We'd love to see moderate conservatives here, and to some degree they are here. The thing is, no moderate person on either side of the aisle can realistically support Trump, because that involves defending some utterly indefensible things, like constant lying, overt corruption and general incompetence.
I'm unhappy with Trump on a good day, and certainly angry on others. As I will not commit to being bound by an ideology I have the very traditional conservative view that there are supposed to be three co-equal branches which serve as checks and balances on each other. At no time should any President even contemplate the direct usurpation of the powers invested by the Constitution into the Legislature and Judiciary and that is precisely what Trump has announced when he said we don't need to change the Constitution, he can just sign an EO and it's done.
That would void all the decisions of the courts, involving not just the 14th but with a signature the entire Constitution. This is an act of enormity, not some "well he's at it again" foolishness.
What ideological concept would support that? Yes there is an answer, and that particular one removes all possibility of it being moderate, liberal or conservative.
The reason you don't see "moderate" responses is that there can be no rational basis for them.
That must have been a forum update... all better now .Your security settings do not all a PM
Let me provide you with an example of how things go sideways very quickly here. Ready?
Obama expanded presidential powers. That is something that almost all presidents attempt to do. Generally, I think people let it slide because most thought Obama had good enough reasons to do that, but, he expanded powers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/obama-era-legacy-regulation.html
Trump being power hungry has taken that and run with it. Not only has he tried to expand his power, but, he has tried to undermine any check on his power.
Shooting someone over Politics is totally not Wereposum. He’ll be pissed, he may go to a protest but no way is he shooting someone.
I could imagine him holding a protester for the police to arrest but that’s about all.
I think the big reason is that there are two kinds of conservatives, the old style/economic kind and the culture war kind.
1) Old style - if you were one of these would you want to come around defending this shit show? Your tribal identity probably still lies with Republicans so you don't come out explicitly against it but it's also not defensible so you disengage.
2) Culture war - if you're in for the culture war with Trump these days that means embracing abject racism, sexism, anti-immigrant paranoia, and all sorts of insane conspiracy theories. That's the kind of thing that gets you banned around here.
That's my guess at least.
Many people, including some self defined liberals have supported acts which I think went to far but IMO within the boundaries of the law, or of not then the courts allowed it and I am compelled to accept their findings. This is the heart of the phrase "rule of law". But many on the left do see a power creep towards the Executive Branch and some have expressed that hear.
But what Trump proposed with his EO does not push boundaries, it seizes power from all others and replaces the rule of law with the rule of Trump. This would be a fascist act, taking control of the law and by extension the government, you and I.
What moderate can support such an egregious act, tantamount to the Nazi's seizure of control based on its own authority? By the definition of "moderate" this cannot be.
But, what reason would they have saying that on this forum?
Shooting someone over Politics is totally not Wereposum. He’ll be pissed, he may go to a protest but no way is he shooting someone.
I could imagine him holding a protester for the police to arrest but that’s about all.
He even back peddled on his threat shortly after that. So you see, I don’t give a jolly damn over your feelings over what I and others have seen.
People that come to P&N are typically people that want to express their political ideas. That means moderates are less likely to come and talk here. Add in how angry everyone appears to be post Trump, and moderates have less reason to give an opinion that will be attacked. Given that the majority of people on P&N are Left leaning, the majority of the anger is going to come from the left. That leaves very little reason for a conservative to come and talk here.
Because it would be right to do so. What matter is being disapproved of if one puts forward an argument for law and justice and back it with a rational claim? If we can't do that, if fear makes us cower because some screen full of text says that someone disapproves, then what good are we?
In some ways the old paradigms of ideology and party are wrong. I would rather side with a person who stands for rationality and justice legally dispensed regardless of R or D than pick a side and argue against it. If others cannot make a stand they are doing what they ought and remain silent about what they cannot comprehend.
If you're a "moderate" that supports Trump, you're not a moderate. Frankly, as a European, I have trouble calling anyone to the right of the Dems a "moderate". US politics is skewed way to the right.
You think Europe is more moderate?
I used to belong to a different forum that had a small version of P&N with only around 20 active posters. It was pretty fairly mixed and most conservatives there were what would be called RINOs today.
Around the time of Bush Jr, they slowly started to change, becoming more radical in their support of his Iraq war and defending his his torturing, etc. That's when I left and came here.
I went back a couple of weeks ago and checked in on the forum to see how things have changed. Now all the previous moderate conservative posters are all like taj & Slow and only one liberal poster remains. It was sad to see.
When it comes to policy? Of course it is, is that a serious question?
I think we have a technical problem of semantics. To most Americans, European "moderate" is more liberal than here. To most Europeans, it would be the opposite. The problem of semantics becomes one of philosophical debate with one question "Who is right, and who possesses an objective metric to make that determination".
Or
It's in the eye of the beholder.
When it comes to policy? Of course it is, is that a serious question?
I think we have a technical problem of semantics. To most Americans, European "moderate" is more liberal than here. To most Europeans, it would be the opposite. The problem of semantics becomes one of philosophical debate with one question "Who is right, and who possesses an objective metric to make that determination".
Or
It's in the eye of the beholder.
This sums it up pretty well. But there's also the fact that so few people here actually engage in actual discussions. Most threads where a conservative viewpoint is expressed are just insult wars.