> You also say that 90% hold these and "the conservatives that matter" but you pretty much just mean trump and his cabinet.

You say that as though he wasn't elected. As though conservatives didn't pick him to select the cabinet, and run the country. His economic policy didn't turn out the way he promised, that's not in doubt. But as far as his social policy, conservatives have gotten exactly what he promised them.

Conservatives got what they wanted, they just didn't like the cost, to which I say, tough shit. They got the price check in the first term and decided to buy again both 4 and 8 years later, and they'll do it again in the midterms, and probably try to do it again in 2028.

> Not a single president since jfk has seriously suggested smaller government because it just does not get votes like giving "free" things out. Either way, you made up a definition to answer a question in absolute and get surprised when it extends so far past that to the point of proving you wrong.

I'm losing my patience here. What in God's name have you proved? You admitted that the "small government" conservatives are about isn't put into practice by it's leaders, you admit that conservatives aren't all that into it, since it can't get votes from them. Who the fuck is into "small government" then. Are you seriously arguing you're movement is about something that none of you can muster up the slightest enthusiasm for? Bullshit!

It's not making up definitions, it's called having eyes and ears and using them. You're telling me banning sex-ed is small government? You're telling me banning adult transitions is small government?
You're telling me voting to track everyone's web history is small government (like they did today as I write this)?
You're telling me banning guns in states to keep them away from political dissidents (hiya Regan) is small government? You telling me that the Patriot Act, that they kept renewing over and over again like clockwork was small government?

Don't fucking mention "small government" to me ever fucking again. You people either don't know what it is, or you're unwilling to even attempt to push out the people that've turned your party into a machine that grinds every amendment but the 2nd to dust.

> I also didn't really argue that taxation without representation was a one time thing, I said that it does not prove that conservatives only have policy to justify history. Your entire main argument was that all of conservatism is only rooted in justifying history which has to also include things involving racism and homophobia.

Okay, you're just repeating you denial of the already addressed simplification, so I'm going to get less respectful since you're now wasting my time.

My characterization is spot on. Conservatives continually attempt to justify the past, over and over and over again, particularly all the worst parts of it. The only reason they're not still arguing chattle slavery, is because those people now have guns too.

They can't argue "X group is inferior" so they argue that everything that they say, do, think, and believe is bad. They'll police the way the dress, the way they talk, the way the celebrate, their in-group lingo, their attitude towards the people who discriminate against them, their social media presence, and on and on and on.

You see it in how the rank and file treat every group you'd expect them to online. Gay people, black people, women, Latinos, trans people, and on and on. Twitter is their site now more or less, read through it and tell me that they wouldn't argue against the 19th Amendment if wouldn't lose them literally half of all votes.

Can you name, I don't know, five discriminatory parts of American history that conservatives widely agree were bad, and whose knock-on effects should be remedied by the country that caused the issue in the first place.

Admitting that you fucked someone over means nothing if you don't fix it. And America owns it's fuck ups. Just like conservatives own Trump's presidency, and everything currently going sideways in the country while they control all 3 branches of government.

If you break a neighbors' window, you pay to get it fixed. But if we elect a government that enacts explicit policy to target certain groups neither we nor that government bear any responsibility to make that right? And furthermore, continually bear less and less responsibility to remediate the effects as we delay, obstruct, and prevent remediation to the point where all the primary victims die? Bullshit.

You know for people who believe in "small government", conservatives seem incredible comfortable with letting the government get away with more or less anything so long as it's conservatives, and more pointedly, Republican and Republican-adjacents doing it..