patient is different, and there has never been a one size fits all approach to anything. Yet, fast forward a few years, and the same leave it up to the Doctor Republicans now want Government control over what treatments you can receive. Truly a Socialist approach. Government deciding what you are allowed to have, is literally the Socialist mechanism. How long before we start rationing other things, like cars, electricity, and all that. Just because the Government thinks we are using more than we should.

Republicans are just as Socialist as the Democrats. Government authority, Government regulation, and Government power used to subjugate the citizens all in the name of what? Not helping those who suffer debilitating and often agonizing conditions. Nope, we are banning these pills because people buy illegal street drugs like Heroine and overdose.

Notice how often the arguments are exactly the same, on different issues. Democrats argue we can’t allow millions of gun owners to possess various weapons because a handful do something terrible with them. How awful the Democrats are, how Socialist, deciding what the citizens are allowed to do when they aren’t hurting anyone.

Yet, the Republicans who are so fast to whip out the Socialist term to denounce the Democrats, embrace the same arguments regarding the non existent opioid crisis. They denounce the desire of the Left to use the Government to round up the guns, and at the same time use the same powers to spy on the citizens claiming that they are only reading emails that leave the country. Not telling you that the emails are intentionally routed to overseas servers to insure that they “leave the country” so they can be read.

Democrats say they must ban these guns to keep the people safe. Republicans say we must spy on the citizens to keep us safe. Just give up your freedoms, and let a politician who has only campaigned at a medical school, never actually attended it, decide your health care.

Both are Socialist, and both are a pox on the nation. I told the wife I was through voting, because neither party was worth a damn. Both were socialists. Neither side respects the Constitution, it is merely a hurdle to get over, or around, to do what they want.

 

[YoursTruly]

One thing worth noting: Somewhere along the lines, the definition of the word "conservative" got changed. And no one told the republicans or democrats.
It would take an extremely popular, and well liked person to bring the old definition back. But I don't think that's going to happen.

"Classic liberal" has the word liberal attached to it. And there's just too damn many surface level thinkers that can fully understand that a classic liberal isn't Pelosi or AOC.

 

[YoursTruly]

I love discussions like this. Because then I get to point out that both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, embrace segments of Socialism. As one example, the Republicans are pushing the “NOPAIN” act. An act which guarantees that the Government is even more involved in your medical care, but which does nothing that it would seem to claim in the title. It limits prescription pain medication to a last resort.

Federal bill would make opioids 'last resort' prescription

When Obamacare was being debated, I remember clearly the same Republicans arguing loudly, and often, that the medical treatment you received should be left to the Doctor, and the Patient, and nobody else should have a say. Honestly, while I felt that the health care system needed some fixes, I could not disagree with the Republican position. Each patient is different, and there has never been a one size fits all approach to anything. Yet, fast forward a few years, and the same leave it up to the Doctor Republicans now want Government control over what treatments you can receive. Truly a Socialist approach. Government deciding what you are allowed to have, is literally the Socialist mechanism. How long before we start rationing other things, like cars, electricity, and all that. Just because the Government thinks we are using more than we should.

Republicans are just as Socialist as the Democrats. Government authority, Government regulation, and Government power used to subjugate the citizens all in the name of what? Not helping those who suffer debilitating and often agonizing conditions. Nope, we are banning these pills because people buy illegal street drugs like Heroine and overdose.

Notice how often the arguments are exactly the same, on different issues. Democrats argue we can’t allow millions of gun owners to possess various weapons because a handful do something terrible with them. How awful the Democrats are, how Socialist, deciding what the citizens are allowed to do when they aren’t hurting anyone.

Yet, the Republicans who are so fast to whip out the Socialist term to denounce the Democrats, embrace the same arguments regarding the non existent opioid crisis. They denounce the desire of the Left to use the Government to round up the guns, and at the same time use the same powers to spy on the citizens claiming that they are only reading emails that leave the country. Not telling you that the emails are intentionally routed to overseas servers to insure that they “leave the country” so they can be read.

Democrats say they must ban these guns to keep the people safe. Republicans say we must spy on the citizens to keep us safe. Just give up your freedoms, and let a politician who has only campaigned at a medical school, never actually attended it, decide your health care.

Both are Socialist, and both are a pox on the nation. I told the wife I was through voting, because neither party was worth a damn. Both were socialists. Neither side respects the Constitution, it is merely a hurdle to get over, or around, to do what they want.

Long before the ACA came along, I was in the hospital with a busted knee. The doc came in with a prosthetic knee model to show me what he was going to use to fix my destroyed knee. The wife and I were excited about it. The doc said I'd be good as new in no time.
He left the room for about 10 minutes and returned to tell us that my health insurance didn't cover prosthetics. The policy was something offered by my wife's employer. The doc's only options given by the insurance company was to either patch it best he could. Or amputate.
Skip forward about 10 years, and I'm in the ER with severe stomach pains. The doc say's "I think it's gall stones." My reply was "Well, since I'm already here, how about we find out for sure." Well because of the insurance companies rules, the test the doc needed to perform, to find out for sure, wasn't allowed unless I was running a fever. (sonogram) So I said I'm burning up, the doc wrote down the temperature that the insurance company would allow to perform the test.

Point is, all this talk we heard about how the government would come between someone and their doctor, happens to health insurance customers all the time. The republicans didn't tell us that when they were "acting" like they were opposed to the ACA. Funny thing about all that. The GOP had the majority in the House, Senate and White House after Obama. And they funded it. They didn't repeal it.
So, everything you posted above is 100% correct. Republicans only seem to be conservative, when there's a democrat president.