Posted on 01/25/2016 4:57:34 PM PST by Walt Griffith
Here’s a simple definition. Look at all of Obama’s and Sanders’ positions. Take the opposite position to find what’s conservative.
—
Good point.
You’ve made the best case yet.
People can change. There usually is something significant to make people change. Like one’s faith going from unbeliever to believer. That can certainly make a difference.
I believe Trump has changed from the person he was. Has he changed enough? I don’t know. I’ll have to admit that I am not overly impressed with his knowledge concerning faith issues.
Cool.
I’ll go with mine.
No, we need to be who we’re supposed to be so we can properly set Constitutional borders.
If I am going to be 100% faithful to it, then I cannot in good conscience vote for Ted Cruz, regrettably, he is not a natural born citizen as the founders understood and used the term.
His definition of a conservative is more like that of a conservative financial investor.
Yep. Is there five minutes of this guy putting together sentences and paragraphs on a topic... being coherent about anything?
The one thing that surprises me about Cruz is that he hasn’t handled this. I don’t know that it is settled (don ‘t take this personally, but I don’t think you or anyone else knows, either). I would be surprised if he didn’t have strong counsel regarding his being eligible, but that he hasn’t put this to bed is a real drag. My feeling is that he will have to bring this to the fore and we will all find out whether or not he can proceed.
If you read his books, he minimizes his risks as much as possible.
He didn’t say a conservative never takes risks, but doesn’t like to. That fits in with the base of the word (conserve).
Excellent post, Molly.
It didn’t matter what Trump said, Cruz supporters would whine no matter what. They are blinded by hatred of someone that is beating their perfect one. And blinded to the many faults of that one.
In my lifetime (I'm pretty old), it became the same in what was became the conservative movement. It was clearly defined as small federal government (the least possible, re: "God and Man at Yale" - constitutional republic, rule of law, liberty, freedom (including freedom to fail).
Economically it was espoused best by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.
This was about the time of Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan. This set of ideas, politics was what the conservative movement coalesced behind, what unified it and gave it strength, its truth.
If we lose, or have lost this; if we can no longer even define it or agree on the basics, we will have lost a great deal.
Oh no, trust me, it’s not just you.
Actually it was the Tories or Loyalists who wanted to keep their Colonial form of limited self government...not the radicals at Lexington and Concord.
Conservatives generally speaking are not in the forefront of radical change.
-——Everyone’s definition of conservatism is different.-——
Huh...no.... conservatism has a core set of principles
Conservative principles are based on an archaic term called classical Liberalism ( before democrats corrupted the term) look it up..
Trump is talking, if I follow his incoherent point, about neo-cons which were liberals at one time who like to use US blood and treasure to expand democracy across the globe since democrats aren’t into their warmongering, they became republicans...
What you have described in your post is taught almost nowhere in this country.
It may well even be absolutely nowhere.
There are essentially no sources transferring that knowledge into the next generations.
There are seemingly endless sources transferring the opposing philosophy, schools at all levels, media you name it.
If a young mind is fertile soil, whoever plants their seeds first controls what the field becomes. The people who are getting there first certainly are not planting the seeds of conservatism.
Considering this, what do you think the future of this country holds?
I bet you if you go around the country and ask people what their definition of conservatism is, every single response will be different.
Take away Trump’s money and he’s Cliff Claven, sitting on a bar stool.
What's the difference? The former is how the latter is put into effect.
I'd be a pessimist, but it's so hard to keep up. Seriously, I see pain. The question for me is will there be enough to cause people to change - before it all falls apart. We're building a highly flammable world and we're making more matches.
The people who are getting there first certainly are not planting the seeds of conservatism.
Mostly true. The foundation of civilization is the family and its values; and that continues to be eroded. Any lasting change has to begin there.
There are essentially no sources transferring that knowledge into the next generations.
Nor even the knowledge and value of western civilization.
We can hope for it to be taught by our leaders - political and otherwise - but it seems lacking there. Reagan's rise was over decades and part of a movement, it could not have happened otherwise. My point earlier was we can't expect a conservative leader when there is no coherent core of a conservative movement. Everyone has a part in that, in what we teach, do, choose.
In optimistic moods I remember how hopeless it all seemed under Jimmy Carter - and it changed very quickly; it could again.
It will take more than "a" leader.
Thanks much for your reply and question, now: What do you think the future of this country holds?
Not just you!
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.