Anonymous #1 1w

Exactly

4

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s actually deeper than that: if you like Trump you’re not a conservative, full stop.

5

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1w

yeah pretty much

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1w

Conservatism is much older than Trump, it’s not tied to a specific person

4

Anonymous OP 1w

I agree that conservatism is older than Trump, my point is that Trump is not a part of (and actively opposes) any conservative movement.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 1w

I must have misunderstood what you said, that’s my bad lol

1

Anonymous #5 1w

If you vote for someone just because they happen to be under a party name, that’s stupid, regardless of what party you are affiliated with. I will say, Trump ran his campaign and then didn’t really do anything other than be a water boy for Netanyahu, among other things. Plus he just about got shot in the head during his campaign, creates a strong rallying point. We voted for him, then we realized that he wasn’t what he portrayed himself as

1

Anonymous #5 1w

He wasn’t actually Christian in practice, he isn’t actually that conservative, he keeps making us involved with foreign conflicts in various ways, he has dual loyalty, among various other things. Was Kamala a better choice? Absolutely not. What we needed was a different person to vote for

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Not necessarily, but I’m sure plenty of them would. I don’t particularly care anyways though

1

Anonymous #7 1w

How does “unchecked conservatism” lead to this, and what is “this”? I’m not defending Trump, I’m just clarifying what you’re specifically talking about

0

Anonymous OP 1w

we knew this was going to happen and we warned you. kamala was a bad choice because she kept pandering to the right but unfortunately our system doesn’t allow third party candidates so we just have to pick the lesser of two evils in these situations

5

Anonymous #7 1w

Kamala was certainly not pandering to the right lol, we didn’t care for her because she was incompetent and she’s a progressive liberal. As for warning us, we knew about the deportations, we voted for it. I will give y’all some credit though, y’all did say that he’d boost the federal government’s authority even more than it already was

0

Anonymous #7 1w

I also have mixed feelings about nationalizing state military troops, our Tennessean boys don’t need to be partially nationalized and sent to DC

0

Anonymous #7 1w

Also regarding immigration enforcement, he’s definitely screwing up the efficiency

0

Anonymous OP 1w

conservative is by definition reactionary, so unless there is some left wing push back, conservatism will find some other group to target, want more power, and want a more homogeneous society. and by “this” i mean fascism

6

Anonymous #7 1w

Conservatism can definitely be reactionary, but it isn’t necessarily reactionary. Conservatism prioritizes preserving established institutions, traditions, social order, and continuity, etc. It isn’t inherently power hungry like Fascism, it can be when combined with different political philosophies, but in and of itself it isn’t

1

Anonymous #7 1w

To say that someone is a conservative does not tell us what he is interested in conserving.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

i’ll accept that it isn’t inherently fascist. but it refuses to fix large systemic problems. and when you take into account the deregulated corporate power, emotion-fueled media ecosystem, and the need to divide based on arbitrary social issues to maintain relevancy in the face of working class pushback, you see how conservatism moves further right and creates the political environment for fascism to thrive

4

Anonymous #7 1w

Well it’s not particularly progressive, so obviously it’s not going to want to tear down fences before we find out what the fence is there for in the first place. I will point out, there is various kinds of conservatism, there’s neoconservatives (what a good chunk of modern mainstream conservatives are, it started from disillusioned liberals), paleoconservatives (a reaction to the neoconservatives, a little more traditionally minded), Southern Agrarians, etc.

3

Anonymous #7 1w

My guess is that a of the issues you have with conservatism probably comes from your interactions with neocons. Of course that’s just a guess.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

kamala was in no way a progressive, she was a moderate democrat at best. she campaigned with liz cheney of all people, didn’t say anything about trans issues, and supported border security. i really don’t know what makes you think she was progressive unless you just don’t understand the ideological spectrum

4

Anonymous #7 1w

Even Bernie Sanders thought she was progressive

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Bernie sanders was obligated to say that because at the time it was a matter of winning against Trump and she needed his support. If you actually look at her platform and compare it with traditionally progressive policies, there’s a pretty stark divide

1

Anonymous #7 1w

my issues with conservatism come from its fear of change and attachment to problematic institutions. and the fence analogy doesn’t hold up when we talk about subjective issues. conservative takes on race, gender, etc are based on norms and being close minded. this is also the case w economics because it matters who/what we prioritize and the economy always does better under democratic presidents

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Christian conservatism obviously going to not want to change things that shouldn’t be changed, otherwise, secular/non-Christian conservatism is more problematic because it doesn’t specify what exactly is being conserved. Economically, it depends on what kind of conservatism. Southern Agrarians (like me) are going to advocate for a more agrarian society, so economically it’ll look different than say a neoconservative industrial guy

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“shouldn’t be changed” is subjective and all the things they take issue with are cherry-picked out of the bible and misconstrued to justify hating certain people. and they feel entitled to push their absurd beliefs on everyone over a thing that has no basis in logic and reality. and why do you want an agrarian society

1

Anonymous #7 1w

I wouldn’t say that the issues are cherry-picked, at least not most of them. Also remember, under Christianity the Bible is the objective word of God, so while these things may be subjective under your perspective, the Christian view is that these things are objective. As for why I want an agrarian society, Southern Agrarians like myself believe there to be needed a return to the simpler, more noble, more orderly, more self-reliant way of life.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Southern Agrarianism is moreso focused on the Southron people and soil, but Agrarianism itself obviously isn’t strictly limited to the South

1