• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Should Conservatives be Allowed to Hold Government Office?

Should Conservatives be Allowed to Hold Government Office?

  • Total voters
    68
What exactly are Conservatives? Like, the Clintons?!
 
FYI, a US "conservative" would be considered a "raving right-wing storm-trooper way to the right of Genghis Khan" in other countries. And a US "liberal" would be a "conservative".

In Oz, our mainstream "conservatives" look a lot like your Democrats. Oh, and they are in government just now...for a while anyway. They have just demonstrated their ungovernment clown-car skills by overthrowing one of their own as PM in an act of blatant revenge by a previous PM who was (and is) a complete and utter dickhead, and who was previously overthrown himself.

So maybe you should re-frame the question: Should proven incompetents be allowed hold Government Office? Answer: No. The problem is setting the bar and testing them beforehand.
 
Though "liberal" is often held to be the opposite of "conservative", I contend that this is not the case.

"Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian". "Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative".

Discuss.
 
Nice example of Betteridge's Law not always working.

This is a more general question about the kind of society we'd like to have.

The kind I like is where voters decide who gets to hold public office.
 
In my country anyone of any political party or no political party can hold high office, indeed at the moment our government is a Conservative government.
 
arthwollipot said:
Though "liberal" is often held to be the opposite of "conservative", I contend that this is not the case.

"Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian". "Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative".

Discuss.
Click to expand...

It's not just your personal view, it's the meaning of the words and political ideologies!
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Your answer lies in San Francisco, quite literally on the sidewalks and in the streets. You don't need poop maps unless progressives are running the show.
Click to expand...

No, I blame "progressives" for supporting 3rd world sanitary conditions as they step carefully through their feces farm.
 
arthwollipot said:
Though "liberal" is often held to be the opposite of "conservative", I contend that this is not the case.

"Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian". "Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative".

Discuss.
Click to expand...


Halfway there. "Progressive" is the opposite of "reactionary", with "conservative" in the middle. I also contend that "liberal" and "authoritarian" are absolute terms, while "progressive" and "conservative" are relevant. If I found myself transplanted to Scandinavia, I'd probably be a conservative, but still liberal, for example

Also, I don't actually think "liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian". Its more a scale of: totalitarian, authoritarian, liberal, libertarian, anarchist. But I'm sure that's imperfect.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It's not about vengeance - it is about preventing the RNC from pretending that Trump never happened.
Click to expand...
Why is that important? Trump isn't conservative. He doesn't represent the GOP establishment, its goals, or priorities. There are plenty of Republicans who want nothing more than to have this presidency over with, put it behind them, and get back to being one half of the entrenched two-party system in this country. Without giving up too much partisan advantage in the process - hence holding their noses and working with Trump in the meantime.

And yes, I think it absolutely is about vengeance. You want to rub their noses in it, to spread guilt and blame and shame as far and wide as you can, to mollify your sense of being affronted by President Trump.
 
theprestige said:
Why is that important? Trump isn't conservative. He doesn't represent the GOP establishment, its goals, or priorities. There are plenty of Republicans who want nothing more than to have this presidency over with, put it behind them, and get back to being one half of the entrenched two-party system in this country. Without giving up too much partisan advantage in the process - hence holding their noses and working with Trump in the meantime.

And yes, I think it absolutely is about vengeance. You want to rub their noses in it, to spread guilt and blame and shame as far and wide as you can, to mollify your sense of being affronted by President Trump.
Click to expand...

If you are correct, then shouldn't Trump be "primaried" in 2020?
 
theprestige said:
Why is that important? Trump isn't conservative. He doesn't represent the GOP establishment, its goals, or priorities. There are plenty of Republicans who want nothing more than to have this presidency over with, put it behind them, and get back to being one half of the entrenched two-party system in this country. Without giving up too much partisan advantage in the process - hence holding their noses and working with Trump in the meantime.

And yes, I think it absolutely is about vengeance. You want to rub their noses in it, to spread guilt and blame and shame as far and wide as you can, to mollify your sense of being affronted by President Trump.
Click to expand...

you are plain wrong.
Non-Republicans fully realize that Trump hurts Conservatism as a whole just as much as he hurts the country. We have a two party system that depends on both parties believing in the Separation of Power and the Freedom of the Press.
Currently, one party has canceled that deal and is supporting a self-acknowledged autocrat.
It is vital that the GOP heals itself by cutting out the far-right supporters and returning to a political middle ground. No one can do this for them.
But you are pretending that the GOP will automatically "revert to the norm" once Trump is gone. You ignore that it was that previous "norm" that gave Trump the candidacy.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
No, I blame "progressives" for supporting 3rd world sanitary conditions as they step carefully through their feces farm.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... good one.

And just to get back on topic, I support the right of BrooklynBaby and other misguided and willfully ignorant conservatives to run for public office.
 
dudalb said:
TO a degree yes, since Dems probably supported a lot of the excessively restritctive Zoning laws which are the main cause of the criris.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean "building codes"???

ETA: OK SF seems to have pretty restrictive zoning laws, but not cali in general. Although putting in a bunch of high rises would necessitate a gargantuan mass transit project. The roads in SF are already pretty insanely busy, or so I have read.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
you are plain wrong.
Non-Republicans fully realize that Trump hurts Conservatism as a whole just as much as he hurts the country. We have a two party system that depends on both parties believing in the Separation of Power and the Freedom of the Press.
Currently, one party has canceled that deal and is supporting a self-acknowledged autocrat.
It is vital that the GOP heals itself by cutting out the far-right supporters and returning to a political middle ground. No one can do this for them.
But you are pretending that the GOP will automatically "revert to the norm" once Trump is gone. You ignore that it was that previous "norm" that gave Trump the candidacy.
Click to expand...

You are plain wrong
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you are plain wrong.
Non-Republicans fully realize that Trump hurts Conservatism as a whole just as much as he hurts the country.
Click to expand...

Most non-Republicans probably don't understand Conservatism all that well to begin with. [ETA: Hell, most Republicans don't seem to understand Conservatism all that well.] A lot of conservatives think the GOP has been harming Conservatism for decades already, in the service of entrenching themselves in the political establishment. Part of the reason Trump won the primary is that a lot of conservatives are frustrated by the GOP's consistent failure to run actual conservative candidates. If the establishment won't run a conservative, why should I go along with the establishment's preferred candidate? I won't get what I want either way, but the establishment shouldn't take it for granted that I'll just settle for what they want instead.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Though "liberal" is often held to be the opposite of "conservative", I contend that this is not the case.

"Liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian". "Progressive" is the opposite of "conservative".

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Orwell said most of those words were useless back in the 40's, and it hasn't gotten any better since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom