Why is it that conservatives believe in "small government" while at the same time support regimes overseas and try to...

Because "big government" is a euphemism for welfare

Obama and Hillary support all of these things too.

He isn't wrong, most modern Democrats are Reaganists with a soft spot for gays.

...

I don't disagree, but the doublethink exists by saying they are actually conservative.

The OP started off as

Except that conservatives don't believe this. Bush apparently believed this, but then so does Obama and Clinton.

So either you can define conservative as "what Bush did" and liberal as "What Obama does" or you can say that conservative and liberal are both a set of principles that politicians completely ignore, while still falsely claiming to follow the ideology.

But to hold two contradictory opinions and simultaneously believing them both to be correct is the definition of doublethink.

I wouldn't go that far and say all modern Demos are Reaganites, but they're certainly not the New Deal Democrats from the FDR to LBJ era.

Capitalism 101

For the same reason that the liberals will believe in evolution, but then deny sexual diphorism because "muh social constructs"

Shes average evil. Trump is full chaos candidate.

Well, liberals in general are at least skeptical of it, they're just spineless pussies that won't criticize their idols. Neoconservatives are honest enough to make it part of their ideology.

Not all, but the ones in power are, and the identity psychology of American politics makes dissenting views meaningless because people care too much about "their" party winning.

Sexual dimorphism doesn't really explain social disparities outside of manual labor and birth giving.
What they don't understand is that many of these disparities simply don't exist because feminazis have a persecution complex.

Neoconservatives aren't conservatives any more than Pol Pot was a Marxist.

I really hope I don't have to explain the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to you.

The point of the "no true scotsman fallacy" is that there is no real definition of what a scotsman is based on anything he believes or does.

The same is not true of say, Christians or AnCaps. Really any ideology.

Except that there are all kinds of differences due to sexual dimorphism. Some of them are very subtle and have significant social implications. For instance, women have smaller tear ducts than men so it's physically easier for them to cry (i.e. for their tear flow to be too heavy for the duct to handle, causing tears to spill out their eyes).

I mean differences with political implications. I also very, very strongly doubt that men cry less solely because of physical differences. The social implications of men expressing emotion can be rough.

While that is technically true, the point here is that he is making a case of special pleading: neoconservatives are still conservatives, even if they are clearly far dumber.

No, the Black Flag poster captured my point entirely.

If Holla Forums suddenly decides to call itself Racial-Marxism and keeps exactly the same ideology, does this mean they are Marxists and Marxists believe in what Holla Forums says?

Of course not. Marxism has a definition. Conservatism has a definition. Neocons aren't conservatives any more than Racial Marxists are Marxists.

In this case of neocons, this is actually pretty close to the situation. A group of billionaires deliberately trying to redefine an ideology to mean the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.

If you let that stand, and accept it because you dislike or disagree with actual conservatism as an defined ideology with a long history, then Hillary is a Socialist Progressive and paragon of Leftism (that's what CNN says!) and you should vote for her because hey that's what you believe too.

He is.

.t Europe

Well, how are neocons not conservatives? They don't care about unequal treatment, want to main the status quo and are willing to use violence if necessary.

The only real difference is that paleocons want to be separate from the evil degenerates. The neocons want to correct them.

American Conservatism is about small government, and is subsequently opposed to deficit spending and foreign adventurism. Its focus is on giving citizens local control, and that any change (political, legal, economic, social, etc) should come from overwhelming popular grassroots movements rather than implemented or championed (in a radical fashion) by Federal Government. Further emphasis is on individualism, and civil liberties and freedom, but balanced against all other factors.

Neocons literally believe the opposite.

The difference between Conservatism and Libertarianism is that Libertarians believe that social norms and conventions are a spook. So conservatives would allow the legal definition of traditional marriage to remain on the books until the vast majority of the country wanted that change, whereas Libertarians would advocate radical change in this situation because to them civil liberties and freedom outweighs all other factors.

That's what it says it's about, but in reality it has no problems with social authority. As has been said before, "big government" is a euphemism for welfare.

Rather, they consider anything they personally dislike to be a violent crime. That is how they can condone state violence while considering themselves a vanguard of liberty.

Sounds like you are describing the progressive champion Obama here. "But Obama is a conservative!" See, that is called a circular argument.

"Well, sure we are the leader of the free world.. And if that means forcing a bunch of latin american countries to have dictators, so be it!"

'MURICAN LOGIC!

So, it's all about "social norm and traditions"?

Hmmm…

So how are they any different than SJWism?

Well, SJWs are postmodernists and believe there is no object truth, or qualitative measurement of a thing that is not itself an artificial construct. To an SJW, the definition of progress is dismantling systems of qualitative measurement, also known as hierarchies.

Conservatives believe in principle that it is possible to say some things are better than others, and their definition of progress is replacing existing systems with better ones (however that may be defined). They also believe it is only possible to evaluate a given a system over a long period of time (or in hindsight, so as to be sure the new idea is not a mere fad), so they are reluctant to replace the old with the new unless there is overwhelming evidence or grassroots support. Hence the name, Conservative.

ive

I also wouldn't say "all about." To a conservative it's just one factor to be balanced against others.

If that's "SJWism", then I'm proudly a so-called "SJW", as are most radical leftists by that definition. What are you, some fucking orthodox Marxist or anachronistic tankie?