What DO conservatives stand for?

Other than the Lincoln Project I have not seen or heard from a Republican who is upset, talking about, or doing anything about the attack on our democracy. I haven’t seen anyone comment against, the new Discriminatory voting laws ( what does keeping minorities from voting have to do with actual conservative political values? )

Any conversations I see from Republicans ( not necessarily here but irl and many places on the internet ) is the whole ‘we are such victims’, ‘you think we are all racists’, ‘we can’t talk with anyone about our values without being called racist’. ‘We can’t speak our minds without being lumped in with racists.’

Ok well what are those values? Talk about those instead of whining about not being racist. Just BE not racist. Speak about things that are not bigoted. Speak out and vote against racist policies. Or admit you are actually racist, you can’t be pro discriminatory voting policies and not be pro discrimination. Don’t want to be lumped in with white supremacists then act like your not a white supremacist. Speak like your not a white supremacist. Stop giving excuses on why new Jim Crow laws are ok. Don’t tell me that you can’t speak your mind without being called a bigot then defend bigoted policies or defend bigoted politicians because they are not liberals. Stop trying to legislate my beliefs to be like yours. Guess what? That is being bigoted.

Just off the top of my head, wouldn’t Anna Navarro and Bill Kristol fall into this category?  

I agree.

yes, but...

Right now, the US has a 2-party system. Republicans and Democrats. The Republican party has been overtaken by Trumpism. Unless Republicans who are NOT Trumpists take back their party, or create a different third party, then I think there's not much choice to assume that these terms ARE the same. As far as legislation, the 'party values' and elections are concerned, anyway.

If 'traditional conservatives' are hamstrung and unhappy with the Trumpists and the loons that are running the party right now, then THEY have to do something about it- right??  If they're NOT actively doing something to change it, then I don't see why the distinction between the three makes any difference. 

elaine, I keep posting about the "right wing loons" because they have become a SIGNIFICANT part of the Republican party - as many others have stated above. They aren't even trying to move to the center - especially at the state party level.

I will keep posting about the "right wing loons" until they stop trying to legislate their backwards, harmful, dangerous views on the GOP and, by extension, on the US.

I'd also appreciate if you tag me if you're going to talk about me.

I’m sincerely sorry, I will try to do better with tagging you.

I have no problem with talking about right wing loons. Or the GOP. Or conservatives. 

I cannot make it any clearer that my issue is on a thread titled “what do conservatives stand for?” many people are answering the question/discussing the issue as if everyone who would say that they hold conservative values is exactly the same as Trumpers/the GOP/the right wing loons. 

I have no issue with trashing Trumpers and what most of the current GOP politicians are doing to this country. I have done it quite a bit myself. 

I feel like I am beating a dead horse to get across the idea that conservatives/the GOP/Trumpers/the right wing loons are not all the same. And using the terms interchangeably, TO ME, isn’t helpful and, in fact, detrimental, to come to an understanding with those, on this board, for example, who would label themselves as conservatives. 

If this thread is meant to simply be a bitch fest about the right wing loons and Trumpers, have at it. I can bitch about them with the most vocal of you.

I simply refuse to do it on a thread titled “what do conservatives stand for?

Because the Trumpers, right wing loons, and many of the GOP politicians aren’t conservative - they don’t hold what would be considered conservative values to me (they are all about running up the National debt and bigger government legislating what people do in the bedroom and what women can do with their bodies). 

This thread, IMO, by having people lump disparate groups of people and discussing them as if they are one entity, only serves to alienate those amongst us here that do consider themselves to have some conservative values. 

Many/most here who consider themselves to be “liberal” would pushback LOUDLY if right wing peas came on here and insisted that all liberals were communists and went on to bitch about and insist that we all wanted to eliminate all personal property, etc.  Are there some fringe left extremists who would like to see us move towards communism? Yes. Does that describe everyone who is liberal on this board? No.  

So, for the final time. I have no issue with bitching about the right wing loons, Trumpers, most of the GOP.  My issue is doing it on a thread titled “what do conservatives stand for?” and agglomerating - as if they are one Borg-like entity - those groups with people who simply label themselves as conservative.  We DO have conservative peas here who do not support Trump or the right wing loons. This thread doesn’t serve to open any discussion with them, only to alienate, IMO. 

I can tell you what I don't stand for...

Being told conservatives do nothing but yell, stomp, collect dollars, lie, poison, that we are sycophants, lunatics, deranged, demented, responsible for fraud, we destroy, we marginalize, and we are greedy.

These are the majority of the adjectives used in the first 8-10 posts on this thread. No one, regardless of political party, is going to work with another human being to solve problems or share interests if people on the other side of the aisle are spewing that kind of venom.

Until the vile remarks, name calling, yelling, assumptions, and other behaviors stop - on both sides - nothing is ever going to get done.

Before asking "what do conservatives or liberals stand for" maybe the better question "is my behavior causing problems or supporting solutions?"

First, I say this all time but Elaine says everything I am thinking but says it so much better.

Could part of the confusion be because the terms may be used interchangeably depending on the area? In my area when people are referring to conservatives they are talking about the extreme right nutters that follow Trump, believe the Q lies, etc. They look at is as holding conservative values; religious, against abortion, same sex marriages, etc. It isn't about being fiscally conservative to them. The scale looks more like this: extreme left--progressives--Democrats--middle--Republicans--Conservatives/Trumpers/Tea Party--extreme right. In that other thread when I was saying that I was a Republican I was saying I am close to the middle so I was a bit floored when I was being told that I am a trumper then. To me it would be an insult to be called a conservative because around here that would mean I believe that shit being posted like the cargo ship being stuck in Suez canal had links to Hilary, Obama and sex trafficking.

To be clear I stand for less government and less spending. I support same sex marriages, while I wouldn't have an abortion I am not about to tell another woman what decision they should make, I don't think guns need to be taken away but I do support more in depth background checks, limiting type and amount of ammo one person can buy and not opposed to stricter gun control. I don't stand for hate. I don't support Trump and that way of thinking. In my physical, geographical location that makes me a republican not a conservative. But I think on this board that makes me a conservative? Am I understanding this correctly?

I find it interesting that so many of you who would take such umbrage at the idea that all liberals just want to prolifically spend other people's money are having trouble understanding "what conservatives stand for". All this handwringing that people would vote for politicians who don't want to do anything. There is a very large portion of Americans who do not think the federal government should be involved expanding large scale government programs. Who are proponents of more local control and in a nutshell think that FEDERAL government spending is inefficient. They think that given free rein, liberals would skyrocket taxes and stifle the economy.

Now like any group - you'll find those on the extreme who disparage pretty much all federal government involvement outside of the powers outlined in the Constitution and those that say like Social Security and maybe even Medicare, but don't want to see new programs. But in general, yes a segment of voters ARE attracted to a politician who says they're not in favor of more government spending and in favor of lower taxes. You don't agree - groovy - you like someone who has a zillion expensive programs they want to implement immediately without any clear idea how to pay for them - that's why you vote differently.

Here's a conservative speaking for himself: "Stuart Stevens spent four decades helping Republicans—a lot of Republicans—win. He’s one of the most successful political operatives of his generation, crafting ads and devising strategies for President George W. Bush, Republican presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, and dozens of GOP governors, senators and congressmen. He didn’t win every race, but he thinks he had the best won-lost record in Republican campaign world.

And now he feels terrible about it.

Stevens now believes the Republican Party is, not to put too fine a point on it, a malign force jeopardizing the survival of American democracy. He’s written a searing apologia of a book called It Was All a Lie that compares his lifelong party to the Mafia, to Bernie Madoff’s fraud scheme, to the segregationist movement, even to the Nazis. He’s pretty disillusioned.

While Stevens is one of the most prominent “Never Trump” Republicans, and It Was All a Lie is predictably scathing about the failures of President Donald Trump, the book does not blame Trump for the failures of the party he leads. It essentially takes for granted that Trump is as bad a president and a human being as his worst Democratic critics say—and that he constantly violates supposedly bedrock Republican commitments to free trade, family values, limited government and the Constitution. His point is that Trump is a fitting representative of the modern GOP.

It Was All a Lie is really about the party that spawned Trump and now marches in near-lockstep behind him—the party to which 67-year-old Stevens has devoted his career. The GOP’s abject surrender to its unorthodox and unconservative leader was a surprise to Stevens, but he has concluded that he shouldn’t have been surprised....

STEVENS: Here’s one way to look at this: You could say that by 1999, when George W. Bush runs for president, conservatism had been a victim of its own success. We won the Cold War. Welfare reform passed under Bill Clinton! Taxes were no longer at 70 percent. Crime was going way down. I think Governor Bush looked at all that and said: What does it mean to be a conservative? Out of that came the framework of compassionate conservatism. What was his first big piece of legislation? No Child Left Behind. That picture of him at the signing with Ted Kennedy—today that would be evidence for a war crimes tribunal. But you can make a good case that vision of the party died on 9/11, when Bush became a wartime president.

There’s a parlor game among those of us who worked for Bush and loved Bush about what kind of president he would’ve been like without 9/11. I think you could make the case that he would’ve transformed the party. Likewise, if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, I think he would’ve taken the party in a very different direction. So one conclusion I’ve reached is that leaders really matter. In the 1930s, why didn’t we become fascist? Probably because Roosevelt was president and not Lindbergh. Why was the civil rights movement defined by nonviolence? Probably because of Martin Luther King. If Stokely Carmichael had a similar role, it would’ve been different.

But part of a role of a political party should be to form a circuit-breaker function. To me, with Trump, it all goes back to the Muslim ban in December 2015. The party should’ve rejected that. If the Republican Party stands for anything, it’s supposed to be the Constitution.

“Why does the Republican Party exist today? It exists to beat Democrats. That’s not a political party. That’s a cartel.”"

www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/19/interview-stuart-stevens-republican-case-against-trump-397918

I give up. You have missed my point, or understand it but refuse to acknowledge it. However, it is your thread for you to take wherever you want to, so ignore my input. 

(And no, I disagree with the notion that all the various Democratic candidates had/have all the same core beliefs). 

I’m not a liberal. I’m a recovering partyless former Republican. The current GOP acts directly opposite the values that I held that made me think I had common causes with them.

I haven’t seen a viable party platform from the GOP, reflecting the values I thought I had in common with them since at least McCain’s run. It’s been quite a while since they put forth a detailed platform to DO something rather than destroy/eliminate things.

( I didn’t realize it’s been 20 years since I’ve voted R for national office in anything other than a primary. )

And 2016, 2018 & 2020 they seemed to drop even the appearance of an actual platforms to run on the platform of OMG Nancy Pelosi bad, liberals bad, socialists bad. All their ads ( at least here ) just screamed don’t let liberals make us socialist it’s bad. Bad. Nancy Pelosi bad, ( oh and emails )? Vote R were the bestest, just believe us.

It has been like watching animal farm come to life ( 2 legs bad - 4 legs good until 2 legs are better because IOKIYAR )

Conservatives want less spending. Cut taxes for the rich. But they still want me to help finance the poorer mostly red states many of whom are the ones voting against their own interests while taking my tax dollars to pay their bills including social services.