How Non MAGA Conservatives View Trump

Ramrouser said:
Good was told to get out of the car. She ignored the officers and instead chose to listen to her partner who told her to “drive baby drive.”

I’m consistent in that I believe both shootings (Babbitt and Good) were legally justified but could have been avoided had the officers shown more discretion. Both women unnecessarily put themselves in dangerous situations resulting in their tragic deaths.I
Click to expand...
I am convinced that Ramrouser would have voted in favor of Dredd Scott and would have seen it as morally right and good. He would have favored Hoover's lack of action during the depression, favored the free hand of the market, and would have thought it made good economic policy and the it was logical. He would have favored allowing Nazi Germany to overrun Western Europe because of isolationism and nativism, and it just isn't the U.S.'s problem. He would have favored lack of action action over COVID because well it is what it is and people die.

That is his right under Constitution. I just cannot believe that he is graduate of UNC-CH, much less a Tar Heel fan. It's stupefying. He would be much more at home at State or a certain massive "non-European" failed nation state that brings nothing to the work but weapons, oil and misery.
 
I know nothing should surprise me anymore, and truly few things do, but it still has stunned me how quickly the entire conservative movement completely surrendered their supposed immutable defense of the Second Amendment. Before yesterday, I truly thought that the right to bare arms was the ultimate Holy Grail. The fact that they did a complete 180 so quickly should be the final proof – as if anyone needed more – that modern conservatism as a whole has no principle, no core values or beliefs, and no ideology outside of competing with one other to see who can deep throat Donald Trump the hardest.

A man who had every Second Amendment-guaranteed legal right to carry and every First Amendment-guaranteed legal right to protest was disarmed, held down by 7 agents of the state, and then shot multiple times in the back. That quite literally goes against everything conservatives have always claimed to believe about limited government and the proper use of state power. I do not understand why that principle suddenly disappeared for the Republicans defending this- and we may never get the answer, because if most conservatives are like the two craven cowards on this thread, they’ll dodge and deflect forever.

But it has not disappeared for me as a conservative. You do not lose your Constitutionally guaranteed rights because you are carrying, and you do not lose those Constitutionally granted rights because you are protesting, or video recording, or being in the vicinity. Those two rights- the First and Second Amendments- are supposed to coexist in America, not stand mutually exclusive to one another.

You can support strong borders and immigration law enforcement and still believe yesterday was wrong and illegal, because believing in law and order also means believing the government must be held to the absolute highest standard when it uses force. This is not about politics. It is about the rule of law, personal liberty, and the expectation that the state exercises its power with restraint- the fact that so many conservatives have been so willing to surrender those values so easily really makes you wonder if they ever actually held those values at all.
 
CFordUNC said:
I know nothing should surprise me anymore, and truly few things do, but it still has stunned me how quickly the entire conservative movement completely surrendered their supposed immutable defense of the Second Amendment. Before yesterday, I truly thought that the right to bare arms was the ultimate Holy Grail. The fact that they did a complete 180 so quickly should be the final proof – as if anyone needed more – that modern conservatism as a whole has no principle, no core values or beliefs, and no ideology outside of competing with one other to see who can deep throat Donald Trump the hardest.

A man who had every Second Amendment-guaranteed legal right to carry and every First Amendment-guaranteed legal right to protest was disarmed, held down by 7 agents of the state, and then shot multiple times in the back. That quite literally goes against everything conservatives have always claimed to believe about limited government and the proper use of state power. I do not understand why that principle suddenly disappeared for the Republicans defending this- and we may never get the answer, because if most conservatives are like the two craven cowards on this thread, they’ll dodge and deflect forever.

But it has not disappeared for me as a conservative. You do not lose your Constitutionally guaranteed rights because you are carrying, and you do not lose those Constitutionally granted rights because you are protesting, or video recording, or being in the vicinity. Those two rights- the First and Second Amendments- are supposed to coexist in America, not stand mutually exclusive to one another.

You can support strong borders and immigration law enforcement and still believe yesterday was wrong and illegal, because believing in law and order also means believing the government must be held to the absolute highest standard when it uses force. This is not about politics. It is about the rule of law, personal liberty, and the expectation that the state exercises its power with restraint- the fact that so many conservatives have been so willing to surrender those values so easily really makes you wonder if they ever actually held those values at all.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but this version of the GOP has no principles. None. They’d happily support a federal law that requires the abortion of all Democratic fetuses.
 
CFordUNC said:
I know nothing should surprise me anymore, and truly few things do, but it still has stunned me how quickly the entire conservative movement completely surrendered their supposed immutable defense of the Second Amendment. Before yesterday, I truly thought that the right to bare arms was the ultimate Holy Grail. The fact that they did a complete 180 so quickly should be the final proof – as if anyone needed more – that modern conservatism as a whole has no principle, no core values or beliefs, and no ideology outside of competing with one other to see who can deep throat Donald Trump the hardest.

A man who had every Second Amendment-guaranteed legal right to carry and every First Amendment-guaranteed legal right to protest was disarmed, held down by 7 agents of the state, and then shot multiple times in the back. That quite literally goes against everything conservatives have always claimed to believe about limited government and the proper use of state power. I do not understand why that principle suddenly disappeared for the Republicans defending this- and we may never get the answer, because if most conservatives are like the two craven cowards on this thread, they’ll dodge and deflect forever.

But it has not disappeared for me as a conservative. You do not lose your Constitutionally guaranteed rights because you are carrying, and you do not lose those Constitutionally granted rights because you are protesting, or video recording, or being in the vicinity. Those two rights- the First and Second Amendments- are supposed to coexist in America, not stand mutually exclusive to one another.

You can support strong borders and immigration law enforcement and still believe yesterday was wrong and illegal, because believing in law and order also means believing the government must be held to the absolute highest standard when it uses force. This is not about politics. It is about the rule of law, personal liberty, and the expectation that the state exercises its power with restraint- the fact that so many conservatives have been so willing to surrender those values so easily really makes you wonder if they ever actually held those values at all.
Click to expand...
Conservatism is simply this - there must be a in group that the law protects, but does not bind, and an out group the law binds but does not protect.

When you understand this, you understand why Pretti is not entitled to the rights conservatives have previously declared sacrosanct - he's not one of them (the in group).

It's literally just that simple.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top