For example, using established definitions of liberalism and conservatism found in accredited dictionaries to reason upon when articulating opposing ideologies.
It can, but most often doesn't. Again, you are going to.have to provide examples of objective language you want.
This is an objective dichotomy showing the centralization and decentralization of power --> democracy/autocracy; policies that shift power to the right will centralize power, and policies that shift power to the left will decentralize power. As a general rule objective language would express sentiments that are not opinions and are never based in negative prejudice.
childeye 2 said:
Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy.
Objectively I disagree. Thats a left leaning position.
We need objective language to accurately articulate how we discern a Left/ right dichotomy. Your statement underscored above is based on bias therefore you are not speaking objectively even though you think you are. The proof of bias is that you don't know what autocratic policies I am referring to that Trump has initiated. And this can be seen in the exchange of discourse from the record -->
rjs330 said:
Thats the simplistic view. Even conservatives support change. Liberals support status quo. What matters to both is what is the change and what is the status quo. And both sides move from current positions. We even see it in the current government. Conservatives support the change Trump is making in the Executive.
childeye 2 said:
Objective language
would not confuse change to the left with change to the right. Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy. Objectively,
REAL conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.
conservatism
con·ser·va·tism
kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm
pluralconservatisms
Synonyms of conservatism
1
a
: inclination to preserve what is established
: belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
Trump is for running the Executive branch of which he is the head of. The boss gets to run the business as he sees fit.
There exists the separation of powers in the Constitution into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial.
Your being subjective in saying real.conservatives would not support something.
No, I am not expressing my opinion, I am using the dictionary meaning of conservatism (as shown above). And you're actually misquoting what I said even while you assert without any evidence that it's my statement that is subjective. --> I didn't say "something"
Real.conservatives don't believe he is ignoring article 1 and the legislative branch.
This above is a blank assertion.
Republican Congressman Troy Balderson, who reps an R+18 district in Ohio, says President Trump’s executive orders are “getting out of control.” “Congress has to decide whether or not the Departmnet of Education goes away. Not the president. Not Elon Musk. Congress decides,” Balderson said.
He is using things in the constitution and things passed by Congress.
Executive orders are not required to be passed by congress.
Congress didn't pass anything nor is there anything in the constitution allowing Trump to attack
Perkins Coie law firm.
Maybe he is using them.in ways they havent been used before, but that doeant mean its incorrect. At least not until SCOTUS says it is.
To be clear, I am defending this statement as an objective statement --> "Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution".
Even though this diverts from my intent, here is one example of an executive order that came to mind that was rejected by SCOTUS --> The end of birthright citizenship. <-- Good example of a policy change towards autocracy.
childeye 2 said:
Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy.
No its not. How do I know?
Because subsequently we didnt have border security and had a flood of illegal immigrants come into the country and they brought crime with them.
rjs330 said:
Liberals wanted to maintain status quo. Immigration. Conservatives support the change in how we deal with illegal immigration, Liberals wanted to maintain the status quo.
When you say, "we didn't have border security" as proof that you know it's not propaganda, it is contradicted by the numbers of encounters by border patrol agents during the Biden administration. So, assuming you're referring to the high number of 'got-aways' under the Biden administration, it's fair to say there was less border security than under the current administration.
What is unfair, is to blame "liberals" or convey in some way that a liberal would want an unsecure border or illegal immigration. Furthermore, since I don't like to entertain slander, I find it insinuative when people say that the immigrants brought "crime" with them.
Therefore, objectively speaking, your claim that "Liberals" wanted to "maintain" the "status quo" is unqualified. Allow me to qualify the status quo. Liberals would want the civil rights of asylum seekers and all immigrants to be protected in accordance with the asylum laws. The status quo was simply following the laws. Real conservatives would not support breaking the laws.
The problem for the Biden administration was that the requirements of judges and detention centers was grossly underfunded. Congress appropriated about 45 billion dollars for border security during the Biden administration, and Biden had assigned approximately 1500 troops to help in securing the border.
This blame the Democrats for open borders was all propaganda. There was bipartisan support for the senate border act. That bill would have made the necessary changes in asylum laws to deal with the large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees as well as allocate the funds necessary to make the system functional.
Currently, the congress has appropriated approximately 140 billion dollars for border security under the Trump administration, and Trump has assigned approximately 8,000 troops to help in securing the border.
On this we agree.
Done for now.
Yes, I don't like slander.