- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:21 pm to Pettifogger
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:21 pm to Pettifogger
Stop looking for influencers to pre-digest your thoughts.
1
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:25 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
conservative
I don't think most of you have any clue what it means to be a conservative.
Most of you are neoconservative socialists. Your political ideology is from the left. They left the democrat party in the late 60s and have infiltrated the GOP.
They are the RINOs, and the republican side of the uniparty/deep state.
And as usual they pretended to be conservatives to get elected, only to then show themselves as neocons once again while trying to marginalize any true conservative voices.
You'll praise Ron Paul, Buchanan and other true conservatives to get elected, and that's about where it ends.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:45 pm to Pettifogger
Do you read the New Criterion? It’s a pretty good source of who to look up.
I agree with you on Sohrab. He is economically illiterate.
I personally don’t really consume much current conservative material. I tend to read older (dead) thinkers that are still relevant. Richard Weaver, Buckley, Aquinas, Hayek.
I tend toward the post-liberal camp, so for contemporaries that would be Hazony, Vermeule, RR Reno.
I agree with you on Sohrab. He is economically illiterate.
I personally don’t really consume much current conservative material. I tend to read older (dead) thinkers that are still relevant. Richard Weaver, Buckley, Aquinas, Hayek.
I tend toward the post-liberal camp, so for contemporaries that would be Hazony, Vermeule, RR Reno.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:46 pm to AllbyMyRelf
I used to be a subscriber but now I just read articles as they pop up. Same with First Things.
But certainly the people in and around those camps are the ones I take the most interest in.
But certainly the people in and around those camps are the ones I take the most interest in.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:48 pm to 3down10
quote:I’d be interested to hear what you think a conservative is. I agree that it seems like most on here think conservatism is just classical liberalism.
I don't think most of you have any clue what it means to be a conservative.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:49 pm to 3down10
quote:
I don't think most of you have any clue what it means to be a conservative.
"conservative" is a broad term that is borderline unhelpful.
But most of the people I've listed are the complete opposite of what you're talking about
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:49 pm to Pettifogger
Although based in England, I really like the lotus eaters. The head guy is Sargon of akkad aka Carl Benjamin.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:00 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I’d be interested to hear what you think a conservative is. I agree that it seems like most on here think conservatism is just classical liberalism.
So there are basically 3 parts to the republican party. You have conservatives which are like Ron Paul, Pat Buchannon, Reagan, etc.
And then you the other 2 that aren't really conservatives but sometimes share values. Social conservatives - mostly conservative, but often times try to go too far in pushing their morals in government. AKA, conservative except on social issues.
And then you have neocons who aren't really conservative at all. They are just leftists with different rhetoric for the most part. And a bit social conservative on social issues. But they are globalists and the uniparty.
The Clintons are neocons when you look at actual policies. Obama was a neocon in foreign policy. They are the left side of the uniparty. Domestic issues are most done on purpose, but that's another topic.
Trump was the biggest threat to them all because he's not a neocon, although sometimes I wonder lately. He's more of a 90s democrat.
What am I trying to conserve? The constitution. I'd like to go back to being a republic instead of an empire. And I'm sure as frick not interested in democracy, socialism or anything other than a constitutional republic.
Basically, I'd end 95% of all government.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:03 pm to 3down10
You haven’t described what you think conservatism is. And then when you listed an example of a conservative, you gave a notable libertarian—Ron Paul.
Do you think libertarianism is the same as conservatism?
Do you think libertarianism is the same as conservatism?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:03 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Stop looking for influencers to pre-digest your thoughts.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:05 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
"conservative" is a broad term that is borderline unhelpful.
But most of the people I've listed are the complete opposite of what you're talking about
What are you trying to conserve if it's not the US constitution?
If you aren't trying to conserve that, then in what way are you trying to conserve anything?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:19 pm to 3down10
quote:This is ultimately an incoherent test of whether someone is a conservative. I’ll tell you why I think that:
What are you trying to conserve if it's not the US constitution? If you aren't trying to conserve that, then in what way are you trying to conserve anything?
The constitution is a liberal document. It sets procedural limitations for lawmaking and sets forth protections for freedom of the people. Freedom is its main goal, and it gets its authority by consent of the governed through a representation. Those are all the hallmarks of liberalism—not conservatism.
The constitution contains a provision that sets forth the mode of amendment. If the government used that method to radically change the constitution, would that be conservatism? After all, they are operating within the procedural limits set by the document through consent of the governed. By amending the constitution rather than throwing it out, they have conserved it.
This cannot be what conservatism means. Conservatism is a philosophy which oftentimes shares overlapping policy positions with libertarians (limited government, property rights), but from a different foundation of thought.
Libertarianism/ liberalism comes from the enlightenment, believes that people are rational, and seeks to preserve liberty through neutral rules.
Conservatism is about preserving moral order above all else. Moral order is prior to individual choice in conservatism, and laws must be not be neutral but instead must be tailored to the common good.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:25 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
You haven’t described what you think conservatism is. And then when you listed an example of a conservative, you gave a notable libertarian—Ron Paul.
Do you think libertarianism is the same as conservatism?
Do you understand the levels of government? I'm not talking about the 3 branches of government, I'm talking about the levels of government.
That would be the federal, the state, the local government and then your personal liberty.
Per the 9th and 10th amendments, anything that isn't specifically listed in the constitution is passed down to the state level and on down eventually to the people. This mostly means that the federal governments job is in foreign policy, easing trade between states, creating standards, providing an honest monetary system, a common defense etc. Domestic issues are generally handled by the states. Justice, welfare, education, etc.
We should never be voting over things like "woke", welfare, education and all these domestic issues on a president, or for congress. Not unless you want to add an amendment to where it applies to everyone equally automatically rather than giving out special rights for votes etc.
So on the federal level, yes libertarians are often correct. Not so much on the border, but overall yes.
However, the usual problem with libertarians is that they don't recognize states have their own constitutions and that people still have a right to do things on a state level. Just because something isn't in the US constitution does not by default mean you can just do whatever.
I recognize that is some people in a state want to be and do something a certain way, then that's their right. If California as a state wants to give free healthcare and do stupid shite, that is their right as a state unless it infringes on the basic rights - of which the federal government is supposed to step in.
Meanwhile, Alabama can have no welfare at all if it wants. And if you want, you can have a state that has almost no government. That's what a republic is. And you should be able to keep your basic rights no matter which state you choose to live in. Freedom of speech, etc.
So again, what I want to do is conserve the republic and the constitution.
Also, there was no way in hell I was ever going to vote for that dude they "nominated" in the last election.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:30 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
This is ultimately an incoherent test of whether someone is a conservative. I’ll tell you why I think that:
The constitution is a liberal document. It sets procedural limitations for lawmaking and sets forth protections for freedom of the people. Freedom is its main goal, and it gets its authority by consent of the governed through a representation. Those are all the hallmarks of liberalism—not conservatism.
The constitution contains a provision that sets forth the mode of amendment. If the government used that method to radically change the constitution, would that be conservatism? After all, they are operating within the procedural limits set by the document through consent of the governed. By amending the constitution rather than throwing it out, they have conserved it.
This cannot be what conservatism means. Conservatism is a philosophy which oftentimes shares overlapping policy positions with libertarians (limited government, property rights), but from a different foundation of thought.
Libertarianism/ liberalism comes from the enlightenment, believes that people are rational, and seeks to preserve liberty through neutral rules.
Conservatism is about preserving moral order above all else. Moral order is prior to individual choice in conservatism, and laws must be not be neutral but instead must be tailored to the common good.
The only way you can radically change the constitution is with 2/3rds vote. Which is why they abuse shite like the general welfare clause and just assume they have the power now rather than trying to change the constittuion.
For example, back in the day they not only created an amendment to outlaw alcohol, they then created another to undo that. Now however, they just claim shite to be illegal whenever they want.
So if what you are claiming is so easy, then why aren't they doing that with the constitution? Why is it being bypassed? Only because the people allow it.
And your "common good" is just a communist/socialist argument. Your moral order is only yours, and you're just another democrat trying to force their moral good on others. Same kind of shite the Klan was trying to press. Because that's what democrats do. Their moral code is you have to pretend men can be women. I don't want any of you immoral fricks trying to push your morals on me. IMO, none of you have good morals.
So like I said, you're just not a conservative at all. You don't wish to conserve the republic, you just want to push your moral order on people. This country was founded on getting away from people like you.
Because as always, the arguments against freedom is a fear of what someone else may do with theirs.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:36 pm to Pettifogger
Shawn Ryan not getting any love any more? He's been hitting on some pretty big issues.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:37 pm to 3down10
quote:Yes, I know what federalism is.
Do you understand the levels of government? I'm not talking about the 3 branches of government, I'm talking about the levels of government
I think we pretty much agree on policy positions, but here is where we split:
quote:Originally, the bill of rights did not apply to the states, and they could regulate speech, who could own guns, etc. By adopting the 14th amendment, are we not conserving the constitution? You seem to think that was an ok change. I agree that it was an ok change, but what if in the future “basic rights” comes to mean welfare through an amendment to the constitution? Is that conservatism? You’re ok with the 14th amendment, what about that one?
I recognize that is some people in a state want to be and do something a certain way, then that's their right. If California as a state wants to give free healthcare and do stupid shite, that is their right as a state unless it infringes on the basic rights - of which the federal government is supposed to step in.
What you’re defending is a set of rules that can be changed. It’s not a foundation.
I defend the constitution because, as it currently stands, it’s a wise inheritance that has proven to promote the common good. As soon as that changes, I would no longer defend the constitution.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:39 pm to 3down10
quote:I had no idea Aristotle, Aquinas, our founding fathers, Edmond Burke, etc were all communists.
And your "common good" is just a communist/socialist argument.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:40 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Tucker Carlson
Not a conservative.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:44 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Originally, the bill of rights did not apply to the states, and they could regulate speech, who could own guns, etc. By adopting the 14th amendment, are we not conserving the constitution? You seem to think that was an ok change. I agree that it was an ok change, but what if in the future “basic rights” comes to mean welfare through an amendment to the constitution? Is that conservatism? You’re ok with the 14th amendment, what about that one?
What you’re defending is a set of rules that can be changed. It’s not a foundation.
I defend the constitution because, as it currently stands, it’s a wise inheritance that has proven to promote the common good. As soon as that changes, I would no longer defend the constitution.
This is flat out lie because the 10th amendment directly states that those which were not prohibited were the only ones given by the states.
The fact states were getting away with things and the supreme court ruled in such a way doesn't mean that's how it was ever supposed to work.
“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.”
Because if the states are allowed to stomp on those rights, then you don't have them at all to being with.
I don't know about you, buy my rights are God given.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:47 pm to the808bass
quote:
Most of the influencers can’t have really serious policy discussions. Those don’t get clicks and views.
This x100, and it’s scary most people are too stupid to realize it
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News