My re-introduction.

let's say Clinton won the election, bam, the court is now 6-3 leftist, say goodbye to gun rights, free speech, and religious liberty

 

Lets just go ahead and say that is true, even though it is not. Basically you just confirmed what I am saying....throw away ethics to ensure power.

 

you don't think Hillary would have appointed to far left justices? and no, it's throwing away ethics to ensure rights, rights to own a gun, rights to be able to say what you want. There is no large sum of power to be gained, only rights that must be preserved. Nobody is being given a higher amount of power, everyone is being granted what was given to them in the constitution.

 

Folks have been crying wolf on Guns for decades and the ONLY real action was done by Republicans, not SCOTUS. HillBill would definitely have nominated left leaning justices but your nightmare scenarios would never come to pass...regardless that is not reason to abandon ethics or morals.

 

We will never know, because thankfully she didn't win. Do you ever think it is ok to abandon ethics or morals?

 

No, I do not. I feel that doing so nullifies the entire concept of having the position in the first place.

 

So then what are your morals and ethics?

 

Though situational to an extent just as anyone elses, my moral choices are directed first by "Do No Harm" and a close second would be "Help when possible". Honesty is also very important.

 

so under NO circumstances would you ever harm ANYONE?

 

As I stated, that is situational. Having been placed in situations of self defense or threats to loved ones I admit I have "Caused Harm" when required. Perhaps you might just get to whatever point you intend to use in defense of the immorality you wish to normalize.

 

Is it then possible for many conservatives to feel the way you do and are simply supporting Trump in self defense?

 

The problem is that 'conservative' and 'liberal' are, first of all, just words. They describe dispositions, not worked-out ideologies, although there are self-proclaimed 'conservatives' and 'liberals' with worked-out ideologies. In this, as in many things, words are discrete but reality is analogue.

If you were to closely question the average American voter (if you try to analyze people in other countries regarding 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' you will make your task far more complex), you will find that they hold a mix of 'conservative' and 'liberal' views, which are, in any case, highly contextual and absolutely not the result of reading Edmund Burke or Milton Friedman or John Stuart Mill or John Rawls.

I was strongly reminded of this one evening, in a little road-side cafe when I was on a trip with some of my Texas relatives, all strong Christian conservatives. The waitress who served us looked very tired -- someone to whom life had dealt a difficult hand. We started talking about jobs like hers -- none of my relatives have been to college and several of them have had to struggle economically -- and in the course of the conversation, it turned out that they were very much for the minimum wage. It was not a worked-out position, just a strong reflexive response to their personal knowledge that economic success is not just an automatic function of personal virtue.

I remember thinking at the time that someday a Republican presidential candidate is going to come along with just the right combination of 'liberal' economic views and 'centrist' social views, someone who is nominally religious but actually secular, who will sweep the Republican field. Little did I dream it would be a creature like Donald Trump.

'Democrat' and 'Republican' are even more meaningless as political labels. [The word 'RINO' was invented and then seeded into political dialogue about 20 years ago by a liberal think-tank group as a way of encouraging Republicans to self-harm by decreasing the number of Republican voters. "Yay, more people have quit the Republican Party, wonderful, we're making great progress!" A diabolical move, albeit a brilliant one. Why can't my side be as smart?]

 

The two are not even similar and attempting to pretend they are is at a minimum disingenuous but more likely an attempt at excusing the immorality felt by knowing you have compromised in order to support Trump. It is akin to preachers backing Trump while he cheats in marriage and business and debases people for fun....pure hypocrisy.

 

But I'm not, I'm here, saying that Trump is despicable person who I never want any of my potential children to be like while I will probably vote for him in 2020 because his policies are more beneficial for the country.

 

And that sir, is almost the definition of compromising ethics for power.....please do not teach it to the kids you apparently care enough about to protect from what you support.

 

But my point is it's not for power, it's for freedom.

 

What you consider freedom others consider otherwise and though you want to call it something else it remains the quest for power. Stacking a court to get your positions forwarded is power no matter how you slice it.

I hope it is worth the compromise for you.

 

One could very well say that is what the left does, and is the ability to pick who you serve as a private business a power or right?

 

It IS what the left does...but that is not what we are discussing, now is it? I do understand your desire to change the subject however....so go ahead and discuss whatever you want as it seems we are done here.

Have A Nice Day

 

but you didn't answer my question which is very relevant to what you are saying. I'm asking if the ability to choose is a right or power.

 

Probably most of the people who voted for Trump in the primaries who were self-professed Christians, rationalized this in the way that we have always rationalized male sexual infidelity, so long as the wife was provided for. "That's just the way men are." We all know that most men would cheat on their wives, given the right circumstances. (Except, of course, for you, dear reader.)

Of course, the Republican attack on Bill Clinton for his infidelities was pure hypocrisy.

In general, in a bitter conflict, we don't ask too many questions about supposed atrocities committed by people who are on our side. If you read that the soldiers of country X slaughtered a village-full of innocent civilians, raped the women before killing them ... you'll be horrified. Unless country X is your own, or is a country you believe is fighting for your ideals, in which case you'll put it out of your mind.

 

I did not answer because I tend to avoid rather than play into blatant distraction techniques and indicated as much.

 

I'm not attempting to distract you, you are claiming that I am compromising morality for power. I am simply asking if you think the ability to choose is a right or power, because in my mind Trump has preserved the right to choose, but if you see that as a power than I will understand and leave you be.

 

Choice is both a right and a power once enacted depending on circumstance. In the case we were discussing it would be the right to choose ethics over power or vice versa. You use the power of your vote and dismiss your ethics by choice when you did so regardless of distaste. Personally I found both choices so distasteful I could not accept them and did not vote at all.

 

So you support a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Oppose gay marriage, and support student lead school prayer?