Conservatives in America
Why are Conservatives so hated by modern Liberals? Do Conservatives want to restore America to its basic values? Why are present day Liberals so threatened by Conservatives? Your thoughts please.I don't hate conservatives. They scare me. They seen to have lost their judgement. As supposedly the Christian party, they seem to have lost any measure of mercy. Those who join their ranks seem to be attracted to the old principles of conservatism, but there is hardly a shadow of those principles in practice.
I see conservatives as reverting to the teachings of millenia past, and demanding that everyone else join them.
But liberals...liberals truly have lost their judgement. Unlimited "immigration" without regard to cost or results. Men competing in women's sports, using women's dressing rooms. Pretending that a male is female, and if you don't go along you get fired. Ever increasing welfare, with no real push to make people self sufficient. Acceptance of violence, as in riots and "demonstrations", with some liberal VIP's encouraging and participating. Refusing to act under US law (sanctuary cities and ICE). Now playing political games with the justice system.
Liberals are scary, even in their madness. Conservatives are just irritating and disgusting when they require that all believe in and accept their particular version of god, they just need slapped down now and then. But liberals will destroy the country if given the chance.
(Where are Muslims, Buddhists, etc.? Conservatives or liberals? Or, like Christians, some of each?)"Unlimited "immigration" without regard to cost or results. " Where do you get this stuff?
"President Biden's move to partially suspend asylum processing at the southern border has led to a dramatic drop in the number of migrants released into the U.S. interior or screened for humanitarian protection, official government statistics show.
In early June, Mr. Biden, citing the record levels of illegal border crossings over the past years, invoked a sweeping executive authority to disqualify most migrants from U.S. asylum, making it easier for immigration officials to deport those entering the country illegally.
A months-long downward trend in unauthorized border crossings accelerated after Mr. Biden's order took effect. In July, the number of migrants illegally crossing the southern border between official entry points plummeted to 56,400, the lowest level in nearly 4 years, according to federal statistics." CBS
"The dramatic surge in unauthorized immigration in Biden’s first few years was spurred by major factors outside of the president’s control, such as the ebbing of the Covid-19 pandemic and upheaval in several Latin American countries." VOX (Not a preferred source of mine but one conservatives follow)
"By taking 535 immigration actions over its first three years, the Biden administration has already outpaced the 472 immigration-related executive actions undertaken in all four years of President Donald Trump’s term. Partly as result of these efforts, legal immigration is returning to and in some cases surpassing pre-pandemic levels, including refugee admissions on pace to reach the highs of the 1990s; a new border process seeking to discourage irregular arrivals has been adopted; temporary humanitarian protections have been extended to hundreds of thousands of migrants; and enforcement priorities have been focused on narrower categories of unauthorized immigrants. Combined, these changes have fulfilled some of President Joe Biden’s campaign promises, helped bolster the U.S. economy, and reduced fears of seemingly arbitrary enforcement against removable noncitizens." Immigration Policy Institute"Where do you get this stuff"
From liberals that feel we should support anyone that can get here, and that proclaim that it costs nothing to have them in the country. You will find some on the HP forums.
Biden cause his own problem when he announced, before elected, that he would provide citizenship to anyone in the country. He added to it by accepting nearly all that came, flying them all over the country and providing new homes. Now that we see 100+ degree weather and the flow has slowed, suddenly Biden is doing the right thing? I don't think so. He may (or may not) put effort to follow the laws of our country, but if so he is merely correcting his own problems because people are beginning to understand just how expensive (in more than money) it is. If Biden is actually doing something about the border, I have to ask just what happened, after 3 years of encouraging law breakers, to suddenly change his mind.
Of course, Biden isn't the only liberal - we saw congressmen go into Mexico and bring back illegal aliens into the country. We still see cities and states refusing to cooperate with our justice system in enforcing the law, although that is dying as they begin to understand just how expensive it truly is.Do you have any sources for these opinions? "Liberals" is not a source. It's an arbitrary label with negative connotations only because conservatives attach them.
Of course it is, just as is the label "conservatives".
But at the same time we all have an idea of what we consider a liberal or conservative. Sometimes we're somewhat right, sometimes totally wrong.
I have seen a good many people decry that we turn people away at the border. Would you consider them liberals or conservatives? Obviously I have not spoken to each one personally, obviously I have applied the "liberal" label according to what I think it represents; would you label those people wanting to care for everyone a "liberal" or a "conservative"?
Just my opinion, but when Conservatives decide that their interpretation of what their particular god wants, and demands that all people follow through, it has crossed the line Big Time.
It isn't so much conservative thought though, it is the religious dogma being pushed by the far right. We are a nation founded by people running from religion being forced onto us, we are a nation guaranteeing freedom of and freedom from religious zealots, yet the ultra religious refuse to accept that and continually demand that the edicts of their god be followed by all.
It is a common fallacy that those far right religious zealots are the only real conservatives. True, they have the loudest mouths, but at the core conservatives are not about controlling others - just the opposite. As little control as can be managed is the mantra from real conservatives."when Conservatives decide that their interpretation of what their particular god wants, and demands that all people follow through, it has crossed the line Big Time. "
Could not agree more (and I'm a church-going Protestant.)Let me comment here about the use of the term "conservative". I just answered a comment from you about the use of the term "liberal" (https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … ost4339160) ; isn't this pretty much the same? Both of us have used a label for those folks we feel take their religion too far, neither of us consider that a different label might be more appropriate because neither of us have spoken to more than a vanishingly small number of people carrying out that action (compared to the total number).
Are we both then wrong in using the label? Or are we probably right in using it, based on what we see and hear in our society?
To strictly address your questions, I offer just my views. As always you have offered a wonderful, provocative thread.
I feel, that some modern Liberals do feel animosity towards Conservatives due to fundamental differences in values and policy priorities. Conservatives typically advocate for a return to traditional values and a limited role in government, emphasizing personal responsibility and economic freedom. They may seek to restore what they perceive as America's foundational principles, which can include religious and family values.
For Liberals, this can perhaps feel like a threat to progress on social justice, civil rights, and environmental issues. The fear of regression or exclusion prompts Liberals to see Conservative policies as potentially undermining the advances made in these areas. The heightened polarization in today’s political climate, fueled by media and political rhetoric, exacerbates these tensions, making it very difficult to find common ground and increasing the sense of threat and opposition between the two sides.Although I have always also thought of conservatives as wanting small government and more freedom to make personal choices, I begin to wonder.
That concept does not fit with government intervention in the abortion issue. It does not fit with the long held desire to see Christianity taught in our schools, something now coming to fruition. Same for displaying religious totems and icons on public property, supported by public funds. A recent tour of northern Europe found many public bathrooms to be coed - something I strong suspect that our conservatives would raise holy <battle> over.
All of these are about govt. control of the people, meaning larger, more intrusive government.
But I DO find your synopsis of the liberal concept pretty much on target. It's the way I see it, too.Your observation highlights a significant tension within conservative ideology. And your comment gave me food for thought. Yes, traditionally, conservatives have advocated for small government and individual freedom, yet, as you point out, there are some blatant contradictions these days in how this philosophy is applied. For instance, the push for government intervention in abortion, the advocacy for Christianity in public schools, and the support for religious symbols on public property do suggest a selective approach to "small government."
These positions can indeed be viewed as extending governmental control over personal and social life, contradicting the principle of minimal state interference. Additionally, the opposition to practices such as coed bathrooms—reflecting evolving social norms elsewhere—highlights a preference for preserving traditional values through government action. This illustrates the complex and sometimes contradictory relationship between conservative ideals and the inclination to use government power to enforce specific moral and cultural standards. Conservatism is evolving into something new. They are leaning toward more Government control.I have felt for years now that the entire country is moving to the left. Both liberals and conservatives are becoming more liberal all the time.
Some of it is good, some is not. Isn't that how the world turns, though?I completely agree that the entire country seems to be shifting to the left, with both liberals and conservatives gradually adopting more liberal positions. This trend is evident in various social and political changes over the past few years. For example, issues like same-sex marriage, and abortion, which were once deeply divisive, have now gained widespread acceptance across the political spectrum. Even traditionally conservative states have seen significant changes in public opinion on matters such as cannabis legalization and criminal justice reform. While some of these shifts can be seen as positive progress towards greater equality and personal freedom, others might raise concerns about the erosion of certain traditional values. However, this is indeed how the world turns—societies evolve, and with that evolution comes a blending of ideas and beliefs. What was once radical often becomes mainstream, reflecting the dynamic nature of cultural and political landscapes.
Many Americans have currently embraced liberalism, but whether this trend will endure remains uncertain. Americans are known for being somewhat fickle when it comes to ideologies; they are quick to adopt new beliefs, but just as quick to abandon them if they become uncomfortable or impractical to live by. A historical example of this is the disillusionment with the Prohibition era in the 1920s. Initially, many Americans supported the movement, believing it would lead to a more moral and orderly society. However, as the negative consequences, such as the rise of organized crime and widespread disregard for the law, became apparent, public opinion shifted, and the ideology of Prohibition was eventually deserted with the repeal of the 18th Amendment.
Another very recent example is the liberal Defund the Police Movement.: The liberal cry to Defund the Police" movement, which gained traction following the George Floyd protests in 2020, called for reallocating funds from police departments to community services as a way to address systemic racism and police brutality. However, as crime rates rose in some areas and public safety concerns grew, support for this idea waned quickly, with many cities opting to maintain or even increase police funding instead.
One could say that Americans are people who learn through failure, and that's a positive trait, isn't it?It is hard for me to believe that there are people who call themselves conservative and still think it is okay to murder unborn children.
Hi Doc,
I understand your perspective and share your concerns. The belief in the sanctity of life is still central to many conservative ideologies, which hold that life begins at conception and that unborn children have an inherent right to life. This viewpoint is grounded in a combination of religious, moral, and ethical principles that prioritize the protection of the most vulnerable members of society. From this standpoint, abortion is seen as a profound moral wrong, and it can be difficult to reconcile support for it with conservative values that emphasize the importance of preserving life. The idea that all life is sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death is a cornerstone of many conservative philosophies, making the acceptance of abortion seem contradictory to those who hold these beliefs.
In recent years, it has become evident that some conservatives have started to diverge from traditional principles, adopting new ideologies, and new justifications for accepting abortion in certain circumstances. This shift indicates that conservatism is evolving into something very different. I find it sad to see conservatism become so dinged and damaged.You and me both Sharlee!
The lukewarm, fence-riding, condescending, devil's
advocate type so-called conservatives, grate on me more than the lefties do.
At least the woke lefties will admit that there's nothing at their core.
I saw a Tik tok video of a leftist proclaiming how proud she was in killing só many kids she did not want messing up her life. She was a lot more honest than those people who say they are conservative but do not respect life.
Yeah it's a thing here now to shout your abortions or something sick like that. It's sick, they are mentally unstable, no doubt. Who else would celebrate the deaths of the most innocent among us?
As for lukewarm so-called conservatives, unwilling to speak up for life or for anything else for that matter...
I've no use for them!
No one on the left thinks it is okay to murder unborn children. That you choose to call a non-human lump of cells "unborn children" does not make it so. There is far, far more to being a person (as opposed to a tumor or animal) than being alive in a uterus.
Almost everyone on the left thinks murdering unborn children is okay. It is murder but the child has not yet had the opportunity to be born yet. The only honest leftist I have seen discuss this is Bill Maher when he admitted that it is murder but he was okay with that since; some women do not want to deal with the negative consequences of their actions. Calling a live child a lump of cells is a pathetic attempt at avoiding reality.
While you see fit to make up a definition for "person" and "child" it hardly means that it is accepted worldwide, or that it is close to being reasonable or true.
Calling a lump of cells without any brain to speak of a "live child" is a pathetic attempt at control that is all too easily seen through.It is reasonable and true for anyone that understands biology. I realize that you are in favor of murdering babies, as are many people in this world, but then again the majority of cannibals feel cannabilism is correct.
And with that outright and obvious lie I bid you a good day. When you can act in a civil manner come back and we can discuss the matter.
Are you claiming that I am being uncivil because you support murder? That is sad because in your prévious post you said it was okay to destroy a human life you do not accept.
I don't know why you cannot be civil. I could hazardous a guess that you have nothing else to support your stance, but it would be a guess only. Perhaps it is as many suggest - that discussion on the web simply promotes such poor behavior. Perhaps it is your basic personality - I don't know.
I just know I have no masochistic need to engage in such a discussion.Funny comment considering you are the one that felt the need the need to reply to my comment. Since you are not able to dispute the fact that you are okay with murder you are free to no longer reply.
What is the ultimate destiny of those clumps, (in all females,) of very organized, specialized DNA-driven cells? A beautiful and magical progression and growth of human cells. How dare you call the beginning of a human being a CLUMP ....
Per usual.Dust to dust. It will all ultimately return to dust, whether aborted or not.
ALL cells are DNA driven. Those of a Chimpanzee, a dog or a worm. Even a cancerous tumor that must be removed to continue life. All clumps of DNA driven cells. Even that of a woman with another clump growing inside.
Of those that MIGHT become a person, less than half do - the majority are kicked out...to become dust.Dan,
Your comment highlights the perspective that all life, whether human or otherwise, is fundamentally a collection of DNA-driven cells destined to return to dust. While it's true that every organism, including humans, shares this biological foundation, the issue becomes more complex when we consider the potential of human life, the role of emotions, and the impact of religious beliefs.
From a scientific standpoint, while all cells are indeed driven by DNA, the unique combination of human DNA within a developing embryo has the potential to become a conscious, thinking individual. This potential is what differentiates human life from that of other organisms or non-viable clumps of cells. Science also acknowledges that emotions and cognitive development are intrinsic to the human experience. Even in the earliest stages of life, the potential for developing emotions, consciousness, and relationships sets humans apart from other organisms.
Emotionally, many people view the potential for life as sacred or significant, not just because of its biological makeup but because of what it represents—a future filled with experiences, connections, and the human capacity for love, empathy, and creativity.
From a religious perspective, many belief systems view life as a gift or a sacred trust, with each human being carrying inherent worth and purpose. The idea that life is more than just a biological process and has spiritual significance often leads to the belief that all potential life should be given the opportunity to flourish, rather than being reduced to its biological components.
In contrast to your view, which emphasizes the inevitable return to dust, others might argue that it is precisely because life is transient and fragile that it should be protected and cherished. While it is true that not all potential lives reach full term, for those that do, the journey from conception to dust is filled with meaning, emotions, and often, spiritual significance. This broader perspective invites us to consider the value of potential human life beyond its biological components, recognizing the complex interplay of science, emotions, and spirituality in the debate.I was asked the ultimate disposition of those "clumps of cells". I answered, correctly as far as I know. Dust (or it's equivalent) IS the ultimate disposition.
Religion can postulate others, but has yet to show that their postulate is correct. On the other hand, one need open an old coffin to find the dust.
Beyond that, you have indicated that people have many reasons for not aborting, from emotional ones to religious ones. None of those are sufficient, IMO to prevent others from doing as THEY think is right. You may put spirituality into the debate, as well as emotions and feelings, but it just doesn't carry any weight for most people, which is as it should be. Your religious beliefs are not mine, are not my neighbors. They are YOURS, not to be forced onto others. At least in this country - other countries have vastly different philosophies.Dan, I owe you an apology. My intention was to explain why some people are anti-abortion. I've been following the thread and wanted to share some perspectives on why others might view abortion differently. I realize now that I should have approached it more thoughtfully.
Just recently, I was advising my 10-year-old grandson not to be judgmental and to respect others' thoughts and views while staying true to his own beliefs. I even told him, "You can't know what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes." I emphasized that it's important to share your views once and then move on, without pushing them on others. After all, we discuss abortion frequently, but have any of us really changed each other's minds?I think I understand completely why the pro-life group thinks as it does. I even spend about half my time on abortion arguing their case.
But as I see it, that group has a fatal (to me) flaw in their thinking; the insistence that they have the answers, primarily from their religious beliefs. Answers from others (always on when does "personhood" begin) are irrelevant because they are known to be wrong for they do not agree with the answers known to be right.
So minds don't need changing...except to recognize that there IS no real answer to that question. It is a definition, not a scientific fact and no person has the right to define it for anyone else. That makes only the pro-choice group "right", although I also believe that it is not unreasonable (actually it is required) to expect compromise. Which we had in RvW, except that it has been a decades long fight to get rid of it, once more because the answer is magically known.We agree --- In my previous comment, I mentioned a conversation I had with my grandson. He asked me what abortion was after hearing the word in a campaign ad that stated, "Trump will ban abortion." I was taken aback by his question. I gave him a very clinical explanation, describing abortion as a procedure that removes growing cells that would eventually develop into a baby. I emphasized that the majority of abortions occur when the cell formation is no bigger than his fingernail.
He seemed to accept my explanation, but the next day, while we were in the car, he asked, "Why would anyone not keep a gift from God?" I knew then that I was in for a deeper discussion. We are Catholics, and my grandson takes his faith very seriously. However, I didn’t want him to become judgmental.
So, I explained the importance of empathy—of walking in another person's shoes to understand their feelings and circumstances. I shared with him some reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion, such as not being able to care for a child financially or simply not wanting to have a child under any circumstances. I asked him to consider what kind of life an unwanted child might have.
I also told him that while he has every right to his own convictions and views on the subject, imposing those views on others can be judgmental. I asked him to think about how he would feel if someone were judgmental of his views. As for myself, I do consider abortion a sin, but I also believe that I don’t have the right to judge others.
Abortion is a complex issue. As a nurse, I’ve come to view the procedure through a scientific and clinical lens. I’ve witnessed the results of spontaneous miscarriages firsthand, so I understand when a fetus has formed beyond a small clump of cells. However, as a woman with deep religious beliefs, I also see pregnancy as a gift from God. God has also taught us not to sit in judgment of others.
I think it is great to share our thoughts on this subject and be able to do it without being judgemental."Why would anyone not keep a gift from God?"
This is a profound question and yes, there are many answers.
Many good answers.
Another question is, why would anyone be so negligent and irresponsible to conceive a gift from God, a gift that one cannot accept.
~ again, very many answers.
None of them good.Kathryn, Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
As I mentioned, this subject is incredibly complicated for me personally. I've considered it from many angles—as a nurse, as a woman, as a mother, and as someone living in a diverse society with so many different views. I’ve had to approach the issue from all these perspectives. As a woman of God, I am against abortion, and I would openly share this with anyone.
However, from that point on, I don’t push my views, because I believe I don’t have the right to outwardly judge others. To me, my beliefs about abortion are deeply personal, and nothing can change them. I don’t need affirmation for what I believe. I offer my views when asked or if the subject arises in conversation. I don’t dispute others’ views, as I understand they likely believe in their perspectives just as strongly as I believe in mine. I don’t think God condones judging others.I most definitely respect the sentiments of the last paragraph. Personally, I am against abortion, but pro-choice? Why? It would take a book to explain my take on the topic. Some of the chapters would be . . .
World history on abortion
American history on abortion
World religions and abortion
Christianity and abortion
Evangelicalism and abortion inclusive of history
Catholicism and abortion inclusive of history
Atheism and abortion inclusive of history
Philosophical perspectives on Life
Philosophical perspectives on Death
Liberty and abortion
And, on and on it goes
After exploring it over the years I finally came to my position and pretty much remain silent on it. With it being a state issue now I am satisfied with California's position especially since it was voted on.Beliefs and views on abortion are shaped by a variety of factors and life experiences. For me, my perspective has been influenced by my experiences as a nurse, a mother, and my religious teachings. This combination creates a complex and nuanced view. The scientific and factual aspects provide objective personally viewed information, while my experiences as a mother add emotional depth. Additionally, my religious beliefs offer guidance on what I feel is aligned with my faith.
You know, I have a love for research. However, my views on this issue are shaped by my personal experiences.Well, we could all just keep it to ourselves huh and have zero voices speaking for those who have no voice and no choice, but plenty on the other side, who'll not only celebrate their multiple abortions, but will celebrate the silence from the other side, as well!
I respectfully read your posts, AB!! I made no criticism of people who speak outwardly of their position against abortion. I see no reason for your attack on my position. That is what it seemed to be to me.
Back about the late 80's when attending Mission Evangelical Church in my neck of the woods I was one of the members of the church to go to an abortion clinic to reach out to people seeking it's service. Does that help you to form an opinion on me?I am not here to form any opinions about you or anyone else, just to be a voice for the voiceless!
Time and time again, Pro-lifers take the high road, don't make waves, are expected to accept it & attempt to "understand" the Pro-Death [aka pro-choice] crowd. In the meantime, while we make nice, the murders of full-term healthy babies is justified, infanticide is justified, multiple abortions are Celebrated!!!
There's an abortion-mobile at the DNC!!!Again, I respect your position as well as exercising your right to speak out against abortion. Some may say it is a spiritual gift. It is not mine!! I hope you can respect that? This is why I said I usually stay silent. It isn't worth the pain it creates!!
"Some may say it (a baby?) is a spiritual gift. It, (the gift of a baby?) is (would) not (be) mine!!"
... and therefore you would have your sperm step away from any pesky eggs that happen to roll by, right?
One can only wish that all people thought the way you do. It is SO important to understand the "other side" and so few people make any effort at all.
We must start understanding the other side... The divide has become too deep.
It's crucial to understand perspectives different from our own. We're all influenced by various factors in forming our opinions, and in a society as vast as ours, learning to coexist peacefully is essential. Often, if we compartmentalize our beliefs, we'd realize we agree on more than we think. I've made it a priority to understand others and avoid being overly judgmental. When I do express differing opinions, I try to strive to do so logically, without getting stuck in endless arguments.
Which ones make it and which ones don't is under the jurisdiction of nature and Nature's God.
Not us.
Our chance to be free of a baby was before the egg and sperm united, attracting a soul with a flash of light.
This is science. The souls, ready for rebirth, are on the astral plane waiting to enter a body. They are not specks of dust.
They are potential robust humans with hopes dreams and desires to fulfill.
Ignorance is bliss, however, so don't believe me.The same could be said of a diseased appendix or a cancer tumor; it is up to nature's God whether falls off or not.
The astral plane is science? Science doesn't even acknowledge the "astral plane"; it is a figment of the imagination.
Yes, the clumps of flesh are indeed "potential robust humans". But they do not carry that designation yet, anymore than that diseased appendix does. In the fullness of time they may be worthy of the label, but until then...well, they are no different than any other lump of cells.
So...you have had your (unsupported) say and I have had mine. Now you must explain why yours takes precedence and must be used to determine whether a young fetus is a person.Because it is and everyone knows it.
The Ten Commandment instructs mankind not to murder. We humans don't have to listen to our Maker, who does talk to us through certain chosen people, such as Noah and Moses, as revealed in The Bible and the Koran. But if we do, we will lead happier lives.
The Ten Commandments were given to us to prevent us from suffering from self-created misery. Our Maker created the earth and all it's beneficial, beautiful and amazing features. He knew we could ruin everything, so he gave us guidelines.
He said, "Do not commit murder."
Plain and simple.
Furthermore, murder is not love and He is a God of love.
We are souls created in the image of God. God manifests on earth, as in heaven. God wants us to come back to heaven. But, mostly, we don't want to go back to heaven. We want to go back to earth to fulfill desires and self-chosen missions and goals. Since God allows us to guide or own free wills, He facilitates our desires to return to earth.
Souls want to come back to earth. To tease them with life and then take it away is cruel.
Women and men know of the tragedy of killing a child. They feel lasting guilt. Our lives are too long to carry around such guilt.
Eventually, all souls will return to the care of God in Peace and Bliss.
Every lifetime is a chance to make our way back home.
On a conscious level.
Very well put. It is easier to understand someone who does not want children using that CLUMP language than a grandfather who cares about his family.
A child is not the same thing as a tumor.
I believe the World Economic Forum and other globalist entities are behind funding of the Democrat Party, media and propaganda (including censorship) and are driving the Democrat Party to implement Marxism and Communism. In my opinion, this started when Obama became President. I believe he never left his reign and will continue his reign through the next Pinocchio President. His book, Dreams From My Father, tells it all. The ONLY way to "fundamentally transform America" is to ignore the Constitution and cater to activism. Bill Ayers greatly influenced, if not authored Obama's book. Kamala's parents' culture was Socialist/Communist/Marxist and no doubt, she was greatly influenced as well.
Illegal immigration, especially from Communist Countries helps the Left with their movement, as well. Harris is promising price fixing? That's just one example, not to mention taking control of the media, smearing, censoring, cancelling and arresting political opponents.
What "newcomer" wouldn't vote for the Party giving them free entry, no accountability, free phones, free food, free housing, free medical care, free tuition, SSI, etc.? They only know Communism. It's perfectly familiar to them.
We may think non-citizens are not allowed to vote, but there is fine print in the rule that they CAN vote, if they truly believe themselves to be citizens. States are enacting strong rules on this, but it's a battle not yet won, even as early voting is starting soon.
Conservatives typically support and defend the Constitution of the United States and Communism is actually ILLEGAL in this Great Country. Right now, the Left doesn't care. WE THE PEOPLE DO. Save America this November.Good point with immigrants from communist countries. I recall a report from some decades ago about Russians that immigrated; seems that a great number of them just couldn't get by here and went back home. Couldn't handle making all those decisions (where to live, where to work, what to eat, what to drive, etc.) themselves.
They should snuggle right in today. A near perfect fit.The 'battles' that needed to be fought to ensure this election had the proper oversight in place to ensure there isn't rampant fraud needed to happen back in 2021. Right after the last election. Not now.
Who votes doesn't matter. Who counts the votes and when they are counted does. The states still allowing ballots to come in AFTER the election are guaranteed to be decided by the ballot counters and NOT the voters.
Every Western country in the decades past that fiddled with Mail In Ballots have since done away with them because of problems they had with fraud.
America has been through moments like this before, the last cycle was what led up to WWII, prior to that it was the rifts that brought about the Civil War.
These moments in history have repeated often enough, the extremely wealthy get too excessive, their efforts to rewrite society become too aggressive, and then typically war on a horrific scale occurs, many nations are destroyed, and then peace and sanity reign for a generation or two.
The Eugenics Crusade | AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | PBS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRb-0v5xfI
The above was an illuminating watch about how the elites wanted to restructure society, eliminate parts of humanity, and how things devolved in the world into WWII. And how things changed after WWII.
We are in a very similar situation today... with insane ideas like DEI and choose-your-gender and CRT and of course how the likes of (Gates, Cuban, Soros) are trying to remake our society and the world today.
While at the same time we have war breaking out in Europe, the Middle East, and there is growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific as well.
With AI, Nuclear Weapons, Satellites and who knows what else... it will be interesting to see if we can come through this moment in time and reach better times and higher enlightenment on the other side of it.Yeah, I wouldn't be putting bets on it either way.
But I've become very pragmatic and pessimistic when it comes to trying to project into the future where things are going.
"Would you label those people wanting to care for everyone a "liberal" or a "conservative"?
Happy to label them "liberal" and to count myself among them. WWJD?
Where did you go in Northern Europe? My husband and I are going to Croatia next month. So many places in the eastern part that we couldn't visit when we lived overseas.I do not think he would have accepted the leftist call to murder unborn children. Accepting the liberal mantle means you also align yourself with that position, and I do not think Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come to me, except for those that have been dumped in the medical trash."
Just FYI, here in Brazil the conservative party is called the Liberal Party. (PL) Conservative and liberal are not mutually exclusive, nor are conservatives that care about others. The leftists, who support things like abortion, are mostly aligned with the Workers Party (PT).I would call them "liberal", too, but would not count myself among them, for I feel that we do not have the resources to support the world. But I don't know what WWJD refers to - I'm either too old or too young for that one.
We took a cruise through the Baltic Sea. I remember stopping at the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Germany, Latvia and Poland. A neat trip, but too busy - those one day stops don't give much of a view of a country. Just an isolated tourist sight or so. Our best time was the Netherlands (3 days there before the cruise) and Denmark, (3 days there AFTER the cruise).
Adding info on the question/statement the voters are moving further to the left ideologically. YouGov did a study on the topic published back in Dec of 2023. The bottom line is;
"YouGov recently surveyed 33,000 Americans about the political changes they see — in the U.S., in their states, and in themselves. Overall, 30% of U.S. adults say the U.S.'s politics have moved to the left in the last 10 years, while 26% say they have moved to the right. 22% say U.S. politics have stayed the same and 22% aren't sure.
While Americans are divided on which way politics has moved, liberals and conservatives have starkly different views on the matter. 44% of self-identified liberals say the U.S. has moved to the right, compared to 15% of conservatives. Meanwhile 55% of conservatives say the U.S. has moved to the left, while 15% say it's moved to the right."
Liberals say the country has moved to the right; conservatives say it's moved to the left by YouGov (Dec 15, 2023)
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … moved-left
The study/article has commentary and 6 graphics. They look at the national perspective and state as well. There is a map for the states.
Next is a link to the demographics for the question
In the past 10 years, would you say that the politics of the U.S. as a whole have…?
** Moved further left
** Stayed the same
** Move further right
** Not Sure
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic … 06/ffdb9/3
It shows . . .
All adults
Region
Gender
Politics
Age
RaceWe could stick to Republican or Democrat, but that begs the question: Are all Republicans conservative and all Democrats liberal?
Kathleen, Great point.
This is a valuable insight and highly relevant to the current stage of growth for both parties. It brings us to the threshold of individualism. In my view, it's crucial for society to acknowledge that individualism should be at the forefront.Republicans & Democrats aren't monolithic. There are liberal Republicans as well as moderate, even centrist Democrats. Unfortunately, these factions of the Republican & Democratic parties are overshadowed by the more extreme elements.
Last night at the DNC, abortion got the biggest rip-roaring hand of all.
It made me physically ill.The young women that spoke of the personal impact of Trump's abortion ban? Gut wrenching stories, they deserved a rip roaring hand for all their courage. No woman should have to go through what they and many others have gone through thanks to Trump. I'm hoping we'll hear from others tonight.
We'll just have to disagree that a baby having their limbs ripped off is worthy of praise!
I see that you still do not actually write for HP, just a sorta Jill-on-the-spot operative, quick to defend your precious Party!
gmwilliams and wilderness: Could not agree with you more.
Wonders never cease.What you call "murder" in most cases is actually "health care." You might take a moment before you attach labels to situations you know nothing about.
The cold-hearted halting of a fetus can be avoided. They do suffer they can feel. They are sent back to the astral realm with rejection. No love, no acceptance. How many times must they try to come in?
Only to be booted back.
No body, no hopes no dreams, no parents to love and cherish them.
No body, no arms, no eyes, no ears, no heart.
To avoid such tragedy for the newly conceived and un-born, don't let the sperm and the egg get anywhere near each other. Whatever that avoidence takes.Apparently, that's a lot to ask of the woke Kathryn... to actually have to trouble themselves in keeping the sperm away from the egg!
Gasp!!!
"At least the woke lefties will admit that there's nothing at their core."
Aaah, no we won't. But then we're not so quick to slap labels on anyone who disagrees with us either.You're not?!?
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
P.S. you mentioned earlier that you are "so proud".
Proud of the lies?
Proud of the adoration of abortion?
Proud of the coronation of Kamala?
All of the above.
gmwilliams: Thank you.
"Unfortunately, these factions of the Republican & Democratic parties are overshadowed by the more extreme elements."
Too many of whom have gotten themselves elected to congress, which is why nobody will compromise anymore."Too many of whom have gotten themselves elected to congress, which is why nobody will compromise anymore."
A more true statement could not be formulated. The poles shall melt, the sun shall die and Hell freeze over. Because of you.
It's a simple matter.
Does anyone wish to halt the beginning of a human life?
No.
To do so is a painful experience for both the mother and the father, but more so, of course, for the mother who experiences both physical and psychological pain.
In order to isolate the difficulty and become conscious of the one and only way to avoid abortions, we need to address the reason for unwanted pregnancy:
Casual, meaningless sex.
Over, over and over until it becomes very clear:
Sex before marriage, (a loving, committed relationship,) is risky and not worth the consequences.Furthermore, those who are against abortion need to make a full-on effort to promote this boundary:
No sex before marriage
It's called Adultery, a dreaded word.
Committing adultery is irresponsible and selfish.
One might be fooled into thinking he or she is in love with the other at the time, but the reality is, its not love at all.
How could it be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcI_Vm13BFUConservatives: You got Roe v. Wade overturned. (We won't go into how you got that done.) Now, could you possibly turn all that concern for life to the children who are already here who need safe neighborhoods, quality - and safe -education, good jobs for their parents, and adequate health care? If you refocused all your fervor to those children, we would all live in a better world.
Of course, all that takes more than words." the murders of full-term healthy babies " OK. You really need to cite a source for that comment thrown out like fact.
I realize there is no changing minds on this subject, but at some point you can't just say anything and not be challenged.
Do you know that abortions actually decreased under President Obama? Probably due to better access to health care: ACA.
February 2, 2014
"The abortion rate in the United States dropped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure in all 50 states, according to a study suggesting that new, long-acting contraceptive methods are having a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies." The Washington PostAre you asking me to prove that 3rd trimester abortions don't take place?
Are you claiming that a 7 month fetus is "full term"?
From the National Institutes of Health
SUBJECT: 3rd Trimester Abortion
"Knowledge and the infeasibility of ensuring early pregnancy recognition in all cases illustrate the impossibility of eliminating the need for third‐trimester abortion."
"The similarities between respondents' experiences and that of people seeking abortion at other gestations, particularly regarding the impact of barriers to abortion, point to the value of a social conceptualization of need for abortion that eschews a trimester or gestation‐based framework and instead conceptualizes abortion as an option throughout pregnancy."
"POINT TO THE VALUE OF A SOCIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF NEED FOR ABORTION THAT ESCHEWS A TRIMESTER OR GESTATION-BASED FRAMEWORK AND INSTEAD..... CONCEPTUALIZES ABORTION AS AN OPTION THROUGHOUT PREGNANCY."
Justification!Can you cite this source?
But let's try and put the issue in perspective with some data.
According to the CDCs latest numbers, 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were
performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation.
Abortions at or after 21 weeks are extremely uncommon and only performed by a small subset of all abortion providers.
Claims of abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth” are false. These scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal in the United States.
Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy? They include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life
endangerment.
Let's remember what happens at 20 weeks.
As part of routine care, a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks, which entails ultrasound imaging of all the developing organs. Many structural anomalies are discovered at this time that would not have been apparent previously. A proportion of these are lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth.
We also know that life threatening conditions for the mother may develop later in pregnancy. These include conditions like early severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer requiring prompt treatment, and intrauterine infection often in conjunction with premature rupture of the amniotic sac. We've already seen the impact Trump's ban has had on women with these conditions who have courageously spoken out.
It is simply a reality that we must recognize that access to abortion later in pregnancy can be a health preserving or life-saving medical service to a very small group of pregnant women. These women cannot be cast aside as some how acceptable collateral damage.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health … ports.htmlVery well spoken...right up to the "Trump's ban". Trump banned nothing, SCOTUS banned nothing. To reference "Trump's ban" then is an egregious lie.
But other than that single dig at Trump (forgivable because of TDS) you made a very good analysis.I noted your reference to factual information from the CDC, as well as your view where you mentioned, 'We've already seen the impact Trump's ban has had on women with these conditions who have courageously spoken out."
I’ve adopted a more thoughtful approach by not disputing information or statements directly. Instead, I find it more polite and effective to simply ask for a factual source to support the point.
Could you clarify when this ban on abortion was implemented?
Is this a national federal ban? I haven't come across any legislation to that effect during his time in office. Could you provide a source to support this claim? It seems that many Americans are making this same accusation, but I haven't seen evidence to substantiate it.I think it must have been only within the immediate Trump family.
Trump campaigned in 2016 on eliminating Roe v. Wade, saying he would appoint “pro-life” judges who would overturn it. He made good on that promise by picking Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.
And in 2023 he's stated,
"After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade,".
Recently Trump says he has “no regrets” that his handpicked Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to an abortion.
“The federal government should have nothing to do with this issue. It’s being solved at the state level, and people are very happy about it,” Trump said in an interview with CBS News. “No regrets, no. I wouldn’t have regrets. I did something most people felt was undoable.”
If, by his stated reasoning, the federal government doesn't belong in this issue, why would the state government belong in it? Government intrusion is no less intrusion when it is done by a smaller government.
Trump created the chaos we currently see in states that have taken the opportunity, that Trump gave them, to completely ban abortion.
My main concern though is with the women who have become the collateral damage of these bans. The women that many don't seem to want to acknowledge. What's been most harmful? It's the disastrous ramifications of these bans made possible by the ideolouges Trump put on the Supreme Court.
And welcome back to these forums. Your voice and perspectives have been missed.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 … stock-act/"Trump created the chaos we currently see in states that have taken the opportunity" <to ban abortions>
Then Trump did NOT ban abortions! Why did you say he did? Just to give a little more "oomph" behind the lie?Thank you for your warm welcome... I appreciate it.
In my view, your statement regarding Trump banning abortion misleading. This form of ban would have taken legislation, and this did not occur. I can address the concerns you now offer, and offer another side to the issue, just a fair debate on the subject.
"Trump campaigned in 2016 on eliminating Roe v. Wade, saying he would appoint “pro-life” judges who would overturn it. He made good on that promise by picking Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. "
Lots to unravel - This was one of his campaign promises, and he kept it, there is no question in that regard. He has shared openly in interviews at Town halls and rallies that he has no regrets on his Supreme Court choices. or the decision to throw out Roe, and send all decisions on abortions back to the states. However, it did not lead to the Supreme Court banning abortion, but sending the decision-making to the states.
"If, by his stated reasoning, the federal government doesn't belong in this issue, why would the state government belong in it? Government intrusion is no less intrusion when it is done by a smaller government."
Your statement suggests to me that government involvement in the issue of abortion is equally intrusive, regardless of whether it comes from the federal or state level. However, it's important to understand the distinction between federal and state government roles in the United States and how this difference has played out in the context of abortion.
The federal government became involved in the abortion debate with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, which effectively legalized abortion nationwide by ruling that the right to privacy under the Constitution protected a woman's choice to have an abortion. This federal involvement set a precedent that took the matter out of the hands of individual states, standardizing the legal status of abortion across the country. At this point, the Federal court did intervene. At that time was a more liberal-leaning court.
In contrast, state governments have their own constitutions, laws, and legal systems, allowing them to regulate a wide range of issues that reflect the values and preferences of their residents. The recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization returned the authority to regulate abortion back to the states, arguing that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and that the matter should be decided by the people and their elected representatives. This difference matters because it reflects a fundamental aspect of American federalism: the balance of power between federal and state governments. Some believe that state governments, being closer to the people, are better suited to make decisions on sensitive issues like abortion, allowing for more localized control and variation based on the beliefs and values of each state's population. Others argue that this leads to unequal access to reproductive rights and that the federal government should ensure consistent protections across all states. It leaves me with the question so many ask -- Should the federal courts ever be involved in deciding issues like abortion? This has become a contentious debate between political parties, with each side trying to push their own agenda. Is it fair for states to make these decisions independently? Our states are often divided along political and ideological lines, which means that the laws in each state can differ significantly based on the dominant beliefs of its residents. Is it fair, then, for people in each state to make decisions that reflect their values, even if it means there are different standards and laws across the country? This raises important questions about fairness, autonomy, and the role of federal versus state authority in governing such sensitive matters. I also know that some states are not willing to put abortion on the ballot... This is a problem, the majority can not be heard.
In my view, Ultimately, the debate over whether abortion should be regulated by the federal government or the states revolves around differing views on the role of government, individual rights, and the principles of federalism.
"Trump created the chaos we currently see in states that have taken the opportunity, that Trump gave them, to completely ban abortion."
I disagree with the assertion that Trump caused chaos through his appointment of Supreme Court justices. It's important to recognize that if the circumstances had been different and a Democratic president had the opportunity, three liberal justices might have been appointed instead. This situation underscores the influence of the presidency on the judiciary and the long-term impact of these appointments on the direction of the court. The nomination of justices is inherently tied to the political leanings of the sitting president, whether conservative or liberal, and such decisions will always reflect the prevailing ideology of the administration in power. It’s worth considering how these dynamics play out regardless of which party is in control. ( I'm curious to know if any president has ever appointed a Supreme Court Justice from a different political party than their own.)
I understand your concern about the impact of abortion bans on women, particularly those who find themselves in difficult and often dangerous situations as a result. It’s true that these bans can have significant, sometimes devastating, consequences for women who may need access to abortion services. This concern highlights a very real and important issue about the effects of these policies on individuals' lives. However, it's also important to recognize that the perspectives of those on the Supreme Court, whether appointed by Trump or any other president, reflect a range of ideological views that come into play when making decisions on such complex issues. Justices are appointed because they hold certain legal philosophies that align with the appointing president’s vision. While this can lead to decisions that have widespread implications, such as in the case of abortion, it is a reminder that the judiciary's role often involves navigating these deeply contentious and varied beliefs within our society.
Thank you.
There are always two sides to an issue, but we need to stick to the facts and avoid wild accusations.Only such wild and false statements such as " the murders of full-term healthy babies is justified". Pretty strong insinuation that the abortion of full term babies is happening (it's not) and that when it does libersl (and ONLY liberals) find it justified - again, something that is false to fact.
It is truly sad that both sides of this argument so commonly resort to such gross exaggerations and outright lies, while never, ever even trying to understand the opposition.My source cited earlier. The author is vague about how far along these women were, "after the 24th week of pregnancy".
Later in the article, the author does give more information:
"At the time of their abortion, participants' pregnancy duration ranged from 24 to 35 weeks LMP."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/NOT "full term babies" then. Not a single one. Got it, with the only question being why you put it as you did.
I did not research how many late-term abortions are performed in these given states. Those stats are very hard to find.
As of 2024, the states with laws regulating third-trimester abortions (typically after 24 weeks of pregnancy) include:
California: Abortion is legal up to the point of viability, which is generally considered around 24 weeks, but there are exceptions for cases involving the health and life of the mother.
New York: Similar to California, New York allows abortion up to 24 weeks, with exceptions for health or life of the mother, or if the fetus is not viable.
Oregon: Abortion is legal up to the point of viability and beyond in cases where it is necessary to protect the health or life of the mother.
Washington: Abortion laws are similar to those of Oregon, permitting it up to viability and in certain cases after viability.
Colorado: Abortion is allowed up to viability, and in some cases after viability for health reasons.
Vermont: Abortion is protected up to the point of viability, and there are allowances for later procedures if necessary for the health or life of the mother.None at all up to "full term", then.
I would not agree with that "viability" thing, not unless it is defined with a date. Problem is that most people see viability as somethings changes with the care available, and of course it goes down as we learn more and more about biology - it is a moving target, and one very much based on opinion. Not something that needs to be in our courts.In U.S. law, starting with Roe v. Wade, "viability" refers to a fetus's ability to survive outside the womb with the help of modern medicine. This issue is complex, some argue that determining viability may be better suited for medical professionals rather than courts. I tend to agree.
Exactly so. Not only a moving target with improving technology, but one dependent on the (different) opinions of doctors. Most definitely not suited for court; that's exactly what I meant.
I believe this is what triggered the pro-abortion (aka: pro-death) crowd:
"Time and time again, Pro-lifers take the high road, don't make waves, are expected to accept it & attempt to "understand" the Pro-Death [aka pro-choice] crowd. In the meantime, while we make nice, the murders of full-term healthy babies is justified, infanticide is justified, multiple abortions are Celebrated!!!
There's an abortion-mobile at the DNC."
I stand by my words, I've no intentions of backing off.Yes, that's the one. That very plainly states that full term babies are being aborted and is justified - an outright lie that has zero truth in it.
Political discussion has become more lie than truth all across the board. Unfortunately it does nothing at all to solve anything, simply digging the divide deeper and causing more dislike and hatred. Insulting and lying about a political opponent does not foster solutions, compromise or understanding, only more of the same "Only I have the right answers; yours are thus irrelevant" manner of thinking.
"Discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several presidential candidates claimed there were abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the United States. Discussion of this topic is distorted and inflamed by the terminology that is sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy— including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions."
Kaiser Family Foundation - Women's Health PolicyAnd two of those appointments were the result of unethical behavior by the GOP.
Whatever it takes to justify abortion, you've made my point.
And you have made mine for me. We both win.
At least somebody wins, the preborn's odds of winning aren’t so good.
Did you know that aborted babies are counted among types of deaths?Sure. We could, if desired, count the number of flies killed among types of deaths. Or mosquitos.
Kind of depends on who is doing the counting, whether they lie and count abortions as killing children, doesn't it?
!
Related Discussions
- 45
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or wit
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
- 25
What are the main misperceptions that Conservatives have about Liberals and why?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
What are the main misperceptions that Conservatives have about Liberals and why?
- 35
What is Conservatism? What is Liberalism? An Experiment
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Having taken 10 years to publish my first book, "A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics" (Authorhouse, 2019), I am starting on a second whose working title is "Conservatism in America: History and Impact". This will be a Hub as well.One...
- 125
Are right-wing extremists destroying America?
by promisem 5 years ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...
- 183
Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2B81M5Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high.Through the first nine months of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported it “encountered”...
- 65
Aren't Socialism and Communism more Conservative than Liberal?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...