Hi DJB, (Yes A.P. is fine thanks for asking).

I appreciate you articulating your assumptions, if I make any without referencing as such feel free to clarify. Anyway, some clarifications and definitions:

I have been politically conservative for quite some time, and the definition I use and feel is best is from Moral Foundation Theory, (Haidt 2012). Usually (I’ve read) there is one or more defining events in one’s life that can really shape that, mine was as a freshman at college, (when faculty voted to kick Veteran students off campus for a national liberal cause at the time).

I have been involved in local politics for quite a while also, non-partisan local govt and school board in various capacities, and the best way to articulate my position on taxation and revenue is fiscal conservatism and not fiscal conservation. Most people seem to “get” that response.

A definition is in order. The various “pedias” describe what a liberal’s view of what fiscal conservatism is, thus invalid and worse — misinformation. The Hertiage Foundation seems to have a decent definition, and I would say under their definition I employ a micro approach.

So to clarify, do I favor lowering taxes? Depends. Depends if there is a benefit. For example once I advocated/voted for not lowering taxes and refinancing a bond because interest was so low, there was a net financial gain in borrowing/refinancing at that time and as a result 5 years later that debt was paid off in full — thereby creating the situation of not having to raise taxes and lowering them if it makes sense. Fiscal conservatism gives options for vote, decision or referendum to the people or their representative. And when you explain this to a person face-to-face in your community they get it, and they see the benefit of this approach. Here’s the thing though — when campaigning many conservatives use the phrase “lowering taxes” or “reduce debt” because explaining the above doesn’t get votes and in practice the latter gets accomplished and not the former. Liberals always seem (for the past decade definitely) to want to raise taxes and/or increase debt which is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable govt and as a result does not get voted in, (and there is a lot of reasons they have backed themselves into that corner politically). So in summary, to a liberal mind, yes a liberal would view me as favoring the things mentioned — but not for the assumed implications, (and wants to destroy govt services, privatize etc), but for having a sustainable government with the best services for least amount of taxation for one’s community, state and nation.

Wealth redistribution. Definitely needs definition. A decent (and quick layperson definition) can be found as a “Mixed Economic System,” at Investopedia. Basically a practical mix of capitalist and socialist economic structures of governments. I would add charity is mixed also, which widens this concept to religions which transcends political boundaries of nations, states and communities…most of the time.

So am I against a Mixed Economic System? Not at all. I think it is necessary and I think many Americans feel the same way intuitively and advocate or do this every day in their community, state and at the federal level. The problem I think is the (contemporary) belief of “Social Justice.” Since we are dealing with a belief I will refer to Moral Foundation Theory. “Social Justice” is a contemporary liberal ideology construct of the Harm belief foundation (MFT). Most people who are conservative (of various degrees) sees “Social Justice” as care also, as liberals do, but the way liberals “persuade” is by unfairness/cheating, betrayal, undermines the legitimate authority, degradation of religion, (The term “Social Justice” was originally defined by the Catholic Church, since warped), also a degradation of American culture, (dis-unity), and oppression. Since the belief of “Social Justice” as defined by liberal ideology goes against not only the beliefs of the conservative mind, but the majority of the beliefs of the US population — lots of people oppose it. And I oppose the current liberal ideological definition also.

As an aside, I’m sure you have seen this also — a typical conversation does not progress to this point — it took 1,000 words to clarify and define an assumption of four lines of text. Also I voted for Obama two terms. Voted for the Bush’s, voted for Willy Clinton. I could make money I suppose I always seem to vote for the candidate that gets elected. Must be that high intuitive intelligence.

Anyway, to answer some questions, Trump is what I wanted and what I expected. I did not vote, (nor anyone else I know) voted for deconstruction of govt. As far of claims of Trump and unconstitutionality that is I think post-hoc rationalization of a liberal mind who realizes that their moral compass, worldview, and beliefs are so beyond reality they don’t know which way is up anymore. Their moral foundation and authority have been shaken and in some cases obliterated. Of course one cannot see the log in their own eye. Some have I have read, some liberals have a crystal clear vision of reality now. This is good, and what I hoped a vote for Trump would do. Also, I believe in our nation’s judicial branch as an effective check to constitutional concerns. Finally, I and many who voted for Trump are puzzled why liberals think our President has all this power. He or she does not. 3 branches of govt and they work, and they are a reflection of the will of We the People.

As for all the “threaten freedom of press, religion et al — that is the fallacy of victimhood culture advanced by liberals the past three decades. There is no victim and thus no “bully.” What you are experiencing is the Mack truck of the American Dignity Culture smashing the advancement of the liberal victim culture. This is important and answers all your questions and future questions, the rest is just definitions and clarifications. Yes even ones about science and the advancement of knowledge…everything.

As a primer and (I hope) this liberal British commentator at least brings some common understanding to the liberal mind (he is a liberal apparently) because he nails it. He nails the reality that liberals cannot see: https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

You also brought this log in the liberal eye with the words: (Trump’s administration is trying to) “intimidate or eliminate anyone who is not a White, heterosexual, Christian.”

I would like to emphasize this comment and please clarify where this belief comes from: (Trump, and the implication as a result Trump voters want to) “intimidate or eliminate anyone who is not a White, heterosexual, Christian.”

So here is my only question to you: Do White, heterosexual, Christian Americans not deserve or are allowed dignity?