Why Don't COVID-19 Truthers Blame Trump for Anything? - The Bulwark

SPC Kevin Ford - I think that's because the real conflict isn't between "Trump Supporters" and "Trump Opponents"...or even Republican or Democrat. I know lots of people who adore JFK and questioned Reagan during "Iran-Contra", who vote Republican today. Similarly, I know people who are highly conservative, and always have been... who struggle with embracing Trump. Personally, I think the REAL conflict is between two socio-economic ideologies; Socialism and "little r" republicanism. Those pushing for some variation of socialism seem less concerned about personal liberties if it leads to increased economic equality, environmental health, etc. Those seeking to preserve a constitutional republic seem willing to accept some inequality and risk in exchange for meritocracy and personal freedom. Ultimately, it's all been complicated by the application of very passionate divergences in moral and social philosophy over time. If we could separate each issue into a separate "box", as opposed to trying to draw a line between two "sides"... it would likely be easier.

LCDR Joshua Gillespie - I wish what we had now is different than the normal disagreements we have over ideologies. Trump is not the same animal. But let's put him aside for now if that's OK as I'm not sure that leads anywhere ... useful. ;)

I do disagree with the idea that, "Those pushing for some variation of socialism seem less concerned about personal liberties if it leads to increased economic equality, environmental health, etc. Those seeking to preserve a constitutional republic seem willing to accept some inequality and risk in exchange for meritocracy and personal freedom." From what I can see, both sides are clearly willing to compromise on personal liberties, they just disagree with what personal liberties can be infringed. People on the left see the people on the right as infringing on personal liberties when it comes to abortion while people on the right see it as protecting life (a lot of which stems from a disagreement over what constitutes life). People on the right see people on the left as restricting their 2nd amendment rights while people on the left also see it as protecting life.

I could give many other examples, but clearly people on the left and right are more than willing to restrict other people's liberties, they just disagree with what liberties can be infringed and why.

I completely agree that things would be easier if they could be taken on an issue by issue basis.

SPC Kevin Ford - Well said. To my mind, there's a difference between "liberty" and "anarchy". This is expressly why I mentioned the divergence in principle as being a "complication". Frankly, I don't think you can have a functional "free" society without a universal moral code... the Founders appear to thought as much. However, you are correct-people pick and choose what to defend when they won't come out and say what they really value. Every Judeo-Christian (myself included) in the nation KNOWS that the quickest way to lose a Constitutional argument is to evoke God. Likewise, everyone who despises Judeo-Christian philosophy KNOWS that the surest way to win a Constitutional argument is get the discussion to be about faith. I'd bet every dollar I have that if we could bring Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington back to life, and ask their opinion... they'd want a few lines added to the Constitution clarifying some things... but instead, we get to waver between honoring what they built, and trying to re-build it in our own image. For my own part, I don't want the definition of "liberty" to be curated without moral principle or common sense. If someone wants to defend killing an unborn child simply because the parents were too irresponsible or selfish to consider the possible consequences, or if they want to take away another person's ability to defend themselves because they are misinformed and afraid... that seems worth opposing.

LCDR Joshua Gillespie - Hard saying what they would say. I'll just leave it as this, never in the history of society has there been an agreed upon moral code. Even within Christianity we can see wide variation in what people believe. Maybe the Hutterites are right and our military service was wrong? I don't personally think they are right.

There are a couple of assumptions in your thoughts around abortion. First that what we are talking about is in any way a child. Second that the woman involved is in anyway responsible for her circumstance.

Even if we say for the sake of argument that this is an unborn child, in no other circumstance is a person expected or forced to give up their bodily autonomy, even if it means the death of another. If you accidentally hit me with a car and I'll die unless you give me a transfusion of blood, you are perfectly with your rights to say too bad, so sad. Even if you started giving me the transfusion, you can at any time pull the needle out and walk away, even at the cost of my life and even if the only reason why I was injured was because of something you accidentally did.