I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

Yes but many democrat's supported this idea, I am fully aware of where the agenda came from. But it is them that now has embraced this agenda claiming that to be against it is protectionist, racist and promoting bigotry. Yes many in the GOP still support this idea as most of them are globalist but you are missing the fact it's mostly people in both party's that have embraced this agenda. To argue otherwise is truly a total lack of the current reality of what is going on.

 

The intent of the constitution comes from the Declaration of Independence and Article V is an orderly method of using the right to alter or abolish defined in the Declaration.

 

Since the civil war, which was unconstitutional, the government has been increasingly unconstitutional and is not of "we the people" any longer because "we" denotes unity and because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged there is little unity.

The destruction of unalienable rights by government directly or indirectly provides lawful justification to alter or abolish the unconstitutional entity by amendment. To do this unity is required.

What did the framers intend serve the PURPOSE of unifying the people to effectively alter or abolish if it was NOT free speech?

 

I will respond to your other comments later after more thought

I think it is interesting that you THINK-assume that you know what is on my mind
Buy do not.

What I actually think is as follows
I think that all political ideologies have shape shifted over time,
And that these ideologies are (or have become) an amalgamation of ideas and attitudes that are often internally inconsistent.

I think that conservatives often attempt to validate their ideas as somehow emerging from natural laws of the universe which therefore are immune to discussion. And that those with different ideas are stupid, or venal, or deluded since they are attempting to promote ideas that are experiencially failed... these non conservative since ideas must inherently fail non conservative ideas conflict with natural order

So I ask questions to test wheather the My preconceptions are correct.

Imo... if conservative ideas are somehow inerrant because they emerge from natural law,
Then we should see these laws emerging from human society in our most natural state... i.e. Primitive human societies

Alternatively, conservative principles are a relatively modern intellectual invention.... and that discovery also would be an interesting basis for discussion imo

I am interested to discover what is the core of conservative ideology
And what are the roots or foundational validations underlying those core beliefs

My hope is that you can make a good faith effort to identify those core beliefs and the reasons that you hold those beliefs-attitudes

 

I am not really much of a conservative but I guess I have become one by not changing what I think over the last 8 years or so.

I actually agree with a lot of what you have said in this post. I guess the issue here is that the OP isn't a though and though conservative. I am only called one because I am anti globalist so that in most peoples minds put's me in the same camp as Alex Jones.

Though really my views are closest to Ron Paul so what I say isn't going to be the same as what a normal "I don't want to pay for other people no matter what" GOP people say or what a "free market no matter what" GOP member would say.

Honestly I think it takes a mix of what might be called conservative and progressive views to make a fair and balanced system.

But with Primitive human societies along with what I have said before really modern conservative ideology is more liberal than what they did in part because they did what they needed to in order to live. But also because they like humans of all time did things that were wrong because they could get away with it. It's not because they were more evil, but because the systems we have in place to enforce law and order didn't exist like they do now. Thing's have changed a lot and so much progress has been made but not all of it is good.

I think the difference between the conservative ideology and Liberals are that conservatives embrace the fact that progress can be a bad thing while Liberals fear the idea that progress could be bad. I think both sides have there point's on those issues.

I think conservatives like direct power more where they control banking, make up most of our army and become business leaders. I think Liberals like indirect power where they rule in education, courts, the press and media. On the issues conservatives give up more freely on the social issues while they fight to the last on issues that deal with money. Where as Liberals care less about money and more about social issues. They also move toward control of free speech writing laws on what can't be said as a means to indirectly control the public on disagreeing with them on the social issues they hold dear.

 

Onus is entirely on you to provide credible substantiation for your extremist alt right disinformation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-over-our-best-defense-is-fighting-inequality

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...onomy-and-the-markets/?utm_term=.cdd52e11ed23

Took under 60 seconds to find those. But sure those are alt right Bull crapper web sites. Look's like I have provided substantiation with sources to back my statement, now where is your counter to this if you can provide a credible source to back it up that is .

Wonder who the winner of the debate is..........

 

The DoI has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution and/or the Law of the Land.

The intent of the Constitution is defined in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.

Article 5 makes no mention whatsoever of "abolishing government"

You are disingenuously attempting to conflate two unrelated events without any substantiation whatsoever.

 

The states that attempted to secede from the Union lost their violent attempt to deny We the People equal rights under the Law of the Land.

If you want to derail this thread by rehashing the Civil War you will need to start another thread.

But at least we have clarified your agenda for the benefit of the OP.

Have a nice day!

 

Well said. I highly encourage you to read Madison's transcripts of the 1787 constitutional convention. Not all founders are alike and their disputes have been played out again and again to the present day, with the ratificationists clearly winning.

 

Neither of those links support your extremist alt right disinformation.

 

And now I know I have won, thank you.

 

Puerile non sequitur response!

 

Back your claims with a source then. If not then your the only one promoting disinformation here frankly.

 

Are you denying that the Republican agenda was to push their failed free market dogma at all costs? Rewriting history does NOT change the FACTS! Since Reagonomics the Republicans have been supporting that disaster and it was ONLY once it all collapsed in 2008 that there were rumblings of discontent.

That dissatisfaction in the ranks of Republicans only came to a head when Trump started spouting his "protectionist" BS. Unfortunately he "won" the EC and now the GOP has to deal with the reality of their fiscal malfeasance. Since they control all 3 branches of the government they can't blame the Dems or even try to share the blame with them because it was all their idea in the first place.

However the extremist alt right is trying to blame the Dems because that is their nefarious agenda and you have swallowed it without question.

If you want links to the facts there are plenty out there but here are a couple that you can start with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_Republican_Party#Economic_policies

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...s-are-now-more-antifree-market-than-dems.html

 

You have really twisted this debate here. I agreed with you that it started as a Republican Agenda. What I said was that Democrat's then jumped on the train as well and then complain that being against globalization is protectionism, racist or promoting bigotry.

Just to be %100 clear I agree with you where the agenda came from, now will you agree there are many democrat's in office or that have ran that are in the same boat or are you going to claim it's alt-right disinfo?

I am rewriting zero history here, though you may have misunderstood my comments on the subject.

 

Onus is entirely on you to substantiate that the Dems bought into and actively promoted the failed Republican "free markets" dogma.

Just naming a handful of Dems who might have voted on a bill because it contained earmark provisions that would benefit their districts is disingenuous. For what you are alleging to be substantive it must demonstrate the Dem party platform and the majority of the party endorsed it and "jumped on the train".

 

Then perhaps you should provide a list of what news media outlets are considered by yourself to be accurate and truthful, so that they may be referenced, rather than simply claiming that the cited source is nothing more than fake news after the fact.

Which ultimately does not mean anything, beyond specific scientists being willing to agree that there is the possibility that humanity has played some part in the development of climate change. But that does not, in any way, demonstrate that there is indeed evidence that climate change exists solely because humankind has caused it to exist.

It is indeed not possible. Scientists cannot say for certain that what is being noted as climate change, absolutely could not have possibly come about if humankind had simply not become industrialized in the manner that it had.

Just as you have ignored the points about insurance policies that possess unaffordable deductibles that the policy holder must pay out of pocket, before they are reimbursed. If one cannot afford to pay the sum of three thousand dollars on their own, then their insurance is useless to them. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist beyond a vague concept of thought.

While the existing system at the time could be considered broken, what came about simply made it all the worse. Nothing was fixed in any meaningful way. The affordable care act is a joke to most other countries, as it benefited the insurance providers rather than the people who needed access to health insurance the most.

Which means nothing of actual worth. The above claim is no different from the claim regarding unemployment levels, based strictly on how unemployment is interpreted. Regardless of the interpretation, the same number of individuals have no employment, they are simply counted differently. It is the same argument that is presented when it is pointed out that various other nations have a higher crime rate than the united states, and it is claimed that such is due to different categorizing.

Your entire statement makes no sense. It is as if you are claiming that insurance is more affordable because it is more expensive, and there is a greater need to pay out more to get the same service as previously.

Where is the evidence that the testimony from the internal revenue service is inaccurate?

You would have those present believe that climate change is a construct brought about by the activity of humankind, simply because scientists say that such is the truth. Yet when those in the internal revenue service state that illegal aliens have stolen the social security numbers of citizens of the united states, you demand a significantly higher standard of evidence be presented because their word is not good enough, despite them being experts in their field.

Then as said previously, perhaps you should provide a list of what news media outlets are considered by yourself to be accurate and truthful, so that they may be referenced, rather than simply claiming that the cited source is nothing more than fake news after the fact.

Then perhaps they should cease coming to the united states where they will be exploited for profit by various corporations. They are nothing more than ignorant slaves who do not even understand the fact that they are being made into slaves in the united states.

 

So then why respond to a question about Republicans by mentioning the New Black Panther Party? That's like Assad saying :"Yeah... but Ted Bundy also killed people" The NBPP is not in power. Republicans are. They are a group consisting of... something like 10 "members", whereas Republicans have control over all 3 branches of government.. Furthermore they are not left. Ideologically they are an extreme right-wing Nationalist Anarchist Party. They express pretty much the same ideas as the Alt-right, except that their goal is to turn this into a black nation, whereas the alt-right wants to turn us into a white nation. Other than that, no significant differences.

 

Nope!

The DoI discusses the reasons to "dissolve the political bands" between England and the American colonies. It justifies doing so on the Magna Carta principle of the "consent of the governed" and points out that the English government has violated that principle on a number of legitimate counts.

Since the American Colonies cannot "abolish" the English government they instead chose to "throw off the bonds" of that government.

The specious argument that is being made in this thread is that the government of We the People "has become destructive" and therefore should be "abolished". Unlike the DoI that laid out specific and substantive reasons why there was a need to "throw off the bonds" there is no similar case being made against the government of We the People.

Instead there is nothing more than a baseless allegation about "destructive to unalienable rights" without any shred of substantiation. Once that was queried it was established that the agenda of the poster was to justify the secession of the southern states prior to the Civil War. It was the southern states that were "destructive to unalienable rights" since they were denying them to We the People living in those states.

In essence this is just a fabrication without any legal merit whatsoever as opposed to the DoI that was legally justified by the tyranny of the King towards citizens living in the Colonies.

 

"Just as much" is a dishonest answer because we have statistical evidence that contradicts this.

Measuring prejudice is a means for determining "racism" because prejudice is the foundation of racism. There are two different measurements of prejudice with one being "implied prejudice" that's a subjective indication because the opinion expressed "implies" the prejudice. Then we have "explicit prejudice" that is an opinion that is contradictory to known facts. It's "in your face prejudice" that cannot be disputed. An example of an explicit test question could be:

Statement:
A black person is more likely to commit a criminal act.
Answer:
( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Don't Know

The question addresses the commission and not the conviction for criminal acts and that's a key point.
Blacks and whites statistically commit different types of crimes for example blacks tend to commit more violent crimes while whites tend to commit more "white collar" (financial) crimes. Violent crimes (murder) are far more likely to be identified than white collar crimes (entering fraudulent information on a tax return). In some cases, such as drug crimes, the commission rates are the same but the arrest/prosecution/conviction rates are far higher for blacks than for whites.

To check the Yes block or the No block would actually indicate prejudice one way or the other because I'm unaware of any study that actually quantifies the answer to this question. Rarely are "commission" rates measured and then only in limited categories such as drug usage and without overall information on commission rates the only accurate answer is "Don't Know" to this question.

In 2012 a study, one in a series of studies done over the years, measured both implicit and explicit racial prejudice and the study included a breakdown based upon self-identified political ideology of those involved in the study and looking at just the measurement for "explicit" (actual prejudice) there's a huge difference between racial prejudice by Republicans and Democrats.

When 79% of Republicans express explicit racial prejudice and only 32% of Democrats express explicit racial prejudice it's not "just as much" but instead it's "over twice as much" racial prejudice by Republicans.

 

Ha! If you think my agenda is clarified on that way while avoiding answering the question as it was posed, as many times as your have, then your agenda against the most prime rights of the constitution is exposed.

And we haven't even mentioned your selectivity, agent.

With your evasion you will refuse to address exactly what Lincoln meant in 1859 when he said "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court", which can only logically mean that he was trying to avoid the war and be constitutional by using Article V.

 

Chevy, pre barry, Ford, after barry.

 

Ok. Here's one.

The right spend many days using every opportunity to attack the left for "hating the Constitution", "violating the Constitution", "disregarding the Constitution" and anything else indicating (in their words and minds) a rejection of the Constitution by the left.

How can that be reconciled with their current refusal to oppose Trump's violation of the Constitution? He has 422 pieces of real estate scattered around the country including luxury hotels and resorts, and he remains the beneficiary of every one of them as foreign officials come here to stay in his hotels and resorts while meeting with him, putting money directly in his pockets in complete violation of the Emoluments Clause. He even bought a luxury property for $40 million, held it two years, and sold it for a price of $100 million to a Russian government oligarch. That price was WAY, WAY over the assessed value of it, but it got the Russian access.

How does the right reconcile their past (and continuing) attacks on the left for a claimed "disregard for the Constitution" while ignoring Trump's clear and actual disregard for it? ........ and he is the "president"!!!!!

How?