Conservative vs Liberal

[JonC]

You argued judicial activism here,
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

here,
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

and here.
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams


You are saying the judges would have to be activists to find for the plaintiffs. Meaning, you are saying the plaintiffs are seeking judicial activism.

Not quite. The plaintiffs simply hold a progressive view of the US Constitution. That is not necessarily judicial activism (or that is not how they would define their view).

Part of this goes to how people view the intent of the Constitution. Is it "written in stone" or is it more subjective to circumstances? I believe the former.

I will typically side for power of governance to be given to the State rather than the Federal Government. There ate exceptions (I believe abortion should be against federal law, for example).

 

[DaveXR650]

Regarding the OP, there used to be fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. A fiscal conservative would believe that we should keep the budget balanced but may be soft on abortion, believe in affirmative action programs and gun control. A social conservative would be against the moral decline of the day, abortion, and so on but may be liberal in government spending whether to increase access to health care or for public works like parks, bike paths and so on. Where I lived we had a democrat congressman who was pro life and had a A rating with the NRA but was in favor of social programs and government assistance programs. You don't see that much anymore.

Out West you had the libertarian wing of the conservatives begin. They couldn't care less about abortion, if you are gay (but usually don't support special status), don't want to legislate any moral issues, against gun control. This is popular in conservatism nowadays.

The eastern Republicans used to be quite "liberal". The Western libertarians hated them. I think Goldwater said that he thought his defeat was worth it because they were at least able to get control of the Republican party from the East coast liberals. Some of the Western Democrats were fairly conservative by todays standards on social issues and gun control. Same with Southern Democrats but they had a lot of racial baggage. So it's all mixed up. Always has been.

 

[JonC]

Regarding the OP, there used to be fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. A fiscal conservative would believe that we should keep the budget balanced but may be soft on abortion, believe in affirmative action programs and gun control. A social conservative would be against the moral decline of the day, abortion, and so on but may be liberal in government spending whether to increase access to health care or for public works like parks, bike paths and so on. Where I lived we had a democrat congressman who was pro life and had a A rating with the NRA but was in favor of social programs and government assistance programs. You don't see that much anymore.

Out West you had the libertarian wing of the conservatives begin. They couldn't care less about abortion, if you are gay (but usually don't support special status), don't want to legislate any moral issues, against gun control. This is popular in conservatism nowadays.

The eastern Republicans used to be quite "liberal". The Western libertarians hated them. I think Goldwater said that he thought his defeat was worth it because they were at least able to get control of the Republican party from the East coast liberals. Some of the Western Democrats were fairly conservative by todays standards on social issues and gun control. Same with Southern Democrats but they had a lot of racial baggage. So it's all mixed up. Always has been.

I'd think priority would also come into play. I am fiscally and socially conservative. But I would favor government programs geared to help single mothers (knowing such programs would be abused) if it would end abortion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Good grief any time one wants to change the constitution from its original intent through redefining the words in it that is activism. Progressivism is activism.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am fiscally and socially conservative. But I would favor government programs geared to help single mothers (knowing such programs would be abused) if it would end abortion.

I think you can be fiscally conservative and support many kinds of government programs as long as you are careful about managing the budget. And there is going to be a natural tendency to move towards programs as we urbanize and as some of the greatest benefits like advanced medical procedures become more expensive. In theory, I wish it was like when the country started but it isn't. People are not going to live within walking distance of you, in poverty, hungry, without basic healthcare - and let you live in peace. I don't know what the answer is but I see where there is a legitimate need for moderate fiscal conservatives who are willing to live in the world as it is, and do the best they can.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Interesting definition.

So in your view conservative and liberal is not descriptive of values or beliefs but rather political action and involvement.

That makes sence when it comes to weighing political capitol. Those who hold conservative values and beliefs but abstain from politics are not legitimate resources for a political party or political movement.

In this case conservative and liberal would have nothing to do with morality. Considering that, I suppose I typically combine moral values into those terms.

The word "leftist" means having left wing political views. The opposite is "right-wing". If I understand you correctly, you believe leftist and right wing defines values while conservative and liberal defines political activism.

I always considered conservative and liberal to define values and leftist (left-wing) and right wing to define political affiliation.

Other than swapping those terms, I think we agree in that one word refers to activism while another to beliefs.

It's more an observation than definition.

Law is about morality in a group or society. Politics is about the policies that will determine law. This forum is about politics.

When talking about conservative vs liberal, there can be all manner of discussion, whether for individual, family, church, society, etc. However, this is a political forum.

So, this regards secular law, which in this country includes voting, campaigning, holding office, etc.

If one withdraws from participation, then he may be considered by others as neutral or apolitical (or even oppositional) regardless of his personal opinion otherwise. It’s just the nature of the game.

 

[JonC]

Good grief any time one wants to change the constitution from its original intent through redefining the words in it that is activism. Progressivism is activism.

Makes sence to me.

While I didn't view @Aaron 's OP as judicial activism, I suppose by your explanation here it is exactly that. The issue is I do not think they realize demanding federal intervention is activism in that case. But I suppose it is what it is (and they are appealing to judges in seeking to redefine Congresses role in the election process).

I take it the GOP views Trump as a progressive activist as he wants to change the US Constitution from its original intent regarding elections.

 

[Aaron]

On another thread a member brought up whether somebody is a social conservative, as opposed to social liberalism.

This brings up the question of definitions- what exactly is a conservative.

Here are some ideas I consider conservative:

1. A limited federal government
2. Anti-abortion
3. Secure borders
4. Fiscal responsibility and accountability
5. Capitalism
6. Stronger State rights
7. Free market
8. Abolishing Critical Race Theory
9. Constitutionalist approach
10. Support of 2nd Ammendment rights
11. Free speech

I'm sure there are more, but that's a quick snapshot.

Actually, this should be number 1, as it is the foundation of our Republic. The acknowledgement that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

 

[JonC]

It's more an observation than definition.

Law is about morality in a group or society. Politics is about the policies that will determine law. This forum is about politics.

When talking about conservative vs liberal, there can be all manner of discussion, whether for individual, family, church, society, etc. However, this is a political forum.

So, this regards secular law, which in this country includes voting, campaigning, holding office, etc.

If one withdraws from participation, then he may be considered by others as neutral or apolitical (or even oppositional) regardless of his personal opinion otherwise. It’s just the nature of the game.

I disagree a little. I agree people may view others in many ways.

But I think people's political activism is a manifestation of their beliefs and convictions. A conservative may vote for conservative politics because he is conservative. Or that same conservative may abstain from politics because of religious convictions. The conservative is the same regardless of his or her actions.

If we live as Christians and influence the world via this life then we influence politics regardless of political activism.

 

[Aaron]

While I didn't view @Aaron 's OP as judicial activism

Yes, you did. That's you're whole argument. Likening the plaintiffs to those with the liberal agendas who use the courts to "bend the Constitution" and labeling them as alt-right. You appeal to the very definition of judicial activism, then deny that you're arguing judicial activism?

 

[JonC]

Actually, this should be number 1, as it is the foundation of our Republic. The acknowledgement that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

But that was not the foundation of our republic (that was the reason for our declaration of independence from England).

I have always wondered which passages our founding fathers were referencing that we have a God given right to life, to liberty, and to pursuing our happiness.

 

[JonC]

Yes, you did. That's you're whole argument. Likening the plaintiffs to those with the liberal agendas who use the courts to "bend the Constitution" and labeling them as alt-right. You appeal to the very definition of judicial activism, then deny that you're arguing judicial activism?

I did not link the plaintiffs with a liberal agenda.

@Revmitchell pointed out that those are judicial activists (because they seek to change the Constitution from its original intent).

To make the issue worse, they want to do so in order to have Trump (by @Revmitchell 's definition, a progressive activist) declared President.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I disagree a little. I agree people may view others in many ways.

But I think people's political activism is a manifestation of their beliefs and convictions. A conservative may vote for conservative politics because he is conservative. Or that same conservative may abstain from politics because of religious convictions. The conservative is the same regardless of his or her actions.

If we live as Christians and influence the world via this life then we influence politics regardless of political activism.

Yes, I understand that we disagree on this. It’s ok to choose not to vote, hold office, etc. It’s even ok to advocate that no Christian should vote, hold office, etc.

However, the point is how others will view you, and that depends on them as well as you.

When you take it to the extreme of non-participation, then some may consider you a would-be political conservative or liberal but not one of their active group.

If you advocate that Christians should not hold office or vote, then some political conservatives might consider it better if you pretended to be liberal and convince liberals (and better yet, leftists) not to vote or hold office.

 

[JonC]

Yes, I understand that we disagree on this. It’s ok to choose not to vote, hold office, etc. It’s even ok to advocate that no Christian should vote, hold office, etc.

However, the point is how others will view you, and that depends on them as well as you.

When you take it to the extreme of non-participation, then some may consider you a would-be political conservative or liberal but not one of their active group.

If you advocate that Christians should not hold office or vote, then some political conservatives might consider it better if you pretended to be liberal and convince liberals (and better yet, leftists) not to vote or hold office.

I understand. Fortunately, it does not matter how other men consider my convictions or how I consider the convictions of others.

And I understand why those advocating either voting or abstaining to others may pose a problem.

I certainly would not tell somebody else not to vote, or who to vote for. I think most Christians are like minded in allowing others to prayerfully follow their conscious.

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not link the plaintiffs with a liberal agenda.

@Revmitchell pointed out that those are judicial activists (because they seek to change the Constitution from its original intent).

To make the issue worse, they want to do so in order to have Trump (by @Revmitchell 's definition, a progressive activist) declared President.

Stop.... good grief who is they?

 

[JonC]

Stop.... good grief who is they?

You were arguing against my comment they were not judicial activists.

They are the plaintiffs who are complaining that the Federal Government did not intervene, that Congress was mandated to investigate charges of election fraud at the State level and should revoke the certificates sent by the State. This is foreign to the original intent of the US Constitution.

Who did you think we were talking about??

 

[JonC]

We also have to considered that Trump called for a suspension of rules and regulations, "even those found in the Constitution" in order to have him installed as President. He thinks that is what the founders would have wanted, but what they want ir didn't want is irrelevant (many wanted Congress to choose a President). What matters is the intent of the US Constitution which did not allow for such actions.

That, by @Revmitchell 's definition, makes Trump a progressive activist. The issue now. Is whether his supporters are progressive activists by giving their support. I guess by definition, they'd have to be.

 

[Revmitchell]

You were arguing against my comment they were not judicial activists.

They are the plaintiffs who are complaining that the Federal Government did not intervene, that Congress was mandated to investigate charges of election fraud at the State level and should revoke the certificates sent by the State. This is foreign to the original intent of the US Constitution.

Who did you think we were talking about??

Sigh, they believe it is within the constitution. they do not believe it is outside the constitution. Just because they are wrong doesn't make them activists. Not sure why this needs explaining. But this is what you do. You regularly take what people say (like you did with Aaron's words) and then twist the meaning of it. When you get called on it you cannot defend it you just simply refer back to their words and insist they meant something other than what was intended.


Now its possible you have a reading comprehension issue. But the fact is it happens way too much with you.

 

[JonC]

Sigh, they believe it is within the constitution. they do not believe it is outside the constitution. Just because they are wrong doesn't make them activists. Not sure why this needs explaining. But this is what you do. You regularly take what people say (like you did with Aaron's words) and then twist the meaning of it. When you get called on it you cannot defend it you just simply refer back to their words and insist they meant something other than what was intended.


Now its possible you have a reading comprehension issue. But the fact is it happens way too much with you.

No, I have no reading comprehension issue. But it is very Christ-like for you to ask. Guess that is a trait essential to a "good" minister in your corner of "Christianity".

I argued that they probably do not realize they are seeking to revise the US Constitution. You are the one who insisted such action is "progressive" and "activism".

I changed my mind and agreed with you because Donald Trump states that he wanted the rules and regulations, even in the US Constitution, suspended because of election fraud. I figured since they are supporting Trump that means they also support what Trump has said in regard to overturning the election.

You now argue that @Aaron was wrong, but is not an activist because he is ignorant of the US Constitution and does not realize the error.

That is not twisting the meaning. That is being honest with what was posted.

Your definition means that Trump is a progressive activist. There is no way around it. And simply setting aside your faith to try to insult me will not change that fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, I have no reading comprehension issue. But it is very Christ-like for you to ask. Guess that is a trait essential to a "good" minister in your corner of "Christianity".

I argued that they probably do not realize they are seeking to revise the US Constitution. You are the one who insisted such action is "progressive" and "activism".

Uh no they are not trying to revise the constitution. They believe they are acting within the constitution. Even if they are wrong there is a distinct difference. You insisting they are is twisting of the situation.

I changed my mind and agreed with you because Donald Trump states that he wanted the rules and regulations, even in the US Constitution, suspended because of election fraud. I figured since they are supporting Trump that means they also support what Trump has said in regard to overturning the election.

Yes people say dumb things when they are stressed. Too much is made of it.

You now argue that @Aaron was wrong, but is not an activist because he is ignorant of the US Constitution and does not realize the error.

I dint argue that , again twisiting of my words.

That is not twisting the meaning. That is being honest with what was posted.

No, no its not.

Your definition means that Trump is a progressive activist. There is no way around it.

No, no it doesn't. Again your twisting it.

And simply setting aside your faith to try to insult me will not change that fact.

Nope. Not insulting you although you may be offended by it. I am calling you out for your poor behavior. [Snip - violation of BB rules]