LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

ParadiseLost said:

In that case you aren't really conservative.

You're just advocating a movement to kill conservativism off so that your ideology can take its name in order to claim its legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

Trump is not a conservative, and his Presidency was a sign of the death of conservativism in America.

Note that neither of this is meant to be a criticism of you or Trump in any way, as strange as that sounds; I see myself as a bystander in this.

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand, and I don't mind honest inquiries in good faith on issues like this.

I'm conservative, just not of the old breeds, and I am not advocating for 'killing off' conservatism, not at all. I am trying to help conservatism adapt to the new realities, pull in new swing voters, and keep expanding it's base into the future. Adapt or die is a universal maxim, and it's not the new breed of conservatives that are resisting that necessary adaptions to the Right's strategies and platforms.

Losing the battle on same-sex marriage was the best thing that happened to the GOP before Trump. It removed the issue from contention, and thus removed a big reason LGBs had to fear the Right; trying to restart that battle is the height of foolishness. Even if some fossils want to try.

The neo-cons are going to be primaried in the next few years, and no one will miss them or their forever war bullshit.

The paleo-cons like Fuentes and his ilk will never be allowed to cause the Right to commit political suicide by backsliding on LGB stuff; the populist coalition Trump built won't let them sabotage the ground gained on those issues.

King Arts said:

Now I agree with you purity tests should be avoided towards the regular members of our side. However higher ranked people should definitely have tests, because if we don't have tests then liberals will infiltrate those areas and use the power to enforce things. Just look at two other sci fi forums that shall not be named. Another real life example was at West Point a communist was trying to infiltrate it, and posted on twitter about the long march through the institutions. Thankfully Spencer Rapone was caught and kicked out of the military. But it just goes to show that the left WILL try to send people in.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here, but what are needed isn't so much 'tests', as it is eyes on the situation that know the Left and Dems dirty tricks and methods via actually having been on the Left/Dems before they went insane.

Basically, you want people to weed out Dem plants, then stick right leaning ex-Dems and independents in watchdog positions; they will catch infil attempts a lot faster than 'conventional' conservatives.

King Arts said:

Also Trump while he did do some good things and avoided bringing us into more wars. We have to acknowledge he was not that bright, I mean there were opportunities for him to do so much more. Also, I believe he kind of saw it coming, this election is what I mean. Early last year he tweeted no mail in voting, and if there was no mail in voting he could have won, he should have used executive authority to ban any voting that is not in person.

Click to expand...

You forget Trump was being continually sabotaged by Swamp Rats in State Dept, DoD, and in the GOP establishment, including his own VP. Most staffing stuff went through Pence, Trump had to take who he could get, and there are rumors that Pence was involved in some of the Impeachment/Investigation bullshit Trump had to deal with.

There's a reason Pence was not up there with Trump today, or really in the running for 2024.

And if you think Trump isn't that bright, you have fallen for the same facade and media spin the Dems did in 2016.

ParadiseLost said:

Then you have to understand that most conservatives aren't going to see you as a conservative at all.

To most conservatives, the ideas of political freedom and the 2nd Amendment are important primarily because of how they serve religious and traditional values.

In other words, to most classic conservatives, the hierarchy of ideologies is something like this:

1) Religious values
2) Traditional values
3) Constitutional values

Whereas you are more ordering things like:

1) Social values
2) Libertarian values
3) Right-wing values

The only reason you're stuck on the 'same side' ideology is because you're thinking in a false dichotomy of "a person is either a left winger or a right winger."

And in this case, to most classic conservatives, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Click to expand...

And this would be why I won't call myself conservative. Because I'm not, fundamentally I believe opposing deconstructivist politics from the position of conservation is in and of itself an act of capitulation..

I believe the left has to be engaged and relentlessly attacked, preemptively in most cases until it and it's voters no longer are able to debase and defile this Roma Novus of ours.

But I respected religious cons and paleocons even when I disagreed vehemently with them because shit man. At least they were proactive even if they botched it.

Edit- Bacle telling conservatives he wants to help move them to new realities tells you everything you need to know about how conservative he isnt

Bacle said:

Oh, I understand, and I don't mind honest inquiries in good faith on issues like this.

I'm conservative, just not of the old breeds, and I am not advocating for 'killing off' conservatism, not at all. I am trying to help conservatism adapt to the new realities, pull in new swing voters, and keep expanding it's base into the future. Adapt or die is a universal maxim, and it's not the new breed of conservatives that are resisting that necessary adaptions to the Right's strategies and platforms.

Click to expand...

Conservativism is about conserving traditional ideologies.

That's part of the reason why I didn't vote for Trump.* Because I agree with you that Trump represents an 'adapt or die' sect of conservatism, and honestly... I'm just not interested.

I'm not that Conservative, and Trump's populism has dropped things I like while clinging to ideals I don't support.

Bacle said:

Losing the battle on same-sex marriage was the best thing that happened to the GOP before Trump. It removed the issue from contention, and thus removed a big reason LGBs had to fear the Right; trying to restart that battle is the height of foolishness. Even if some fossils want to try.

The neo-cons are going to be primaried in the next few years, and no one will miss them or their forever war bullshit.

The paleo-cons like Fuentes and his ilk will never be allowed to cause the Right to commit political suicide by backsliding on LGB stuff; the populist coalition Trump built won't let them sabotage the ground gained on those issues.
I agree with you here, but what are needed isn't so much 'tests', as it is eyes on the situation that know the Left and Dems dirty tricks and methods via actually having been on the Left/Dems before they went insane.

Basically, you want people to weed out Dem plants, then stick right leaning ex-Dems and independents in watchdog positions; they will catch infil attempts a lot faster than 'conventional' conservatives.
You forget Trump was being continually sabotaged by Swamp Rats in State Dept, DoD, and in the GOP establishment, including his own VP. Most staffing stuff went through Pence, Trump had to take who he could get, and there are rumors that Pence was involved in some of the Impeachment/Investigation bullshit Trump had to deal with.

There's a reason Pence was not up there with Trump today, or really in the running for 2024.

And if you think Trump isn't that bright, you have fallen for the same facade and media spin the Dems did in 2016.

Click to expand...

Again, though, you're basically saying you're as much of an enemy to religious conservatives as the progressives are. (Even moreso, arguably.)

There are a lot of Religious Right people who would've been very happy if Trump had been impeached and Pence replaced him.

*Clarity: I chose not to vote at all, despite the fact that it was my first opportunity to vote ever. Part of it was that I just didn't consider it worth the time.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

And this would be why I won't call myself conservative. Because I'm not, fundamentally I believe opposing deconstructivist politics from the position of conservation is in and of itself an act of capitulation..

I believe the left has to be engaged and relentlessly attacked, preemptively in most cases until it and it's voters no longer are able to debase and defile this Roma Novus of ours.

But I respected religious cons and paleocons even when I disagreed vehemently with them because shit man. At least they were proactive even if they botched it.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I’m not ‘conservative’ as I consider ‘conservatives’ to be just as useless as RL Dabney prophesied. Why would I want to ‘conserve’ evil?


“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights, will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Click to expand...

TlDR: rinos, cuckservatives, appeasers, fence sitters and lolbertarians need not apply.

True conservatives hate you and the rest of us on the right think you're pathetic and you do more damage to the country than you do good.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

TlDR: rinos, cuckservatives, appeasers, fence sitters and lolbertarians need not apply.

True conservatives hate you and the rest of us on the right think you're pathetic and you do more damage to the country than you do good.

Click to expand...

Conservative decadence is as much to blame as any other ideology.

We traded our equity and our independence away for cheaply made foreign baubles. It was a Republican who opened the door to an "alliance" with China to try and weaken the USSR. It was a Republican who gave China permanent MFN status.

Its Conservatives who, every year, buy billions of dollars of cheap widgets or clothes from foreign countries.

We abandoned industry and independence for "luxurious" living.

ParadiseLost said:

Conservativism is about conserving traditional ideologies.

That's part of the reason why I didn't vote for Trump.* Because I agree with you that Trump represents an 'adapt or die' sect of conservatism, and honestly... I'm just not interested.

I'm not that Conservative, and Trump's populism has dropped things I like while clinging to ideals I don't support.

Click to expand...

Conservatism can also be about conserving resources/the environment, or conserving nation strength instead of doing a lot of proxy wars or foreign aid, or conserving Constitutional Rights and freedoms against socialist/Marxist attempts to destroy them.

Limiting 'conservatism' to just 'conserving traditions' is like having a multi-tool with a dozen different abilities, and only using it as a screwdriver.

Some of the most sane and practical environmental ideas I've seen came from people on the Right, not the Left, and that is a very valuable, though often overlooked, part of what Republicans have been in the past. Think Roosevelt Republicans, not Reaganites.

ParadiseLost said:

Again, though, you're basically saying your as much of an enemy to religious conservatives as the progressives are. (Even moreso, arguably.)

There are a lot of Religious Right people who would've been happy if Trump had been impeached and Pence replaced him.

*Clarity: I chose not to vote at all, despite the fact that it was my first opportunity to vote ever. Part of it was that I just didn't consider it worth the time.

Click to expand...

If they want to be my enemy, because I won't give them special treatment, will call out their bullshit that is barely different from the Far-Left, and won't let them get away with thinking they can strip the rights from LGBs, then fine.

I prefer an honest enemy to someone who smiles while trying to put a knife in my back.

Luckily, the people in control of the Right now are not so foolish as the fossils who want to try to remove same-sex marriage, and won't allow them to make it a political platform for the populist Right.

So I know that if push comes to shove, the populist Right won't be siding with the fossils, because they do not want to commit political suicide.

Bacle said:

You forget Trump was being continually sabotaged by Swamp Rats in State Dept, DoD, and in the GOP establishment, including his own VP. Most staffing stuff went through Pence, Trump had to take who he could get, and there are rumors that Pence was involved in some of the Impeachment/Investigation bullshit Trump had to deal with.

There's a reason Pence was not up there with Trump today, or really in the running for 2024.

And if you think Trump isn't that bright, you have fallen for the same facade and media spin the Dems did in 2016.

Click to expand...

He may have social intelligence, but a leader can't rule alone. That means that a good and great leader needs to be able to pick competent and loyal servants to carry out his wishes. Many of the Tsars and kings of Europe were kind people who wanted what was best for their people, and were not blood thirsty sadists, but actually compasionate human beings. Look at Louis 16, and Nicky 2nd. But they are incompetent bad kings because their civil servants and military leaders were either, corrupt, incompetent, or disloyal and unable to do the job. However great leaders like Napoleon and Alexander and Caesar, and Trajan and Hadrian, etc. were able to not just be great themselves but able to find other great men and make them work for them. Trump was not able to drain the swamp, in the past (1800's) the vice president was seen as an unimportant position that did nothing unless the president died. That means Trump could just side line Pence, and fire the entire state department and replace it with new people, from the top down. Seriously if the swamp is this bad even going for people who aren't the most competent is ok. Hell doing what the Ancient Athenians did in their democracy and going to areas of the nation where people are conservative and voted for him, and just randomly picking people off the street to give them the positions in the civil service would not be that bad, as that would remove traitors. Now I know those people might not be the best at their job, but someone who doesen't know how to do their job well and does almost nothing is still better than a traitorous viper that will backstab you. Competence is worse than useless if it is turned against you, loyalty to the nation and it's people is more important.

DocSolarisReich said:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights, will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

Click to expand...

Holy shit this guy is basically talking about the slippery slope over 100 years ago. This really does show that conservatives know what they are talking about. When we give warnings about the dangerous pit liberals will take this country well we can see right here that it's true. You know though, now I think I know how Cassandra from Ancient Troy felt when no one listed to her prophecies.

Bacle said:

Conservatism can also be about conserving resources/the environment, or conserving nation strength instead of doing a lot of proxy wars or foreign aid, or conserving Constitutional Rights and freedoms against socialist/Marxist attempts to destroy them.

Limiting 'conservatism' to just 'conserving traditions' is like having a multi-tool with a dozen different abilities, and only using it as a screwdriver.

Some of the most sane and practical environmental ideas I've seen came from people on the Right, not the Left, and that is a very valuable, though often overlooked, part of what Republicans have been in the past. Think Roosevelt Republicans, not Reaganites.

Click to expand...

People know the difference between political conservatism and environmental conservatism, Bacle. That's not what we're talking about here.

Bacle said:

If they want to be my enemy, because I won't give them special treatment, will call out their bullshit that is barely different from the Far-Left, and won't let them get away with thinking they can strip the rights from LGBs, then fine.

I prefer an honest enemy to someone who smiles while trying to put a knife in my back.

Click to expand...

They are pretty much your honest enemy, politically.

Though I'll admit, the fact that a lot of people on this forum really, really love traditional monarchies should've clued you in that they were your enemies.

If nothing else, this place has reminded me of just how loony the right can be.

Captain X said:

If nothing else, this place has reminded me of just how loony the right can be.

Click to expand...

The Sietch is quite a bit loonier than the right in its entirety.

King Arts said:

He may have social intelligence, but a leader can't rule alone. That means that a good and great leader needs to be able to pick competent and loyal servants to carry out his wishes. Many of the Tsars and kings of Europe were kind people who wanted what was best for their people, and were not blood thirsty sadists, but actually compasionate human beings. Look at Louis 16, and Nicky 2nd. But they are incompetent bad kings because their civil servants and military leaders were either, corrupt, incompetent, or disloyal and unable to do the job. However great leaders like Napoleon and Alexander and Caesar, and Trajan and Hadrian, etc. were able to not just be great themselves but able to find other great men and make them work for them. Trump was not able to drain the swamp, in the past (1800's) the vice president was seen as an unimportant position that did nothing unless the president died. That means Trump could just side line Pence, and fire the entire state department and replace it with new people, from the top down. Seriously if the swamp is this bad even going for people who aren't the most competent is ok. Hell doing what the Ancient Athenians did in their democracy and going to areas of the nation where people are conservative and voted for him, and just randomly picking people off the street to give them the positions in the civil service would not be that bad, as that would remove traitors. Now I know those people might not be the best at their job, but someone who doesen't know how to do their job well and does almost nothing is still better than a traitorous viper that will backstab you. Competence is worse than useless if it is turned against you, loyalty to the nation and it's people is more important.

Click to expand...

Ok first, Trump is not a king or warlord, so bad analogies, and part of why people expected more from Trump than he could realistically deliver (and he delivered on a LOT of his campaign promises, or made good faith attempts to do so).

Second, consider clearances and classified info; you HAVE to vet for positions that may have to deal with that stuff. You cannot simply grab someone off the street.

Third, Trump had to take who he could get, because anyone who went to work for him had to be willing to deal with the media attempting to destroy them. A lot of qualified and sympathetic people simply didn't want to put themselves or their families through that.

Forth, the US Federal bureaucracy is mostly staffed by Dems, and Dem appointees; Trump straight up campaigned on Draining the Swamp. He had diplomats and generals straight up lying to him or ignoring his orders, and suffering no consequences, becauase the Swamp was protecting it's own. Do the math, and realize Trump had an uphill fight to get anything done.

The simplistic view of trying to compare Trump to Alexander or Napoleon completely misses the realities on the ground he had to deal with, and limits on Executive power built into the US Constitution.

Bacle said:

If they want to be my enemy, because I won't give them special treatment, will call out their bullshit that is barely different from the Far-Left, and won't let them get away with thinking they can strip the rights from LGBs, then fine.

I prefer an honest enemy to someone who smiles while trying to put a knife in my back.

Luckily, the people in control of the Right now are not so foolish as the fossils who want to try to remove same-sex marriage, and won't allow them to make it a political platform for the populist Right.

So I know that if push comes to shove, the populist Right won't be siding with the fossils, because they do not want to commit political suicide.

Click to expand...

I asked this earlier and people brought up quotes about the slipper slope and the great big new thing.
But can I ask, what makes you think LGB that is where we should stop? What makes you think if we went your way by 2040 your kids will be telling mine "We need the LGBT to stop incest/pedos/whatever." Right now you are excluding the trannies, so are you saying the only reason we are excluding them when we try to appeal to those who engage in sodomy is because you think it might work? Also you said religion and populism can't go together why is that? What makes you think that the working class are in support of men shoving things up their butt, and having parades where they flaunt it? To me it sounds like the populist base aka the working man is more likely to be turned off by when the people in control aka the establishment suck off big bussiness. The same big bussiness that censors right wingers and caters to the left? I hope I don't have to bring up Gina getting kicked off the Mandalorian, and Twitter, and Facebook. Seriously to entice a larger group it would be better to kick out big bussiness and argue for the things socialists say. We can say that we will give those commies a taste of their own medicine and tax the hell out of Zuckerburg, and those big corporation. Thats more likely to make the base happier than simply waving a rainbow flag, and saying I support the gays.

King Arts has a point about Pence, though: in terms of administrative power, he was completely at Trump's mercy the entire time he wasn't acting in his capacity as President of the Senate.

ParadiseLost said:

They are pretty much your honest enemy, politically.

Though I'll admit, the fact that a lot of people on this forum really, really love traditional monarchies should've clued you in that they were your enemies.

Click to expand...

You have no idea about my history with the forum or the people who founded it, or the political discussions that indirectly created this forum, so I'll forgive you for talking about stuff you really know nothing about.

The monarchists are frankly irrelevant, as are the paleo-cons, except in how they damage the Right's ability to adapt and plan for the future of the party/movement.

King Arts said:

I asked this earlier and people brought up quotes about the slipper slope and the great big new thing.
But can I ask, what makes you think LGB that is where we should stop? What makes you think if we went your way by 2040 your kids will be telling mine "We need the LGBT to stop incest/pedos/whatever." Right now you are excluding the trannies, so are you saying the only reason we are excluding them when we try to appeal to those who engage in sodomy is because you think it might work? Also you said religion and populism can't go together why is that? What makes you think that the working class are in support of men shoving things up their butt, and having parades where they flaunt it? To me it sounds like the populist base aka the working man is more likely to be turned off by when the people in control aka the establishment suck off big bussiness. The same big bussiness that censors right wingers and caters to the left? I hope I don't have to bring up Gina getting kicked off the Mandalorian, and Twitter, and Facebook. Seriously to entice a larger group it would be better to kick out big bussiness and argue for the things socialists say. We can say that we will give those commies a taste of their own medicine and tax the hell out of Zuckerburg, and those big corporation. Thats more likely to make the base happier than simply waving a rainbow flag, and saying I support the gays.

Click to expand...

Ok, lot to unpack here.

First, realize most working class people have bigger concerns than LGB stuff, and hardly any of them want to refight the battle on same-sex marriage. Most of them consider it a settled matter, and don't care what LGBs do as long as it doesn't cost them tax dollars or force them to deal with woke bullshit.

Second, I didn't say religion and populism cannot go together, only that religion cannot dictate policy or laws in a secular society, and trying to push for it is foolish.

Third, going after Big Tech is a unifying issue for a lot of Right leaning subgroups; it's not an issue where there is much divide except among the old school neo-cons. And LGBs who are right leaning get cancelled too, so would want to help in this fight, if the paleo-cons would stop trying to chase us out.

Forth, the establishment GOP are the ones that fought same-sex marriage the first time, not the populists, and even the establishment and populists generally agree same-sex marriage is a settled matter now. Only the paleo-cons seem to want to refight that battle.

Fifth, taxing big business is...not as strong a position as it used to be, simply because people saw their wages go up when Trump cut the corporate tax rates. Taxing certain big businesses more, like Silicon Valley and hedge fund people, would probably unify the base well enough on the issue of corporate taxation.

strunkenwhite said:

King Arts has a point about Pence, though: in terms of administrative power, he was completely at Trump's mercy the entire time he wasn't acting in his capacity as President of the Senate.

Click to expand...

That is not the impression I've gotten from seeing things from former Trump admin people; Pence was put in place as Trump's VP when they thought he'd lose. He was the establishment's creature the whole time, knew how to work DC more than Trump did, and was the one person Trump couldn't fire.

Why do you think the cracks between them only showed at the end? Trump had to keep up the image he and Pence were working flawlessly together, because any publicly visible rift between the two would have gotten the Dems and media smelling even more blood than normal.

Bacle said:

Ok first, Trump is not a king or warlord, so bad analogies, and part of why people expected more from Trump than he could realistically deliver (and he delivered on a LOT of his campaign promises, or made good faith attempts to do so).

Second, consider clearances and classified info; you HAVE to vet for positions that may have to deal with that stuff. You cannot simply grab someone off the street.

Third, Trump had to take who he could get, because anyone who went to work for him had to be willing to deal with the media attempting to destroy them. A lot of qualified and sympathetic people simply didn't want to put themselves or their families through that.

Forth, the US Federal bureaucracy is mostly staffed by Dems, and Dem appointees; Trump straight up campaigned on Draining the Swamp. He had diplomats and generals straight up lying to him or ignoring his orders, and suffering no consequences, becauase the Swamp was protecting it's own. Do the math, and realize Trump had an uphill fight to get anything done.

The simplistic view of trying to compare Trump to Alexander or Napoleon completely misses the realities on the ground he had to deal with, and limits on Executive power built into the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

It is true that the president is not a king or dictator he does have limits on his power, but I don't think you can point to anything I suggested that would be outside of the president's power. The president is the head of the executive branch he can fire the people there because they serve at his pleasure. Yes there is classified info, but if the president appoints someone as acting head of a department that person is entitled to receive that classified info. Yes the senate has to confirm the appointment, to become official. But it's a gray area on what happens if it doesen't and the president does not appoint anyone else. Also there were quite a few people in Trump's cabinet who were only acting secretaries and not confirmed by congress. When I said grab someone off the street I was not being serious you could go and find qualified people, but to give an extreme example even if Trump appointed a rando off the street as long as that person was not a spy working for China or Russia, or had an extensive criminal history it'd probably be ok, or at least better than the swamp.

This is true alot of his appointments were harrassed and treated terribly, but Trump has the support of millions of people I'm sure he could find some brave souls willing to take the heat.

For your fourth point, with that ammount disloyalty and sabatoge of the president that just means that it requires drastic measures like purging the entire civil service by firing all of them fire the FBI, CIA, state department down to the field agents even then hire new people from local police forces that are in red counties. For generals fire the disloyal ones and promote loyal soldiers, or bring in retired generals that we KNOW supported Trump and put them in as supreme commander to clean up the mess. The president not congress has control over how the executive branch operates, the only thing they can do is impeach. But then the people who vote for it are known as supporting the swamp. Now yes firing the FBI is extreme it means until they are replaced mobsters and drug dealers get to breathe easier. But that's worth it, to get rid of corrupt traitors. Like corruption and treason are more deadly to a nation than criminals.

Bacle said:

That is not the impression I've gotten from seeing things from former Trump admin people; Pence was put in place as Trump's VP when they thought he'd lose. He was the establishment's creature the whole time, knew how to work DC more than Trump did, and was the one person Trump couldn't fire.

Why do you think the cracks between them only showed at the end? Trump had to keep up the image he and Pence were working flawlessly together, because any publicly visible rift between the two would have gotten the Dems and media smelling even more blood than normal.

Click to expand...

Well, politically speaking maybe Trump had to let Pence do stuff because he needed Pence's expertise, or in order to present the appearance of a good working relationship, or because of tradition, or whatever. But what I was trying to get at was, what does Trump constitutionally have to let Pence do in his administration? Basically nothing.

If Trump had shut Pence out on Day 1 the media would have exploded with gleeful speculation, I'm sure, but constitutionally speaking I doubt anything could have been done. Maybe Day 1 wouldn't have worked, since I guess the government needs to justify sufficiently drastic policy changes, but by six months in I don't know why Pence would have any more power than Trump chose to devolve upon him—whether or not he was happy about the reasons for that choice.

I am going to ask, what is wrong, in the general sense of the world with allowing the religious to have their say in the government? As long as the barrier of non-interference between church and state affairs holds, and each respects the role of the other, I don't see the harm. I want them to respect my irreligious beliefs, and in turn I want to tolerate them and them be tolerated in turn for their beliefs.

And how is it right for one belief system, especially one psuedo-religious like progressivism be able to push their beliefs on other groups, when other groups are not allowed to do the same. Pushing is definitely never correct, advocacy is, and I don't really see the religious types here pushing. They just want to advocate for their beliefs and convince others that they are correct.

Also, seems to me that certain types think compromise is getting everything they want in trade for supporting what is held in common to be a good. That isn't at all compromise, compromise would be finding a solution that appeals to everyone or appeals to most everyone, or is least noisome. I can see a fair compromise on the gay marriage thing, take the state out of marriage and have it all be civil unions, give marriage to religions and maybe community institutions.

Generally speaking, a law that applies to all people must be justifiable on secular grounds because to justify it on religious grounds is to privilege such religion over religions that oppose the same law. The same restriction would apply to "pseudo-religious progressivism", I suppose.

So it's fine to have a religious motivation to want a law to be passed or repealed, but to pass such a law there should also be a sufficent justification that can be demonstrated to society at large regardless of religion.

strunkenwhite said:

Generally speaking, a law that applies to all people must be justifiable on secular grounds because to justify it on religious grounds is to privilege such religion over religions that oppose the same law. The same restriction would apply to "pseudo-religious progressivism", I suppose.

So it's fine to have a religious motivation to want a law to be passed or repealed, but to pass such a law there should also be a sufficent justification that can be demonstrated to society at large regardless of religion.

Click to expand...

Who gets to determine that?