On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 01:56:31 AM Craig Sanders via luv-talk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:19:26AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
You are assuming that there are many Republicans that meet your idea of conservatism as opposed to conservatism being defined as believing in whatever authoritarians tell them to believe.
that's a pretty simplistic definition of conservatism.
It's a common belief that conservatives have to believe in every extreme position. Take RINO for example.
i'm talking about actual conservatives, not radicals and lunatics who have hijacked the term as convenient branding.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutual-aid-parecon-right-stealing- libertarian Meanings of words change over time. The word "libertarian" was appropriated by Murray Rothbard, it wouldn't make sense to use it in any other way now. A discussion requires some agreement on the use of terms.
the conservative side of politics has strong associations with right-wing authoritarianism but that's not actually what conservatism is about - and not all conservatives are reactionaries. not all of them are stupid, either - many have a much more coherent and nuanced understanding of their philosophical and political ideology than idiot lefties (and their counterpart idiot right-wingers) who treat political parties the same as a football team "you've always got to support your side, no matter how fucked up they are".
Conservatism has some inherent reliance on authoritarianism. For example anyone who believes that a hereditary monarch should have any actual power has to support some degree of authoritarianism.
i may disgree with them on most things, vehemently on some, but i've got a lot more respect for a conservative who can articulate their position than i have for an idiot who just barracks for their side (even if that side is the same as mine).
I have more respect for someone who has little political knowledge but believes that no-one should starve to death or die of a curable disease than someone who can clearly articulate a reason for causing people to needlessly die.
i suggest you do some reading on the topic. start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
A nice Wikipedia listing many varieties of conservatives, most of whom you will never encounter. Fox News, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh seem to represent most conservatives in the US.
You are also assuming that the people who meet your definition will refrain from voting for Trump instead of just voting a conservative ticket.
i believe there are enough 'old school' conservative republicans who would be disgusted enough by a radical buffoon like Trump winning the republican nomination that they'd choose not to vote in protest....and enough of them that it could make a difference to the election's outcome.
same as there are 'old school' Liberals here in .au that are disgusted by what the Liberal Party has become (but voting is compulsory here, so most will vote Liberal anyway. some will donkey-vote)
Apart from inhumane treatment of refugees (which Labor mostly supports), what have the Liberals done that might disgust their traditional voters?
You forgot to mention that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Many people claim that Obama is a Muslim (he is a Christian unlike Romney) and that he wasn't born in the US (he was unlike Ted Cruz and John McCain). Those people will immediately find some reason for hating Sanders that supposedly isn't related to him being Jewish.
they wouldn't vote for him anyway because he's a socialist. he might even try to impose some regulations on the finance industry!
also, everyone knows that socialism == satanism.
More importantly, as I said: "What matters more than anything else is that Wall Street gets to continue doing WTFIW". Bernie Sanders seems very unlikely to go along with that, so he can't be allowed to win. whatever it takes.
they'd vote for a black jewish female atheist as long as she was a slave to wall street, before they'd vote for a socialist of any kind.
actually, they wouldn't vote FOR her...but many would choose not to vote for Trump against her.
I think you are forgetting the influence of the Tea Party etc. Wall Street likes to buy elections, but Karl Rove's failure in 2012 shows that it doesn't always work the way they want. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/