Conservation is like beauty, eyes of the beholder and what not. Everyone wants to conserve something, but what are the costs?

I have heard that the author of the bill himself cancelled it because it was worded badly to release all the videos to a public website, rather than to name names. He's working on the rewrite right now. If you knew this but still demanded ALL the info be publicly released then you might be into the naughty stuff yourself. Unfortunately the news reports this story without all the info. They're still playing you.

non political posts need more representation

Popular opinion: MAGA stinky, stinky bad, icky gross, ewww.

Originally posted by DarkCrystalMethod:

I have heard that the author of the bill himself cancelled it because it was worded badly to release all the videos to a public website, rather than to name names. He's working on the rewrite right now. If you knew this but still demanded ALL the info be publicly released then you might be into the naughty stuff yourself. Unfortunately the news reports this story without all the info. They're still playing you.

No sane person would ever advocate for releasing any of the videos. Why anyone would believe that is beyond God himself.

Originally posted by salamander:

non political posts need more representation

you need more representation :3

Originally posted by Final Kat:

Can we go back to a time where conservatives had sense?

lmfao

I don't disagree with the idea behind MAGA but don't think the movement should be centered around Trump.

I was always iffy about Trump because of his past connections to the democrat party, but his approval of the "big beautiful bill" and his feigned ignorance of the Epstein client list is making me loathe him.

It should be increasingly apparent to everyone that the goals of MAGA and the goals of Trump do not align.

I write in defense of Trump often but if I had my own first choice of U.S. President it would've been Ron Paul, mostly because he indicated he actually gave a hoot about the mechanisms about the U.S. constitution by talking about its design rather than just conveniently bringing up the word "unconstitutional" every time he wanted to use the judiciary to veto a law he didn't like. The man was the last true champion of a limited federal government.

Trump has his moments. He deferred to the states on covid policy, abortion policy and educational policy. However he doesn't really couch it in the terms of constitutional deference. Paul actually talks about the constitution as a positive powers document, and about the enumerated powers, et cetera, at least on occasion.

Unfortunately, that's why he was unelectable. No great big conspiracy. It's just that the electorate doesn't give a hoot about due delegation of powers or the amendment process. They just want to vote the guy in who will serve their policy issue preferences. In fact there is a general preference of the electorate to have their preferred laws forced upon as wide of an expanse and population as possible, so it runs somewhat contrary to what voters want.

People don't understand. The army is one of the few things the federal government should be funding. Alongside the post office, the copyright office, U.S.T.P.O., I.C.E., the Judiciary, the Legislature and Foreign Affairs. Most other branches of government are unconstitutional in accordance to the principles Madison outlined in Federalist no. 41[avalon.law.yale.edu].

Particularly this portion of it:

'If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

Most of what the federal government does, and most of what people expect it to do these days, in a post-depression world, is unconstitutional. It vaguely makes my eyes roll whenever somebody brings up something being unconstitutional because it suggests to me that they are hypocrites for wanting oh so many other unconstitutional policies.

Domestic policy is far and by large supposed to be the sole domain of the state governments. Do note that I am not saying the federal government lacks the appropriate grant of policy to enact domestic policy whatsoever, but that far and by large it exceeds the scope of its authority.

No F.D.A., no E.P.A., no Department of Education., no social security, no medicaid, et cetera, et cetera. I make no ruling on whether or not those agencies do good or needful work or not: Just that they ought to have never been formed in the first place and that they are in plain violation of the 10th amendment on its face.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately, since they were, transitioning back to a constitutional government would come with great difficulty. A coordinated repeal and replace effort involving both the federal government and the states in order to maintain the status quo of governmental services people have come to expect. A constitutional amendment would also suffice, although that process would likely be just about as hard since you need 3/4ths of the state legislatures to agree.

That having been said, although the process is slow, each of the states do, as a general rule of thumb, adopt the most basic and needful of laws over time.

You do realize this administration is mostly ex-democrats and old-school liberals... I keep hearing the attempts to say they are extreme-right but not buying it. Sorry try harder.

Originally posted by Talby:

You do realize this administration is mostly ex-democrats and old-school liberals... I keep hearing the attempts to say they are extreme-right but not buying it. Sorry try harder.

It doesn't matter what they used to be. If they currently hold extreme-right values, then they're extreme-right.

Jon Schaffer used to hold 9/11 in his heart to remind himself how much he loved this country and what he was willing to do for it. And then he began peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories and attended the coup attempt on January 6th. "But your honor, my client wrote a song about 9/11 a decade before attending the insurrection, so he clearly can't be far-right" kind of nonsense.

MAGA is a cult. Opening wide and swallowing every bit of trash Trump tells them to swallow. No questions asked. He tells them that Kamala was a fascist and a communist, and they will repeat it. But someone who thinks for themselves can tell you why that can't be true.

It's the people who cry "sheep" and "fake news" the loudest who can't think for themselves.

Originally posted by Final Kat:

I'm not a conservative. I'm also not a democrat. My views vary on the graph depending on the view itself. (I lean right when it comes to making money, but I lean left when it comes to having personal freedoms.)

But can we all agree that there's a difference between being conservative and being MAGA? Real conservatives are people who believe in tradition, financial prosperity, and religious freedoms. MAGA people just want to lie, cause drama, and hurt people. They are not real conservatives.

Can we go back to a time where conservatives had sense? Where they wouldn't block a vote to release the Epstein files? You can be conservative without being deplorable.

Yea people have had enough of David French pet of the left conservatism, the only thing they live for is head pats from libs, basically cuck chair Rinos, and in the case of French, votes Democrat any time there is a risk of winning.
https://youtu.be/PMMJWF9K4BQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi5ZbM9sTA8
https://youtu.be/9XsStpBIbJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT3ECvAPmQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJJhjWFhAeY

There's definitely a distinction between conservatives, libertarians, and national-populists (such as the core of MAGA) as I would call them. But in the US, I don't see traditional, moderate conservatism making a serious comeback. Any John McCain sort of figure is immediately seen as a part of the deep state.

On the right, the only threat to MAGA are Peter Thiel types who are essentially libertarians without that annoying "liberty" thing. Honestly, they may be worse than Trump.

I don’t like trump, but defending Kamala after all her ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is your mask off moment. You are a liberal.
That’s all you get from me

Originally posted by Doomerang:

I don’t like trump, but defending Kamala after all her ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is your mask off moment. You are a liberal.
That’s all you get from me

Point to me where I defended her.