US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

At least I get to feel vindicated. Many many people, including me, have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but. Historically their decisions have appealed to a certain kind of conservative political base, but the pretense is really starting to wear thin. Limiting the power of the executive branch in general was never the goal, it was only to limit the power of presidents who were willing to challenge the capitalist oligarchy master plan. They know that their job now, along with their allies and Congress, is to simply step aside and manage public outrage while the next phase of the plan is set in motion. I'm not just talking about in recent years either, go back through the Obama and W Bush administrations. You might notice that the conservatives in the court curiously turned more conservative when "their guy" isn't in office.

They are not conservatives. They are selfservatives.

> have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but

They are conservatives and push for conservative agenda. Conservatives wanted them on the court so that they can make decisions like this.

They are cons.

I think you and parent comment are just using the word conservative in two different ways. There is conservative values and there is the conservative party, two different things.

Yeah, the meaning of words change.

They are conservatives. People that care about things like small governments and fiscal responsibility are not. It's sad when somebody takes control over a group you identify with and changes it's goals but you're one person versus millions. The word doesn't mean what it used to.

Go back far enough and conservative meant "conserve the monarchy"

Often distinguished as "little c" conservatism and "big C" Conservatives.

The Republican party has not existed since 2016. It is the Trump party wearing the Republican party's tattered clothes.

What we're seeing now isn't exactly the power of capitalist oligarchy but right-wing populist authoritarianism. They forge alliances with wealthy figures to achieve goals and engage in a corrupt patronage system like in an undeveloped country, but if this were a capitalist coup we would not be seeing anything like the absurd and illegal tariffs, brutal response to immigrants, etc.

I know leftists like to describe these sorts of phenomena (including Hitler's rise) as all part of the capitalist overlords' master plans, but that's not the most accurate description. Capitalists like Andreessen will cynically exploit it and hop on the bandwagon and benefit from it to the extent they can, but right-wing populist authoritarianism is its own beast, and they're just trying to position themselves as along for the ride rather than in its jaws. The regime is happy to reward capitalist loyalists and I do not deny there is a mutualism occurring, but it is more complex than a movement centered around capitalism.

An enormous proportion of Republican voters were already Trumpers as early as the ‘90s, but didn’t have a candidate yet, so had to settle for “vote Republican to keep the democrats from doing all the bad things Rush says they will”.

Republican partisan-propaganda media after anti-trust de-fanging (mid ‘70s) and media deregulation (‘80s-‘00s) became huge, and cultivated an electorate that wanted Trump but had to settle for tepidly-socially-conservative neoliberal Republicans. Such voters would tell you all day long about how we should just build a border wall (or mine it…), cut trade and foreign military engagements (though those have some cross-aisle appeal), question why we extend civil rights and due process to [pick a group], tell you we should use the military against protesters in cities, wonder why anyone opposes cops beating suspects unless they love crime, and so on, and they’d tell you that stuff many years before Trump’s 2016 run.

Up to 2025 they maintained a reasonable facade of impartiality. During Trump's first term they told him no a lot.

Yes, the deplorables were always there. There used to be a handful of adults in the room as well.

I am saying that these are real conservative values. It is not true that these would be just something conservative party does while claiming to believe something else. Instead, if you read what conservative people write and say, in journals, books, talk shows, anywhere ... this is exactly what they believe in.

It may be my European context / political definitions, but at least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).

E.g., letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.

I was trying to point out that conservative as a political philosophy != whatever Fox news preaches this month, but perhaps the word is used differently in the US..

Anyway point is, I'm sure the post you responded to used the word conservative more in the way I'm used to (European way?), thus your cross-talk.

> t least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).

When exactly was that last time? Note that rule of law would include demands that police follows the law too. As far as I can tell, it was never rule of law in the sense of "everyone must follow the law". It was "people we dont like must follow the law and we will max punishments for them".

> letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.

Only because this time, police was standing against what conservatives wanted. When it was helping them, yes, it was different.