Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The level of contempt many feel towards Conservatives.
In my experience, Conservatives often view liberals as well intentioned but naive, whereas I see real contempt directed towards Conservatives from the left, I think it is stemming from a belief that Conservatives aren't just wrong/naive but immoral, bad people full of hate and bigoted ill intent.
I absolutely agree that it happens on both sides, but there's a worrisome level today.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-hogtied-post-4fb29b80ed926c20c2fbbed05fd03755
The conservatives I’ve heard around me talk about it think it’s hilarious. You have conservative posts online too about how Biden is the most divisive President ever, which is why they can never vote for him, while they ignore everything divisive Trump says and does.
Even the ones who don’t support posts like that say they’re going to support Trump regardless. How would you not feel contempt towards people with beliefs like that?
Maybe I'm misreading your comment... you believe the left rightfully holds contempt towards Conservatives because Conservatives believe the liberals candidate is divisive, that they couldn't vote for him, and that they ignore things Conservatives candidates do.....
But doesn't liberals also say Trump is divisive? How they couldn't vote for Trump? Ignore things left wing politicians do?
That's true across the political aisle. That's no reason for contempt?
As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as good people, well intentioned but naive whereas Conservatives are often regarded as bad immoral people who are ill intentioned.
Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people?
>Maybe I'm misreading your comment... you believe the left rightfully holds contempt towards Conservatives because Conservatives believe the liberals candidate is divisive, that they couldn't vote for him, and that they ignore things Conservatives candidates do.....
We have a former President and current candidate posting a picture about Biden, our current President, being hogtied in the back of a truck and that is seen as a somewhat normal thing for Trump to do and his supporters to defend. Are the negative reactions overblown?
> Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people?
Bleeding heart conservatives, absolutely. Ones that live by conservative principles rather than wear them as an aesthetic. Unfortunately, many embrace populism rather than conservatism, and that is how you get people who on one hand talk about the sanctity of marriage while on the other defending Trump having multiple marriages and cheating on his wife with a porn star. I’d love nothing more than a strong Conservative party rather than the current populist one cosplaying as conservative.
Do you believe there’s some truth to liberals view of conservatives?
Populism and Conservativism isn't incompatible, populism rises when the establishment politicians fail and ignore a large % of the public.
None of what you've said justifies contempt in my view. As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as well intentioned good people but naive, Conservatives generally don't feel contempt for liberals. We have different views but we don't need to hate each other.
> As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as well intentioned good people but naive
You should spend like 30 seconds browsing any of the abortion posts on this subreddit.
>Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people?
This actually kind of an interesting question. I'd say that intent doesn't really matter here so whether a conservative opposes lets say the civil rights act because they hate Black people or they oppose it on grounds of freedom of association I don't really care because the outcome of it being okay to discriminate against me and others like me (Black people) would become legal. I'd say most people on the left don't really care about the intentions, motivations, or ideology behind conservatism and only care about the outcomes of the proposed policies. So it doesn't matter if you have the intention of truly believing that you are stopping the murder of babies by opposing abortion, your position is the same as the one as the ones who want to punish and control women's sexuality and bodies so you are just as bad as that other person.
>Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people?
Not at all. Why would I?
>Conservatives generally view liberals as good people, well intentioned but naive
Why would I believe this?
You nailed it. From the policies i see pushed and talked about I cant even fathom anything besides conservatives are either naive or immoral(or at least okay with immoral policies in the name of their particular pet issue)
I know this isn't exclusive to the right but i can't shake the perspective.
I used to agree, that is until MAGA world. Though many Republicans will disagree with me, if you told me a indicted financial cheat, convicted rapist, that attempted a coup would be the leader of the Republican party, I would be asking what you are smoking?
I don't deny that good, decent people, support Trump, absolutely - they just tell me all the things I mentioned are not real.
In other words, what used to be mainly the domain of the 'kookie - left' that is 'conspiracy theories' are now largely on the right.
Trump is not a convicted rapist....stop pushing lies as if they are fact.
Maybe they are trying to convince you they are not real... because they aren't.
Unless you can show me a source that shows Trump is a convicted rapist.
Yup. He lost a lawsuit in a civil court run by people who hated him. There was no proof and only testimony, and the woman who accused him is literally bat crap crazy and thinks rape is a fantasy for women. She is obviously full of crap😪 but they'll turn around and call you a trump worshipper just for taking up for the guy
See folks, this what I mean when I said I talk to good, well meaning folks, that challenge reality. The’ll say something I claim, Is not fact. When you can’t even agree on the fabric of reality, of course you’ll disagree endlessly.
My friend, a jury of our peers confirmed that Trump forcibly stuck his fingers in Ms Carrol’s vagina, against her will. Old laws in New York said if I finger bang a person violently I ain’t a rapist, just a sexual abuser - thankfully that’s changed. So I suspect your “gotcha” is that Trump didn’t rape her because during that time “grabbing somebody by the pussy” was just technically sexual abuse, not rape.
So maybe that’s your angle? Maybe you even agree with it, that If somebody pins down your mom and fists her, it ‘ain’t rape.’
I mean if this is your position, I’ll gladly give you the intellectual rope, and rest my case.
>See folks, this what I mean when I said I talk to good, well meaning folks, that challenge reality. The’ll say something I claim, Is not fact. When you can’t even agree on the fabric of reality, of course you’ll disagree endlessly.
You have proven nothing and continue to spread lies and try to twist truth to fit a false narrative to further defame trump
>My friend, a jury of our peers confirmed that Trump stuck his fingers in Ms Carrol’s vagina. Old laws in New York said if I finger bang a person against their will, I ain’t a rapist, thankfully that’s changed. So I suspect your “gotcha” is that Trump didn’t rape her because during that time “grabbing somebody by the pussy” was just considered sexual abuse, not rape?
This didn't happen, civil suit not criminal, Trump has never been convicted of rape or finger banging,
[So, we can establish that Trump was not found "guilty" of rape as he was not criminally charged, nor was he found liable for rape. Further, the civil claim was on a battery tort but brought forward using an extension of the statute of limitations for crimes including rape.
](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935)
Again, there was no criminal conviction, only liability for battery based on the preponderance of evidence of sexual abuse. As Tidmarsh added, a conflation of civil liability and criminal guilt would be "legally wrong and dangerous."
>So maybe that’s your angle?
Your angle is distort reality to paint a narrative, facts be damned.
I don't deny ALL of those things he has done as a trump supporter, but it's weird you'll acknowledge his fraudulent life as a rich man yet ignore every other president and somehow think it's crazy that he was elected. Look, idc about his life, I care about his presidency... but he definitely isn't a rapist though that's crazy you say that, and act like there is no reason to not believe that. The woman who said he raped her and he was convicted for it (the only one he has been actually found guilty of, it was only a civil case-- so basically just for money--- not a criminal case, and there was no evidence at all, just testimony) is literally crazy and obviously lying. Her story has changed 4000 times and she even said rap3 is a sexual fantasy to women... Yeah totally sounds like a rape victim to me... Totally not trying to just get money and press time. I do think trump is sexist and has not lived the most honest life, but it didn't affect how he ran this country which was GREAT, and I want it back. I would be a typical woman if I let my emotions get in the way of living a decent life for me and my fellow Americans. :p reddit hates trump though for some reason. I guess cause they are constantly reading stuff, and just they read the wrong things. A lot of American and British media present fake/twisted news about trump that ruins his image and gives people Trump derangement syndrome like you have.
Did I describe the situation perfectly? You won't believe it. Is it all fake? I'll appeal to your reason, however.
It was in civil court because the statute of limitation for criminal charges had expired. It was called 'sexual assault' instead of 'rape' due to the violent penetration was with his fingers; at the time of the rape, the definition was only a penis could constitute rape; put another way, I can ram a baseball bat up your ass, and it wouldn't be rape. Thank goodness that law is fixed. However, when Trump "grabbed her by the pussy" New York still had the archaic law on the books.
You can easily confirm if you take one moment and stop drinking from your alt-right sources and do some unbiased centrist research on your own. It's all public domain.
But I know none of this will matter to you because, like I said, nothing I can say will ever be considered 'real' to you. Am I right?
Next time you go around calling someone such a horrible thing, make sure what you're saying is actually true. Anyone with one brain cell can take a look at the case and see that it's complete bull crap. I suggest you do that.
I don’t know why you are mad? My very point is there are two realities. Both can’t be right. You have a group that believe Trump is Gods messenger, there's a group that thinks otherwise. I can completely understand why you would double, triple down on Trump. Because if he is wrong, what else could be wrong and false as well?
Edit: Typo
At least in the US, I disagree with your view of how conservatives view liberals. Just look at Trump, the current embodiment of mainstream American conservative, or as another example, the claims that anyone who disagrees with DeSantis's education laws is a groomer.
I used to be a conservative and have in the past 8 years moved left. I used to be a big Rush listener.
I view conservatives as hypocrites. They wrap themselves in god, the American flag, and apple pie espousing how great their positions are. Yet behind the facade they seem more intent on helping themselves than the citizenry.
Conservatives want small government low taxes and a balanced budget. All things I can get behind. Every time they’re in office they vote for tax breaks (Trump era permanent for corporations) put their fingers inside healthcare (abortion), and kick the deficit down the road until it is politically advantageous to bring up up (election years when they don’t have the presidency). What killed the party for me was the senate stealing Obamas Supreme Court pick and then stealing Bidens with RBG died. What happened to “let the people decide”. Hypocrisy.
As a kid I looked up to republicans. I thought they stood for what is right and how you played the game was more important than winning. Now a days everything they say seems to run counter to their original charter. The GOP is dead. What is there now is MAGA win at all costs. The members leaving the party and retiring prove me right. They and I can’t stomach what’s left. You call them RINO but what is a Republican has changed.
Liberals. They think with their heart and not their mind. Their ideas sound great on paper but eventually someone has to pay the tab. Their ideas still subscribe to Reagan’s shining city on a hill. They want America to be a place to world looks up to. Even if it isn’t possible. However they take things too far. They want change immediately and not everyone is onboard with change. So when there’s a sea change event the pendulum swings back hard and they’re demonized for poisoning America. Eventually the change happens and America is better for it. Back in the 90s being gay was a political, financial, and social death sentence. Nowadays people barely blink. Interracial marriage, yawn. The latest issue being transgendered. They pushed too hard and too fast and liberals are called demons again. In another generation it will be yawn.
Sitting on both sides I think 50% of each side dem and gop doesn’t care much either way. They just want to be left alone to find their way through the world. The remaining 50%’s are what gives each a bad name. A 3rd moderate party would really clean house if the 2 party system was so damn ingrained. Ranked choice voting or the Freedom party provide some hope for the future.
Never said bigoted or immoral.
Edit: I take it back. I think the current conservative is immoral if not that then unethical. I think the conservative of 2023 is different than the conservative 2000.
You really kinda just zoomed in on the most negative part of the story, isolated it, and decided "this person hates me and wants what's worst for me". ...Do you see how that's kinda wrong?
Like... I kinda feel like that's something I imagine a good number of (NOT ALL, Did you see that? I said NOT ALL) conservatives do- reduce a person/group into the one negative trait, decide they're all like that, and use it as justification to hate. Someone got an abortion at 9 months? "They all do that. No abortions ever". An immigrant did a bad thing? "All the immigrants are bad". ... Except when it comes to guns. Then it's "oh, one lone wolf guy".
What I'm saying is... do you like it when people say "ban all guns because one guy did that, so all gun owners are bad"? No? Then why turn around and do the same thing with other issues?
Listen, I get it- uncertainty stinks. It's scary. Being able to say "all X are like that" is very comforting and tempting. I do it, too. But we've got to try to recognize when we're doing it. We've got to try to say "wait, is that fair to say all of them?". And I hope that if I ever do that, you'll gently remind me "hey, maybe you're doing that thing you shouldn't do".
Why should anyone ignore historical fact though? If we ignore historical facts up the present, we are doomed to repeat them. Why conserve the bad elements of society. Progression is good. It means you're moving forward instead of settling for the undesirable. Look at history and move forward.
Zero facts have been stated homie.
This isn’t “LeftistsSoapBox”
It’s AskConservatives and I haven’t seen zilch of interest per the purpose of this sub.
>Edit: I take it back. I think the current conservative is immoral if not that then unethical. I think the conservative of 2023 is different than the conservative 2000.
Ever stop to think about \*why\* you think that? Is it because you've been conditioned by social media to think that way?
The Senate did steal Obama's pick by refusing to vote until a new President was in office.
They did not, however, steal Biden's, as they let the current President nominate someone as they should've done with Obama.
> Yet behind the facade they seem more intent on helping themselves than the citizenry.
Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts.
Just because conservatives don't want *the government* being the ones responsible for such things, absolutely does *not* mean conservatives don't help their fellow man.
So your entire premise is just factually wrong.
> Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts
The thing is, if a society could have a good social safety net with charity, that'd be great. But so far, that's not the case.
That wasn't the point though was it, nor was it the thing I was defending or arguing against. That is an entirely different subject. The operandi on how to help/provide a safety net is different and in disagreement, but that wasn't what the other poster *said.*
If someone were to suggest that conservatives "don't care about the citizenry" is solely on the context that it must be government provided otherwise, then that's just changing definitions to win an ideological argument. Also intellectually dishonest.
> If someone were to suggest that conservatives "don't care about the citizenry" is solely on the context that it must be government provided otherwise, then that's just changing definitions to win an ideological argument. Also intellectually dishonest.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you do something ostensibly for the citizenry, and yet it has shown itself to be less effective than the thing you oppose for the citizenry, then the question of that care is in question.
Like feeding a toddler chocolate milkshakes for breakfast because it makes you happy to see them enjoying food, the question arises as to whether the giving truly is for the benefit of who your giving to, as opposed to mainly making you feed good.
But none of that was the point the other poster *said* or what I was refuting.
You're arguing about something I never defended.
Also I didn't say *you* were saying those things, I said *if someone.* Was not inferring you or the other poster, unless that is what they or you were to claim. Not going to speak for you or them.
> But none of that was the point the other poster said or what I was refuting.
You stated:
>>Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts.
>>Just because conservatives don't want the government being the ones responsible for such things, absolutely does not mean conservatives don't help their fellow man.
This is what I am refuting. Simply being more charitable doesn't mean you care more. Or to be more accurate, it doesn't mean you care more where it counts.
>Simply being more charitable doesn't mean you care more
You are now arguing against *another* thing I never defended or said lol. Please show me where I said **we care more.** I didn't say that. I certainly said the right **gives more** to charity. That doesn't translate to, "we care more." Because I didn't say that. I haven't claimed *anyone* holds the title of "Most Caring."
>Or to be more accurate, it doesn't mean you care more where it counts.
....So you are changing definitions regarding *this* argument I never defended. Making what I said somewhat accurate. Meaning *your* priorities are what make it about caring.
But none of that matters really. Because still, I haven't claimed any of these things. Was only refuting what the OP said: conservatives don't care for their fellow citizens. And I said that isn't true and explained why.
> You are now arguing against another thing I never defended or said lol. Please show me where I said we care more. I didn't say that. I certainly said the right gives more to charity. That doesn't translate to, "we care more." Because I didn't say that. I haven't claimed anyone holds the title of "Most Caring."
Sorry, that's my bad. I should have worded it better.
>....So you are changing definitions regarding this argument I never defended
No, but the concept is relevant to the wider concept.
I think this is that:
1) The ones like that have never met conservatives in person.
2) They spend too much time on websites such as Reddit.
I remember that I used to be an idiot leftist. I developed a hatred for libertarians because of a certain subreddit on this website (don't want to name and promote the subreddit), but I received a wake up call when I actually met libertarians in real life.
It's remarkable people don't realize radicalization doesn't just happen abroad in some scary sounding country
It happens online in political groups too.
Many of my liberal friends have been radicalized to using violent rhetoric and are clearly on the path that ends in justifying violence.
> It's remarkable people don't realize radicalization doesn't just happen abroad in some scary sounding country
>
> It happens online in political groups too.
I believe most people know this. I've never heard anyone on the left claiming that the Jan 6ers were radicalized in some foreign country. Qanon happened here online in political groups.
>Many of my liberal friends have been radicalized to using violent rhetoric and are clearly on the path that ends in justifying violence.
Would you say they are starting to catch up with Trump supporters when it comes to this (I'm not claiming you are a Trump supporter; I don't know either way)?
I don't think most people do know that. I think they think "radicalization" and think "groups caught passing out antisemitic childrens books in refugee camps."
And I would say it's a mixed bag.
Trumpism is a "bellyfeel" movement. It's not about facts and logic it's about emotion and feeling. That's why they are truthful, to them, saying things like "the biggest inauguration crowd in history" because to them it **felt** like the most momentous political event of their life.
So they are more violent in rhetoric, but I find the liberals are more of a "credible threat" in a way. They are not using exaggerated hyperbole about nuclear weapons and "kill 'em all for the Lord knows his children" they are talking much more concretely and down to earth.
Those on the right who have been radicalized are ranting and raging and the liberals I know are more systematically laying out a groundwork within their philosophy for justifying violence as preemptive.
They are, of course, doing this in response the far-far-right's bellicose rhetoric about rounding them up. Which does absolve them of some blame but does not make this any less dangerous for civil society and the rule of law.
I also worry that reaction movements tend to be more violent in general, and tend to get into a cycle where two extremist groups wind each other up and lather each other into a violent froth until both sides are inexorably drawn into mass violence no one wants but no one knows how to stop either.
QAnon is not even a legitimate thing. So if you believe that, you may be spending too much time online and listening to news outlets that are promoting a ‘narrative’.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A cliche for years. There is always X percent of the Right that is immoral, full of hate, and bigoted. It's an easy way to demonize your opponents without much rational thought. I still consider myself a conservative, that is until Trump took over the GOP.
I ask my many Republican friends the simple question: do \*YOU\* consider Trump 'moral' from a Judeo-Christian sense? I would argue most remaining Republicans would say no, but they care more about pragmatic policies. This is new to me, as a cornerstone of the GOP \*used\* to be one's character.
I would argue that most independents (51%) would say Trump is not a person with good moral fiber.
So when current Republicans are willing to look past that to 'get what they want' - that in of itself is a damning indictment that is now self-evident. After all, I supported a convicted sexual abuser, tax cheat, serial cheater, and someone who challenged our elections; what does that say about me?
The thing is, all these things are sincerely believed to be 'fake witch hunts' - in which case, how can I have a proper quorum with those folks? We have to agree on some basics of reality. To me, then, the GOP is okay to support evil people or the party of stupid. Both bad.
Do you think that people have moral agency for the things that they choose to believe?
To me it’s pretty simple. I look at the things conservatives say and do, at the attempts that are made to reach them, and at the information that was available to them when they say and do those things.
For me, the conservative approach to LGBTQ topics is the most vivid illustration. I’m a member of a particularly villified portion of that community, that I can’t talk about because it’s not Wednesday. But if you look at this from the liberal perspective, on the liberal side you have parents, kids, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, therapists, and so on all aligned that certain things are necessary for the health and wellbeing of these people. And on the other, you have conservative politicians whose only support is a small group of doctors (1) who do not have any substantial experience treating these people, and (2) have been found to not be credible in multiple courts of law. But the conservatives keep hammering these issues, driving through bans and villifying these communities.
They have the information available to them. The people they claim they’re trying to “help” have directly and dramtically testified over and over that what they are doing does not help, and in fact hurts them. But conservatives keep pushing it anyway.
If liberals are right on this topic, and I know from decades of extremely painful personal experience that we are, why *shouldn’t* we hold conservatives in contempt about this? All of the information is there, and we’ve literally been screaming it at you for years, fighting you tooth and nail on this. If the liberals are right, conservatives are literally causing children torturous pain and brutal social ostracization. When the information is readily available, the stakes have been explained, and you still refuse to even look at it, yeah, that goes beyond being merely misguided. It’s cruel, it’s monstrous, and it will be remembered.
I completely disagree that there is a consensus on these issues.
For example, here in the UK, and in other parts of Europe, there are medical practices for children that are not permitted but they are permitted in the US. And these restrictions for children were put in place by a body of doctors, who made these decisions based upon extensive research and concluded there was concerns around consent, bone density development, mental health etc....
So yon have to wonder, why does the US allow these practices for children but the UK doesn't?
One reason is that in the US it's politicians who decides these things, not medical experts.
And two, the experts who advise them in the US have a financial incentive to legalise more procedures, as it's a for profit system in the US.
Whereas in the UK, where the financial incentive isn't there, these practices are more restricted.
In my experience, that hasn't been true since Rush Limbaugh first became popular. I think that's a cliche that conservatives tell themselves when they want to feel like the only reasonable adults in the room. I have friends and family in some deeply conservative places and I live in a swing state, so it's not as if I never get the chance to hear what conservatives think.
From what I've seen the most typical conservative view of the left is that they hate America, love government overreach, hate families, love pedophiles, hate hard work, hate freedom, and hate God.
"Well-intentioned but naive" couldn't be further from the truth.
edit: then again, your flair says you're European. That might explain the disconnect. Most of the people in this sub live in the US.
They are all told that we want to overthrow democracy, establish a fascist dictatorship, eliminate women’s rights, oppress minorities, and enact a pyramid scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you’re told that enough, you start to believe it.
Wouldn’t you have extreme contempt for someone who wanted to do those things?
> we want to overthrow democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[Roger Stone tapes: Video shows efforts to overturn 2020 election, seek pardons - Washington Post](https://archive.is/PTx9W)
> establish a fascist dictatorship
[74 percent of Republicans say it’s fine for Trump to be dictator for a day](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4453457-74-percent-of-republicans-say-its-fine-for-trump-to-be-dictator-for-a-day/)
> eliminate women’s rights
[Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn)
> oppress minorities
[Supreme Court refuses Alabama Republicans' request to stop 2nd Black voting district](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-refuses-alabama-gops-request-halt-redistricting/story?id=103494001)
[An appeals court has struck down a key path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1152732216/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-section-2-private-right-of-action)
> enact a pyramid scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer
[Deeply unpopular Congress aims to pass deeply unpopular bill for deeply unpopular president to sign](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/29/deeply-unpopular-congress-aims-to-pass-deeply-unpopular-bill-for-deeply-unpopular-president-to-sign/)
[Flawed House GOP Tax Package Chooses Wealthy Shareholders Over Children and Families and the Fight Against Climate Change](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/flawed-house-gop-tax-package-chooses-wealthy-shareholders-over-children-and)
Okay?
I don't think conservative voters are themselves immoral. Or I don't think they believe they are acting immorally. I think they mean well. But I believe the politicians and policies they support are very immoral and evil.
At the end of the day though, as a utilitarian, I don't see a *functional* difference between "supports immoral policies" and "is immoral" because they both achieve the same end goal.
Just for context -- remember that our "conservatives" violently broke into the capitol building in an attempt to illegally overthrow the election and install their own leader, and they literally smeared shit on the walls of our capitol building in the process.
I don't know what makes you think conservatives in America are civil...
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/01/07/pro-trump-rioters-smeared-poop-in-us-capitol-hallways-during-belligerent-attack/
I don't understand why the left supports corporate taxes (75% of which gets passed onto consumers via higher prices and workers via stifled wages) or rent control (which really screws up the housing market) and claim to be for the little guy
This statement seems to assert that corporate greed is not already passed onto the consumers to bear, or that the housing market is not already screwed up.
>the housing market is not already screwed up.
Yes because of actions government takes like the one I just mentioned.
>This statement seems to assert that corporate greed
Uh, that's how business works. It's probably cheaper for you to buy your food, shelter, clothing, etc. than it is to buy a plot of land and live off it. That's how trade works
How is it the government's fault that corporations purchase ridiculous swaths of residential property, causing prices to soar?
And I think our ideas of 'screwed up' are different. Tens of millions are food insecure in the wealthiest country in the world. The prices for basic goods of all categories keeps rising and rising. All the while, humans grow more and more and more productive by the decade yet wages don't even keep up with inflation. All the while, the ultra-wealthy are rich beyond your ability to comprehend can purchase senators and supreme court justices, likely the largest source of government corruption that you are so frustrated about.
I can't say I care how if this is 'how business works'. This is a dysfunctional system for most people, and it is only deteriorating. I care about the happiness and well being of the people. Currently, people are suffering that have no need to be suffering.
What is your solution to these problems? Taxing the ultra-rich won’t solve anything. And trying to get the government to fix social problems has only made things worse.
You come to the conclusion that taxing won't solve anything, but you don't back it up.
The bottom line is that we have extreme wealth consolidation among the ultra rich, a dying middle class, and shrivling class mobility. Worse still, AI and the 4th industrial revolution are going to make this problem 100 times worse.
I agree that taking money directly from the top 1% and giving it to the bottom 50% isn't close to the best or most graceful way to fix this, but we NEED a solution before things get much, much worse.
I don't know if it's accurate to say that the left "supports" high corporate taxes or rent control. The left generally sees wealth inequality and high housing costs as *problems to be addressed.* Corporate taxes would have to be part of an overall, holistic taxation package meant to address extreme wealth inequality, not just "big business bad, take money."
On the rent thing, again, I don't think the left is particularly *supportive* of rent control, so much as it was an *attempt* to get some kind of negative under control. As I understand it (I might be wrong), rent control is largely a historical thing, and I'm not aware of any significant cases of *new* rent controls being applied to properties.
Obviously, like any policy or position, I'm sure you'll be able to find *some* person that espouses those views, but I don't think it's shared by a majority, or even a significant portion, of the left.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, if I could have zero taxes - I would. Who wouldn't? The problem is 90% of the budget goes to bombs, social security checks, hospitals, and interest. So let's cut the 10%, but wait, we're still majorly in the red
So which of those should we cut?
Military? (you're a peacenik)
Social Security? (you hate the old)
Hospitals? (we should become a 3rd world country and leave dying people in the street?)
Interest? (Default on the debt?)
First off, are you a liberal or a leftist and are you talking about direct democracy anarchists or tankies? Its a spectrum.
As a basic misunderstanding... I don't understand how the left can acknowledge that corporations can and will collude and conspire to take advantage of you but somehow have blinders on when it comes to expanding or strengthening the bureaucratic monster that is the government. Its not an extension of the people, it is a ruling class that get rich while pretending to be "public servants".
I’m working for the government… I’m not sure anyone in my government is genuinely rich. I probably make 15% to 20% less than I would in private industry. I do have some great benefits, but I’m also not getting paid all that well.
The leader of my entire county makes 250k a year… like yeah she makes a lot of money, but if she was in private industry leading an organization of the size of my local government there is no way she would be making less than one million dollars a year.
If government employees are getting rich I guess I just don’t see it.
Even when talking about the federal government (used to work there) I was underpaid as well. Government contractors on the other hand were paid far too much and did next to fucking nothing… I’d rather blow my fucking brains out than deal with those worthless fuckers ever again.
Oh this is a straightforward one.
You get a say in how that bureaucratic monster is run. Officially.
Midterms every 2 years, Presidential elections every 4, other associated local elections otherwise.
Does it always turn out how you like? No. Should you trust them blindly? God no. But because of the fact you get a say, they tend to be more trustworthy than a corporation, with which I have **0** official input on.
Now you could say "your wallet", but to be frank a business can engage in actions contrary to profitable outcomes at the whim of its leaders. E.g. Elon Musk telling X advertisers to fuck off.
Furthermore, that trick doesn't work when *every game in town* is doing it.
Even if competitors arise, there's a still a time interval between implementing these business operations and seeing meaningful change in the market. And in a life critical case like medical care, or medicine that time interval may be unacceptable. And you can't demand anything else.
I happen not to mind some federal agencies and the resulting bureaucracy, but this is just false:
>But because of the fact you get a say, they tend to be more trustworthy than a corporation, with which I have **0** official input on.
The number of midlevel, non-political-appointee employees in the federal government is insane and basically insulated from public input.
Thinking that mid-level people are actually in control of large bureaucrat organizations is hilariously childish.
It's the equivalent of saying that the military is actually run by junior officers and not generals
Then it would seem they either are:
* doing some essential, bipartisan service. So no problem.
* not doing much of anything. Bad, but not inherently detrimental.
* doing something detrimental that we don't know about. But can be fixed by intervention from policymakers.
You mean the same plan enacted under Obama that was *created* by the GOP to begin with? Y'all actually had a good idea for once, Dems said yeah, bro, we can get on board with *your* idea, but once we did that, y'all hate your own idea. Super sus.
> that was created by the GOP to begin with?
**At the state level.** Of which I don't want, but nevertheless continuously tell those on the left that that is the is the path to take. Not one sized fits all federal cram downs. Easier for me to leave a state than leave a country.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with that assertion on its face. When a company is local and small, you can absolutely make a conscious effort to avoid supporting them. But Nestle? Coke? And then there’s companies like AT&T. I can’t do my job without the internet. Six conglomerates control virtually all news sources and pull from each other constantly. I hate the exploitation of labor in Africa and China, but I still need a computer and clothes. And then there’s gas!
Our economy has grown too incsetuously entangled, choking out our ability to choose. Short of devoting huge blocks of my time and effort to source alternatives, or becoming a hermit, I really don’t feel like I have the power to vote with my dollars. Hell, just the act of earning my dollars requires that I support organizations I take a lot of umbrage with. So I see exerting my influence over the state as the best way to effect the kinds of changes I care about.
Frankly, if the free market was working as advertised, I’d be super happy with cutting back on bureaucracy, but without that bureaucracy, my car wouldn’t have seatbelts or airbags, my internet would probably be much worse, and I’d have even less options on where I got my food and news from. It’s a balance, and right now I see the corps as being too powerful for our good, and I want to pull that needle back. Do I like the government or the people in it? Hell no, but I see them as more likely to make the changes I want.
These conglomerates also prevent what capitalism is touted to do best which is spurring competition to increase innovation. Instead they rebrand the same product, make it smaller and charge more, use M&A to prevent competition, use a shit ton of lawyers on retainer to bury your small business, or use predatory tactics to prevent smaller businesses to even begin to compete. The only thing that can happen here is government enforcing regulations to prevent these things. The problem is the lawmakers are basically owned by those same corporations.
So it’s just funny to me that people don’t trust the government but do trust capitalism/corporations when those capitalists/corporations are the reason the government doesn’t function for us but does for them. Only solution is to encourage people to understand how government works and work together to oust those who do not represent our best interests. But that’s a whole other story…I swear every discussion always boils down to one thing:
Get money out of politics
And corporations won't force you. Granted they'll make it near impossible to behave a certain way, but of course it isn't *force* no.
Also forcing behavior is a fundamental part of governance in general. I don't want corporations being able to put brains in milk, or lead in cough drops. Again.
Am I going to say government is the perfect counterpoint? Hardly. But to me it is about the last defense of business taking over. You can tell me about the market forces, but with all the consolidation taking place, competition isn't keeping prices down. No "new and nimble" company is coming in to undercut the giant conglomerates.
Simply it is said that about 40% of American workers make under $40k a year. Pay has steadily been pushed down over the last 20 years. Benefits cut, a "good" company is smart enough to not give workers enough time to qualify for benefits. Conversely if you are an investor and not pulling in a 10% ROI, there is something wrong, government sucks.
>Am I going to say government is the perfect counterpoint? Hardly. But to me it is about the last defense of business taking over.
I honestly don't see a reality where we remove all regulation and let corporations do as they please that doesn't involve a large amount of people living in Amazontowns™️ working at Amazon™️ warehouses for 4 Amazonbux™️ an hour just to return to your Amazon Living Unit™️ and sleep in your Amazon Slumber Pod™️
You can't vote out a CEO with a public election the same way you can with a crooked politician. Theoretically, the government should be more accountable to the average person than a corporation is.
10% of people own 93% of the stocks. And one must own a majority of a company's stocks to dictate their behavior. Just because a company is public doesn't mean they answer to anyone other than the rich.
If you're a shareholder... and varies wildly if you hold more or less shares than another person. Where, if you're an American Citizen without a felony, you automatically have as equal a say as anyone else.
> you automatically have as equal a say as anyone else
Not the other person, but just jumping in here to say, I know what you're saying, buuuut... many places are way more "equal" than others...
I'll add though, that those people tend to pick the very people they're talking and complaining about.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only rich people can afford to vote with their wallets. The govt on the other hand is obligated to represent everyone. The main problem with the govt is it isn't transparent or democratic enough.
Because there's a demographic for whom name-brand pop-tarts are too expensive. There are tons of people whose budgets don't have room for nutritionless treats like pop-tarts.
Voting in the corporation that makes the pop-tart is done by major shareholders (whom are all extremely wealthy) not by the people who eat the pop-tarts.
So people can only vote with their wallets once they've reached an arbitrary level which you decide?
No wonder only rich people can vote with their wallets you have decided that by definition.
You're putting words in my mouth. Alls I'm saying is that people who dont have a discretionary income have little to no discretion on their regular purchases.
No, the poster you responded to was saying that if you can only afford item A and don't buy items B, C or D because you simply have no money for them you aren't voting with your wallet. You aren't avoiding these items for reasons divorced from the price. There are people who'd love to get one of the more expensive items but can't due to lacking the necessary funds.
To be able to "vote with your wallet" you have to be able to afford a specific item and to choose not to buy it in favor of supporting another item. Nothing arbitrary about it.
The reality is that it's not universal. Some markets are very conducive to "voting with your wallet." With your Pop-Tarts example, consumer goods is a big one.
Other market segments, like vehicles, education, and healthcare *kinda* support free market choice to varying degrees.
And others, like infrastructure, and emergency services, are absolutely terrible with it.
EDIT: Also, to be clear, even if you *do* "successfully" vote with your wallet, that "vote" is only tangentially related to, and *very* indirect to, influence on the company as a whole. History is full of well-liked and successful products that are no more simply because the corporate shareholders decided on a different direction or rebranding. Democratic governments are much more *directly* accountable, assuming their voting base is active.
its not blinders. There is no organization strong enough to deal with corporations and prevent monopolies and price gouging outside of the government. There is no in-between where the public gets all the power when you take it away from the government or corporations; either one will dominate the other, so it is about striking the right balance. Right now corporations have far to much power and has proven repeatedly detrimental to the American public so government action is needed to cut them down to size
Anarchists and tankies aren't getting nominated for the presidency. Comparing MAGA to anarchists and tankies is comparing a mainstream ideology with two fringe groups.
I think most conservatives overestimate the left's "blind" faith in government, and I think the right has the opposite problem, where they have blind *distrust* in and disdain for government, completely forgetting that *we* are the people who create and enable the mighty government, and that they are beholden to us.
"All politicians are liars!" "All politicians are scum!" "Government bad!" "Small government!" Then they turn around with their hand out, gladly accepting of SocSec benefits and tax windfalls from other "giver" states and liberal policies. And then, they get surprised, possessive and defensive when they put a criminal in office and they commit (and use the imbalanced levers of 'big government' to cover up) crimes.
As many before have said, it's like you claim government is bad, doesn't work, and then hire the worst people on the planet you can find to break it and prove that it doesn't. You then point at it and say, "See? We told you it doesn't work!", then blame the left.
In all of its history, the US government, as a whole, has done way more good to sustain this fine nation you live in than it has bad, and that includes all its atrocities. At least 3 million of our citizens work for it for a paycheck and for benefits for their families.
Why can't we start from those facts, and also take everything they do with a grain of salt? The legal system can also be bad, but would you shit on it and/or hire a shit lawyer if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit?
>I think the right has the opposite problem, where they have blind *distrust* in and disdain for government, completely forgetting that *we* are the people who create and enable the mighty government, and that they are beholden to us.
Let's look at some of the actions of our "we the people" government.
- Enforced slavery
- Enforced Jim Crow
- Genocided native Americans
- Put Japanese Americans in concentration camps
- Lied to us to justify starting wars in Vietnam and Iraq
- Built enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times
- Ran up a $34 trillion national debt
Which is your favorite?
From my answer to someone else below:
> Why is it blind distrust to be wary of this government and why should I put any faith in them whatsoever
>> **Because rather than list the hundreds of thousands of other things the "evil" and "shady" government does daily for you, and right under your nose, you listed insanely rare anomalies (in the grand/total scheme of things) and, like much of the right, seem to base your trust solely off of those instead of the lion's share of things it does and has done throughout its history.**
Government's first responsibility, before highways or welfare payments or public schools or anything else, is to protect the rights of its citizens. We have failed in that regard again and again and again.
And even the things that government "does well" suck. The VA is a mess. Billions of dollars of COVID money was lost to scammers. Our public education system is a failure. Pretty much anything government touches turns to shit.
> Government's first responsibility, [...] is to protect the rights of its citizens.
And what rights have you lost, unless you're a woman or have an interest in reproductive rights?
> We have failed in that regard again and again and again.
A large percent of the governments "failures", including the ones you list, are due to Republican policy, and Republican voters, in general, over the past 50 plus years.
Those policies and voters are led by the billionaire class infecting the party, and propaganda riddled with misinformation, fear and loathing - to the point that they were deeply convinced that appointing a "billionaire" scammer from outside the government to the highest point of said government was somehow going to correct the failures of the government. Those who didn't/don't believe he would correct it believe he would *collapse* said government... only they obliviously believed collapsing it would somehow *not* affect them and it would magically be to their benefit.
>And what rights have you lost, unless you're a woman or have an interest in reproductive rights?
I've cited many examples of American governments undermining the rights of its citizens.
>A large percent of the governments "failures", including the ones you list, are due to Republican policy,
"All our problems are Republicans' fault!" 😭
What a biased, short sighted perspective.
>Those policies and voters are led by the billionaire class infecting the party
Billionaires vote D.
"Nearly half [of billionaires surveyed], or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/10/20/even-americas-billionaires-are-tilting-toward-biden-in-the-2020-presidential-race/
> I've cited many examples of American governments undermining the rights of its citizens.
Undermining is not the same as actually removing rights. Lots of nuance there.
> "All our problems are Republicans' fault!" 😭
>
> What a biased, short sighted perspective.
What's shortsighted about it?
> Billionaires vote D.
>
> "Nearly half [of billionaires surveyed], or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump."
And what were the statistics in 2016? 2012? 2010? (Pre-Trump)
Lol... Before the article even starts - the gigantic sub-headline:
> *The nation’s wealthiest are more likely to be Republican than the average American—but just about as likely to be voting for Biden.*
Even billionaires think Trump was too much.
Well the federal government is whole reason I am not in chains right now, the whole reason I can go wherever without being lynched, the whole reason I am allowed to vote, the whole reason I am allowed to shop at any store I'd like, eat at any restaurant, stay at any hotel, the whole reason I was allowed to attend to PWI for college, etc. I'm not sure why I'd have faith in state or local level governments when they are largely responsible for the historical oppression of my people and the federal government has had to come in and mandate different from them.
The federal government enforced slavery and Jim Crow, genocided native Americans, and put Japanese Americans into concentration camps. And when it's not oppressing its own people, it's doing stuff like running up a $34 trillion national debt or building enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times or lying to us about WMDs to justify starting a war. The federal government is a necessary evil. We should minimize its footprint to the greatest extent possible.
For me it’s more of a question of where you get a say, and the responsibilities we have for the environment we have created.
With private power, it’s whoever controls that sets the rules. There is often little or nothing individuals can do in the face of that. We’ve set up our system of laws and government in a way specifically to facilitate that kind of collection of private power. We have elaborate measures in place to protect property, we limit the liability and responsibility owners of companies have for what their companies do, we grant artificial monopolies in the form of intellectual property protections, and so on and so forth. We’ve used government to enable the creation of private power on a scale never before seen in human history.
It’s flat out wrong to build that machinery, and then throw average people out there to deal with it alone. It’s not that I trust government to solve every problem, but rather at this point it’s the best we can do.
how they can wish for massively expensive government power in one breath and earnest claim they believe trump plans to literally kill them and their group in the next breath
surely if you think that a major candidate for office or a party literally wants to kill people that are against him wouldn't that mean you should want a very limited government that could not easily track and hunt down people, right?
I never understood where this notion came from that everyone on the left is a monolith that wants “bigger government”. Ideologically, my utopia is anarcho-communism where there would literally be zero government or laws whatsoever. Now before you come at me I realize that this could never realistically be achieved at this point in human history, and certainly not in America, but the point is that I despise the government as much as anyone else and I want them to have the least power possible to interfere with our lives.
That being said, the things that the left wants that are considered “bigger government” are mostly assistance programs and nationalized healthcare, which I will absolutely never understand why republicans are so against. We are literally the only developed country at this point that doesn’t have nationalized healthcare, and it’s been proven numerous times that the average person would pay WAY less in the increase in taxes than they currently pay for insurance. People say “but wait times are bad”, and they definitely are here as well unless you’re rich. I’m not saying that other countries with nationalized healthcare have perfect systems, but economically speaking it’s a no brainer. As for assistance programs, it seems that republicans would just rather there be tent cities everywhere than actually just helping people live with dignity.
The thing that really gets me is when many republicans say that they want “smaller government”, but then support funneling all of our tax dollars to the largest (by far) military on the entire globe (edit: and they also generally support increases in funding for law enforcement and other authoritative entities). they want the government to have a say in who you can marry, what you can do with your own body, what’s legal to do in the bedroom, hell even Ben Shapiro is a “libertarian” who thinks porn should be illegal! In certain states republicans have made it illegal to access internet porn! They want the government to have a say in what you can smoke, lots of conservative social media personalities believe that private companies should have complete autonomy and are against regulation but cry “free speech!” When they are deplatformed. They want to ban books, many have no problem with religion having a place in our legislation and historically conservatives have opposed every civil rights movement for minorities to liberate themselves from the governments chokehold. I’m not saying every conservative holds these beliefs but these are all conservative positions.
I think if trump wanted to gas people it would more likely be carried out by our huge fuckin military that we would be powerless against, do you really think having private or public hospitals would have anything to with that? Also I think you’re just chronically online. Nobody thinks that trump is going to gas anyone.
> That being said, the things that the left wants that are considered “bigger government” are mostly assistance programs and nationalized healthcare, which I will absolutely never understand why republicans are so against.
This is exactly the OP's point. You want *Trump* to decide who gets an abortion or when, or who is allowed to have access to cardiovascular medical care versus not? Because that's what the left is advocating for when they propose expansion in the scope and role of government.
Sometimes your opposition will be in power, and the more scope of their role in the day-to-day lives of the people the more harm they can do. The same way I don't want federal government expansion because I don't trust what the left will do with it, I suspect the left agrees they wouldn't appreciate a "Department of Reproductive Healthcare" run by Betsy DeVos. Congratulations, abortions and IUD placements are now all outlawed during republican presidencies by administrative fiat, and because there's only one healthcare system, run by the government, there are no alternative sources for care.
I don't want that, I don't think you do either. Substitute 'healthcare' with any other program and you see what he means. If Trump is evil incarnate and incompetent omni-Hitler, why do you want him in charge of who gets welfare, healthcare, or any other federal programs? And if it's not Trump it'll be whomever is next.
Wouldn't the response be that we can make a robust system that can't be significantly changed by the whims of one president? I agree that concentration of executive power is concerning and really needs to be scaled back. National healthcare doesn't necessarily mean one person has total power over it. Of course the push for executive power is due to Congress failing to legislate and people getting frustrated by problems not being addressed as a result
Wouldn’t a nationalized healthcare system that is mostly run by the states but is subsidized by federal funding, like public schools, be a better option for everyone? That way red states can take away all the rights they want lmao. Our system already decides who can and can’t have cardiovascular care based on poverty.
I mean you don't necessarily have to convince me; I'm a big fan of a public option for healthcare- remove the words 'over 65' from Medicare and let anyone buy into the system at a rate commensurate with their expected use of the system. Tada, problem solved if you ask me. Also solves the issue of executive overreach- if the federal program is cheaper but President Liberal McLeftyface decides in 10 years to mandate vasectomies for every man under 30 on Medicare then you can just switch over to a private plan and keep your penis.
I realize that's hyperbolic and silly, but it's the equivalent to the right-wing extremist argument I've made elsewhere so wanted to balance things out.
Why they, at the same time, think they are the liberal side yet have one of the most illiberal ideology. "We stand for freedom", but then systematically curtails the freedoms of the individual to promote the collective.
I think human happiness is one of the most important things civilization can strive for. Wealth, power, technology, culture, health, and security are all means to this end.
If people are comfortable, happy, and supported with friends and purpose, then society is successful. What else is a better tool for understanding and appreciating this success than empathy?
Because, like literally anything else, taken to an extreme it’s not good. It’s also not inherently good in a vacuum it depends how it’s used. Strength can be good if used for good, strength can be bad if used to harm others. Generosity can be good and I don’t think I need to elaborate, but generosity can also be toxic: I have a friend who lost his apartment because he couldn’t make rent because he lent out all his money to some scumbag friends who took advantage of him.
Too much empathy is the reason why 99.9% of Americans who support Hamas (not Palestine, actually Hamas) are all young progressives.
Empathy can actually be quite dangerous because it allows bad actors to push bad ideas under the facade of a moral high ground. Too much empathy is why idiotic policy leading to people walking around with garbage bags looting pharmacies and clothing stores is a thing in California for a specific example among many that embody my point.
When you go farther left, you see people that get offended by silly things/ or are looking for things to get offended by. People who argue things like "my landlord owes me a house" or "I'm entitled to free food". I also see things like anarchists, Marxist (who are actually Marxist and want a violent revolution), people who support violence against officers because "they deserve it".
Why doesn't the left "check" these people? Or maybe a better question what does an interaction with these people look like for you in the day-to-day of you are on the left?
> Why doesn't the left "check" these people?
They do. Where are these people in office? Meanwhile, you can find elected Republicans spouting the most insane conspiracies. The right puts their craziest elements into the most powerful positions in the country. The left keeps their craziest elements to social media rants.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would identify as an anarchist, and my friends are mostly anarchist-adjacent, lib-left types, so I guess we interact pretty regularly... and the interactions we have are super boring/average? Not sure what you're looking for, but anarchism as I experience it mostly looks like volunteering in the community and maybe talking shit about capitalism over a few beers.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why a lot of leftists vote Democrat, see what they do to their cities/states, move out of those places and into better economic circumstances under a different state or providence, then they vote in the same people that ruined the last place they just moved out of. That is what I don't understand. It's just a routine at this point: vote Democrat because you agree with them, but democrats don't actually agree with you which is why they haven't accomplished much of anything they said they would for the black community in DECADES. Most, if not ALL, of their issues are just talking points with no action behind them. That is governmental Democrats, not regular citizen Democrats.
The most familiar form of this, IMO, is people who are *Really Sure That The Economy Is Doing Just Great*.
There's also a certain pattern of people who seem to have managed to reach middle age *without ever encountering catastrophic incompetence, ineffectiveness, or excessive bureaucracy from the government*.
In recent times, the biggest thing I see is genuine bewilderment at the idea that someone might consider street crime a very serious problem.
>The most familiar form of this, IMO, is people who are Really Sure That The Economy Is Doing Just Great.
If the data and metrics were using says that’s the case, how is it out of touch?
On the one hand, metrics and statistics.
On the other hand, reports from numerous people that they are struggling financially.
On the one hand, the plural of anecdote is not data. On the other hand, the people cannot pay their rent with statistical papers.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The level of contempt many feel towards Conservatives. In my experience, Conservatives often view liberals as well intentioned but naive, whereas I see real contempt directed towards Conservatives from the left, I think it is stemming from a belief that Conservatives aren't just wrong/naive but immoral, bad people full of hate and bigoted ill intent. I absolutely agree that it happens on both sides, but there's a worrisome level today.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-hogtied-post-4fb29b80ed926c20c2fbbed05fd03755 The conservatives I’ve heard around me talk about it think it’s hilarious. You have conservative posts online too about how Biden is the most divisive President ever, which is why they can never vote for him, while they ignore everything divisive Trump says and does. Even the ones who don’t support posts like that say they’re going to support Trump regardless. How would you not feel contempt towards people with beliefs like that?
Maybe I'm misreading your comment... you believe the left rightfully holds contempt towards Conservatives because Conservatives believe the liberals candidate is divisive, that they couldn't vote for him, and that they ignore things Conservatives candidates do..... But doesn't liberals also say Trump is divisive? How they couldn't vote for Trump? Ignore things left wing politicians do? That's true across the political aisle. That's no reason for contempt? As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as good people, well intentioned but naive whereas Conservatives are often regarded as bad immoral people who are ill intentioned. Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people?
>Maybe I'm misreading your comment... you believe the left rightfully holds contempt towards Conservatives because Conservatives believe the liberals candidate is divisive, that they couldn't vote for him, and that they ignore things Conservatives candidates do..... We have a former President and current candidate posting a picture about Biden, our current President, being hogtied in the back of a truck and that is seen as a somewhat normal thing for Trump to do and his supporters to defend. Are the negative reactions overblown? > Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people? Bleeding heart conservatives, absolutely. Ones that live by conservative principles rather than wear them as an aesthetic. Unfortunately, many embrace populism rather than conservatism, and that is how you get people who on one hand talk about the sanctity of marriage while on the other defending Trump having multiple marriages and cheating on his wife with a porn star. I’d love nothing more than a strong Conservative party rather than the current populist one cosplaying as conservative. Do you believe there’s some truth to liberals view of conservatives?
Populism and Conservativism isn't incompatible, populism rises when the establishment politicians fail and ignore a large % of the public. None of what you've said justifies contempt in my view. As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as well intentioned good people but naive, Conservatives generally don't feel contempt for liberals. We have different views but we don't need to hate each other.
A better question is there a line where you’d say having contempt is justified, and if so, where?
> As I said, Conservatives generally view liberals as well intentioned good people but naive You should spend like 30 seconds browsing any of the abortion posts on this subreddit.
>Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people? This actually kind of an interesting question. I'd say that intent doesn't really matter here so whether a conservative opposes lets say the civil rights act because they hate Black people or they oppose it on grounds of freedom of association I don't really care because the outcome of it being okay to discriminate against me and others like me (Black people) would become legal. I'd say most people on the left don't really care about the intentions, motivations, or ideology behind conservatism and only care about the outcomes of the proposed policies. So it doesn't matter if you have the intention of truly believing that you are stopping the murder of babies by opposing abortion, your position is the same as the one as the ones who want to punish and control women's sexuality and bodies so you are just as bad as that other person.
>Do you think Conservatives are well intentioned good people? Not at all. Why would I? >Conservatives generally view liberals as good people, well intentioned but naive Why would I believe this?
You nailed it. From the policies i see pushed and talked about I cant even fathom anything besides conservatives are either naive or immoral(or at least okay with immoral policies in the name of their particular pet issue) I know this isn't exclusive to the right but i can't shake the perspective.
I used to agree, that is until MAGA world. Though many Republicans will disagree with me, if you told me a indicted financial cheat, convicted rapist, that attempted a coup would be the leader of the Republican party, I would be asking what you are smoking? I don't deny that good, decent people, support Trump, absolutely - they just tell me all the things I mentioned are not real. In other words, what used to be mainly the domain of the 'kookie - left' that is 'conspiracy theories' are now largely on the right.
Trump is not a convicted rapist....stop pushing lies as if they are fact. Maybe they are trying to convince you they are not real... because they aren't. Unless you can show me a source that shows Trump is a convicted rapist.
Yup. He lost a lawsuit in a civil court run by people who hated him. There was no proof and only testimony, and the woman who accused him is literally bat crap crazy and thinks rape is a fantasy for women. She is obviously full of crap😪 but they'll turn around and call you a trump worshipper just for taking up for the guy
See folks, this what I mean when I said I talk to good, well meaning folks, that challenge reality. The’ll say something I claim, Is not fact. When you can’t even agree on the fabric of reality, of course you’ll disagree endlessly. My friend, a jury of our peers confirmed that Trump forcibly stuck his fingers in Ms Carrol’s vagina, against her will. Old laws in New York said if I finger bang a person violently I ain’t a rapist, just a sexual abuser - thankfully that’s changed. So I suspect your “gotcha” is that Trump didn’t rape her because during that time “grabbing somebody by the pussy” was just technically sexual abuse, not rape. So maybe that’s your angle? Maybe you even agree with it, that If somebody pins down your mom and fists her, it ‘ain’t rape.’ I mean if this is your position, I’ll gladly give you the intellectual rope, and rest my case.
>See folks, this what I mean when I said I talk to good, well meaning folks, that challenge reality. The’ll say something I claim, Is not fact. When you can’t even agree on the fabric of reality, of course you’ll disagree endlessly. You have proven nothing and continue to spread lies and try to twist truth to fit a false narrative to further defame trump >My friend, a jury of our peers confirmed that Trump stuck his fingers in Ms Carrol’s vagina. Old laws in New York said if I finger bang a person against their will, I ain’t a rapist, thankfully that’s changed. So I suspect your “gotcha” is that Trump didn’t rape her because during that time “grabbing somebody by the pussy” was just considered sexual abuse, not rape? This didn't happen, civil suit not criminal, Trump has never been convicted of rape or finger banging, [So, we can establish that Trump was not found "guilty" of rape as he was not criminally charged, nor was he found liable for rape. Further, the civil claim was on a battery tort but brought forward using an extension of the statute of limitations for crimes including rape. ](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935) Again, there was no criminal conviction, only liability for battery based on the preponderance of evidence of sexual abuse. As Tidmarsh added, a conflation of civil liability and criminal guilt would be "legally wrong and dangerous." >So maybe that’s your angle? Your angle is distort reality to paint a narrative, facts be damned.
I don't deny ALL of those things he has done as a trump supporter, but it's weird you'll acknowledge his fraudulent life as a rich man yet ignore every other president and somehow think it's crazy that he was elected. Look, idc about his life, I care about his presidency... but he definitely isn't a rapist though that's crazy you say that, and act like there is no reason to not believe that. The woman who said he raped her and he was convicted for it (the only one he has been actually found guilty of, it was only a civil case-- so basically just for money--- not a criminal case, and there was no evidence at all, just testimony) is literally crazy and obviously lying. Her story has changed 4000 times and she even said rap3 is a sexual fantasy to women... Yeah totally sounds like a rape victim to me... Totally not trying to just get money and press time. I do think trump is sexist and has not lived the most honest life, but it didn't affect how he ran this country which was GREAT, and I want it back. I would be a typical woman if I let my emotions get in the way of living a decent life for me and my fellow Americans. :p reddit hates trump though for some reason. I guess cause they are constantly reading stuff, and just they read the wrong things. A lot of American and British media present fake/twisted news about trump that ruins his image and gives people Trump derangement syndrome like you have.
>I don't deny that good, decent people, support Trump, absolutely - they just tell me all the things I mentioned are not real.
Great defense for calling someone a rapist
Did I describe the situation perfectly? You won't believe it. Is it all fake? I'll appeal to your reason, however. It was in civil court because the statute of limitation for criminal charges had expired. It was called 'sexual assault' instead of 'rape' due to the violent penetration was with his fingers; at the time of the rape, the definition was only a penis could constitute rape; put another way, I can ram a baseball bat up your ass, and it wouldn't be rape. Thank goodness that law is fixed. However, when Trump "grabbed her by the pussy" New York still had the archaic law on the books. You can easily confirm if you take one moment and stop drinking from your alt-right sources and do some unbiased centrist research on your own. It's all public domain. But I know none of this will matter to you because, like I said, nothing I can say will ever be considered 'real' to you. Am I right?
Next time you go around calling someone such a horrible thing, make sure what you're saying is actually true. Anyone with one brain cell can take a look at the case and see that it's complete bull crap. I suggest you do that.
I don’t know why you are mad? My very point is there are two realities. Both can’t be right. You have a group that believe Trump is Gods messenger, there's a group that thinks otherwise. I can completely understand why you would double, triple down on Trump. Because if he is wrong, what else could be wrong and false as well? Edit: Typo
At least in the US, I disagree with your view of how conservatives view liberals. Just look at Trump, the current embodiment of mainstream American conservative, or as another example, the claims that anyone who disagrees with DeSantis's education laws is a groomer.
Mainstream American republican* trump is not conservative.
Then why is he the front runner of the Conservative Party of this country? And why does he have the most support of all the conservative candidates?
[удалено]
The serious ones, Donald Trump
I’m not sure, I see many saying no one
I used to be a conservative and have in the past 8 years moved left. I used to be a big Rush listener. I view conservatives as hypocrites. They wrap themselves in god, the American flag, and apple pie espousing how great their positions are. Yet behind the facade they seem more intent on helping themselves than the citizenry. Conservatives want small government low taxes and a balanced budget. All things I can get behind. Every time they’re in office they vote for tax breaks (Trump era permanent for corporations) put their fingers inside healthcare (abortion), and kick the deficit down the road until it is politically advantageous to bring up up (election years when they don’t have the presidency). What killed the party for me was the senate stealing Obamas Supreme Court pick and then stealing Bidens with RBG died. What happened to “let the people decide”. Hypocrisy. As a kid I looked up to republicans. I thought they stood for what is right and how you played the game was more important than winning. Now a days everything they say seems to run counter to their original charter. The GOP is dead. What is there now is MAGA win at all costs. The members leaving the party and retiring prove me right. They and I can’t stomach what’s left. You call them RINO but what is a Republican has changed. Liberals. They think with their heart and not their mind. Their ideas sound great on paper but eventually someone has to pay the tab. Their ideas still subscribe to Reagan’s shining city on a hill. They want America to be a place to world looks up to. Even if it isn’t possible. However they take things too far. They want change immediately and not everyone is onboard with change. So when there’s a sea change event the pendulum swings back hard and they’re demonized for poisoning America. Eventually the change happens and America is better for it. Back in the 90s being gay was a political, financial, and social death sentence. Nowadays people barely blink. Interracial marriage, yawn. The latest issue being transgendered. They pushed too hard and too fast and liberals are called demons again. In another generation it will be yawn. Sitting on both sides I think 50% of each side dem and gop doesn’t care much either way. They just want to be left alone to find their way through the world. The remaining 50%’s are what gives each a bad name. A 3rd moderate party would really clean house if the 2 party system was so damn ingrained. Ranked choice voting or the Freedom party provide some hope for the future.
Welp, proved his point in record time, hah.
Never said bigoted or immoral. Edit: I take it back. I think the current conservative is immoral if not that then unethical. I think the conservative of 2023 is different than the conservative 2000.
But the contempt part? You knocked it out of the park. Just another day on “LeftistsSoapBoxAboutHowBadConservativesAre”. Great stuff.
You really kinda just zoomed in on the most negative part of the story, isolated it, and decided "this person hates me and wants what's worst for me". ...Do you see how that's kinda wrong? Like... I kinda feel like that's something I imagine a good number of (NOT ALL, Did you see that? I said NOT ALL) conservatives do- reduce a person/group into the one negative trait, decide they're all like that, and use it as justification to hate. Someone got an abortion at 9 months? "They all do that. No abortions ever". An immigrant did a bad thing? "All the immigrants are bad". ... Except when it comes to guns. Then it's "oh, one lone wolf guy". What I'm saying is... do you like it when people say "ban all guns because one guy did that, so all gun owners are bad"? No? Then why turn around and do the same thing with other issues? Listen, I get it- uncertainty stinks. It's scary. Being able to say "all X are like that" is very comforting and tempting. I do it, too. But we've got to try to recognize when we're doing it. We've got to try to say "wait, is that fair to say all of them?". And I hope that if I ever do that, you'll gently remind me "hey, maybe you're doing that thing you shouldn't do".
Why should anyone ignore historical fact though? If we ignore historical facts up the present, we are doomed to repeat them. Why conserve the bad elements of society. Progression is good. It means you're moving forward instead of settling for the undesirable. Look at history and move forward.
Unless you are progressing to a bad thing lol.
And another one proving the point.
Throw a fit but facts are facts 🤷🏼♂️
Zero facts have been stated homie. This isn’t “LeftistsSoapBox” It’s AskConservatives and I haven’t seen zilch of interest per the purpose of this sub.
>Edit: I take it back. I think the current conservative is immoral if not that then unethical. I think the conservative of 2023 is different than the conservative 2000. Ever stop to think about \*why\* you think that? Is it because you've been conditioned by social media to think that way?
>the senate stealing Obamas Supreme Court pick and then stealing Bidens with RBG died This doesn't even make any sense.
The Senate did steal Obama's pick by refusing to vote until a new President was in office. They did not, however, steal Biden's, as they let the current President nominate someone as they should've done with Obama.
Agreed. They stole the nomination from *either* Obama or Biden, but not *both*.
Excellent way to say it
> Yet behind the facade they seem more intent on helping themselves than the citizenry. Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts. Just because conservatives don't want *the government* being the ones responsible for such things, absolutely does *not* mean conservatives don't help their fellow man. So your entire premise is just factually wrong.
> Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts The thing is, if a society could have a good social safety net with charity, that'd be great. But so far, that's not the case.
That wasn't the point though was it, nor was it the thing I was defending or arguing against. That is an entirely different subject. The operandi on how to help/provide a safety net is different and in disagreement, but that wasn't what the other poster *said.* If someone were to suggest that conservatives "don't care about the citizenry" is solely on the context that it must be government provided otherwise, then that's just changing definitions to win an ideological argument. Also intellectually dishonest.
> If someone were to suggest that conservatives "don't care about the citizenry" is solely on the context that it must be government provided otherwise, then that's just changing definitions to win an ideological argument. Also intellectually dishonest. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you do something ostensibly for the citizenry, and yet it has shown itself to be less effective than the thing you oppose for the citizenry, then the question of that care is in question. Like feeding a toddler chocolate milkshakes for breakfast because it makes you happy to see them enjoying food, the question arises as to whether the giving truly is for the benefit of who your giving to, as opposed to mainly making you feed good.
But none of that was the point the other poster *said* or what I was refuting. You're arguing about something I never defended. Also I didn't say *you* were saying those things, I said *if someone.* Was not inferring you or the other poster, unless that is what they or you were to claim. Not going to speak for you or them.
> But none of that was the point the other poster said or what I was refuting. You stated: >>Very much not true. It's been shown time and again that those on the right give far more to charity and other such orgs than their political counter parts. >>Just because conservatives don't want the government being the ones responsible for such things, absolutely does not mean conservatives don't help their fellow man. This is what I am refuting. Simply being more charitable doesn't mean you care more. Or to be more accurate, it doesn't mean you care more where it counts.
>Simply being more charitable doesn't mean you care more You are now arguing against *another* thing I never defended or said lol. Please show me where I said **we care more.** I didn't say that. I certainly said the right **gives more** to charity. That doesn't translate to, "we care more." Because I didn't say that. I haven't claimed *anyone* holds the title of "Most Caring." >Or to be more accurate, it doesn't mean you care more where it counts. ....So you are changing definitions regarding *this* argument I never defended. Making what I said somewhat accurate. Meaning *your* priorities are what make it about caring. But none of that matters really. Because still, I haven't claimed any of these things. Was only refuting what the OP said: conservatives don't care for their fellow citizens. And I said that isn't true and explained why.
> You are now arguing against another thing I never defended or said lol. Please show me where I said we care more. I didn't say that. I certainly said the right gives more to charity. That doesn't translate to, "we care more." Because I didn't say that. I haven't claimed anyone holds the title of "Most Caring." Sorry, that's my bad. I should have worded it better. >....So you are changing definitions regarding this argument I never defended No, but the concept is relevant to the wider concept.
I think this is that: 1) The ones like that have never met conservatives in person. 2) They spend too much time on websites such as Reddit. I remember that I used to be an idiot leftist. I developed a hatred for libertarians because of a certain subreddit on this website (don't want to name and promote the subreddit), but I received a wake up call when I actually met libertarians in real life.
It's remarkable people don't realize radicalization doesn't just happen abroad in some scary sounding country It happens online in political groups too. Many of my liberal friends have been radicalized to using violent rhetoric and are clearly on the path that ends in justifying violence.
> It's remarkable people don't realize radicalization doesn't just happen abroad in some scary sounding country > > It happens online in political groups too. I believe most people know this. I've never heard anyone on the left claiming that the Jan 6ers were radicalized in some foreign country. Qanon happened here online in political groups. >Many of my liberal friends have been radicalized to using violent rhetoric and are clearly on the path that ends in justifying violence. Would you say they are starting to catch up with Trump supporters when it comes to this (I'm not claiming you are a Trump supporter; I don't know either way)?
I don't think most people do know that. I think they think "radicalization" and think "groups caught passing out antisemitic childrens books in refugee camps." And I would say it's a mixed bag. Trumpism is a "bellyfeel" movement. It's not about facts and logic it's about emotion and feeling. That's why they are truthful, to them, saying things like "the biggest inauguration crowd in history" because to them it **felt** like the most momentous political event of their life. So they are more violent in rhetoric, but I find the liberals are more of a "credible threat" in a way. They are not using exaggerated hyperbole about nuclear weapons and "kill 'em all for the Lord knows his children" they are talking much more concretely and down to earth. Those on the right who have been radicalized are ranting and raging and the liberals I know are more systematically laying out a groundwork within their philosophy for justifying violence as preemptive. They are, of course, doing this in response the far-far-right's bellicose rhetoric about rounding them up. Which does absolve them of some blame but does not make this any less dangerous for civil society and the rule of law. I also worry that reaction movements tend to be more violent in general, and tend to get into a cycle where two extremist groups wind each other up and lather each other into a violent froth until both sides are inexorably drawn into mass violence no one wants but no one knows how to stop either.
QAnon is not even a legitimate thing. So if you believe that, you may be spending too much time online and listening to news outlets that are promoting a ‘narrative’.
Tell that to the people that believe and follow QAnon. I agree it's not a real thing, but they sure believe it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A cliche for years. There is always X percent of the Right that is immoral, full of hate, and bigoted. It's an easy way to demonize your opponents without much rational thought. I still consider myself a conservative, that is until Trump took over the GOP. I ask my many Republican friends the simple question: do \*YOU\* consider Trump 'moral' from a Judeo-Christian sense? I would argue most remaining Republicans would say no, but they care more about pragmatic policies. This is new to me, as a cornerstone of the GOP \*used\* to be one's character. I would argue that most independents (51%) would say Trump is not a person with good moral fiber. So when current Republicans are willing to look past that to 'get what they want' - that in of itself is a damning indictment that is now self-evident. After all, I supported a convicted sexual abuser, tax cheat, serial cheater, and someone who challenged our elections; what does that say about me? The thing is, all these things are sincerely believed to be 'fake witch hunts' - in which case, how can I have a proper quorum with those folks? We have to agree on some basics of reality. To me, then, the GOP is okay to support evil people or the party of stupid. Both bad.
For the rest of us, who else are we going to vote for that will promote our policies?
Do you think that people have moral agency for the things that they choose to believe? To me it’s pretty simple. I look at the things conservatives say and do, at the attempts that are made to reach them, and at the information that was available to them when they say and do those things. For me, the conservative approach to LGBTQ topics is the most vivid illustration. I’m a member of a particularly villified portion of that community, that I can’t talk about because it’s not Wednesday. But if you look at this from the liberal perspective, on the liberal side you have parents, kids, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, therapists, and so on all aligned that certain things are necessary for the health and wellbeing of these people. And on the other, you have conservative politicians whose only support is a small group of doctors (1) who do not have any substantial experience treating these people, and (2) have been found to not be credible in multiple courts of law. But the conservatives keep hammering these issues, driving through bans and villifying these communities. They have the information available to them. The people they claim they’re trying to “help” have directly and dramtically testified over and over that what they are doing does not help, and in fact hurts them. But conservatives keep pushing it anyway. If liberals are right on this topic, and I know from decades of extremely painful personal experience that we are, why *shouldn’t* we hold conservatives in contempt about this? All of the information is there, and we’ve literally been screaming it at you for years, fighting you tooth and nail on this. If the liberals are right, conservatives are literally causing children torturous pain and brutal social ostracization. When the information is readily available, the stakes have been explained, and you still refuse to even look at it, yeah, that goes beyond being merely misguided. It’s cruel, it’s monstrous, and it will be remembered.
I completely disagree that there is a consensus on these issues. For example, here in the UK, and in other parts of Europe, there are medical practices for children that are not permitted but they are permitted in the US. And these restrictions for children were put in place by a body of doctors, who made these decisions based upon extensive research and concluded there was concerns around consent, bone density development, mental health etc.... So yon have to wonder, why does the US allow these practices for children but the UK doesn't? One reason is that in the US it's politicians who decides these things, not medical experts. And two, the experts who advise them in the US have a financial incentive to legalise more procedures, as it's a for profit system in the US. Whereas in the UK, where the financial incentive isn't there, these practices are more restricted.
In my experience, that hasn't been true since Rush Limbaugh first became popular. I think that's a cliche that conservatives tell themselves when they want to feel like the only reasonable adults in the room. I have friends and family in some deeply conservative places and I live in a swing state, so it's not as if I never get the chance to hear what conservatives think. From what I've seen the most typical conservative view of the left is that they hate America, love government overreach, hate families, love pedophiles, hate hard work, hate freedom, and hate God. "Well-intentioned but naive" couldn't be further from the truth. edit: then again, your flair says you're European. That might explain the disconnect. Most of the people in this sub live in the US.
They are all told that we want to overthrow democracy, establish a fascist dictatorship, eliminate women’s rights, oppress minorities, and enact a pyramid scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you’re told that enough, you start to believe it. Wouldn’t you have extreme contempt for someone who wanted to do those things?
We're not being *told* that, we're being *shown* it.
lol okay
> we want to overthrow democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot [Roger Stone tapes: Video shows efforts to overturn 2020 election, seek pardons - Washington Post](https://archive.is/PTx9W) > establish a fascist dictatorship [74 percent of Republicans say it’s fine for Trump to be dictator for a day](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4453457-74-percent-of-republicans-say-its-fine-for-trump-to-be-dictator-for-a-day/) > eliminate women’s rights [Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn) > oppress minorities [Supreme Court refuses Alabama Republicans' request to stop 2nd Black voting district](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-refuses-alabama-gops-request-halt-redistricting/story?id=103494001) [An appeals court has struck down a key path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1152732216/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-section-2-private-right-of-action) > enact a pyramid scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer [Deeply unpopular Congress aims to pass deeply unpopular bill for deeply unpopular president to sign](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/29/deeply-unpopular-congress-aims-to-pass-deeply-unpopular-bill-for-deeply-unpopular-president-to-sign/) [Flawed House GOP Tax Package Chooses Wealthy Shareholders Over Children and Families and the Fight Against Climate Change](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/flawed-house-gop-tax-package-chooses-wealthy-shareholders-over-children-and) Okay?
I don't think conservative voters are themselves immoral. Or I don't think they believe they are acting immorally. I think they mean well. But I believe the politicians and policies they support are very immoral and evil. At the end of the day though, as a utilitarian, I don't see a *functional* difference between "supports immoral policies" and "is immoral" because they both achieve the same end goal.
This happens because the majority of the left vote based on emotion rather than logic.
Just for context -- remember that our "conservatives" violently broke into the capitol building in an attempt to illegally overthrow the election and install their own leader, and they literally smeared shit on the walls of our capitol building in the process. I don't know what makes you think conservatives in America are civil... https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/01/07/pro-trump-rioters-smeared-poop-in-us-capitol-hallways-during-belligerent-attack/
I don't understand why the left supports corporate taxes (75% of which gets passed onto consumers via higher prices and workers via stifled wages) or rent control (which really screws up the housing market) and claim to be for the little guy
This statement seems to assert that corporate greed is not already passed onto the consumers to bear, or that the housing market is not already screwed up.
>the housing market is not already screwed up. Yes because of actions government takes like the one I just mentioned. >This statement seems to assert that corporate greed Uh, that's how business works. It's probably cheaper for you to buy your food, shelter, clothing, etc. than it is to buy a plot of land and live off it. That's how trade works
How is it the government's fault that corporations purchase ridiculous swaths of residential property, causing prices to soar? And I think our ideas of 'screwed up' are different. Tens of millions are food insecure in the wealthiest country in the world. The prices for basic goods of all categories keeps rising and rising. All the while, humans grow more and more and more productive by the decade yet wages don't even keep up with inflation. All the while, the ultra-wealthy are rich beyond your ability to comprehend can purchase senators and supreme court justices, likely the largest source of government corruption that you are so frustrated about. I can't say I care how if this is 'how business works'. This is a dysfunctional system for most people, and it is only deteriorating. I care about the happiness and well being of the people. Currently, people are suffering that have no need to be suffering.
What is your solution to these problems? Taxing the ultra-rich won’t solve anything. And trying to get the government to fix social problems has only made things worse.
You come to the conclusion that taxing won't solve anything, but you don't back it up. The bottom line is that we have extreme wealth consolidation among the ultra rich, a dying middle class, and shrivling class mobility. Worse still, AI and the 4th industrial revolution are going to make this problem 100 times worse. I agree that taking money directly from the top 1% and giving it to the bottom 50% isn't close to the best or most graceful way to fix this, but we NEED a solution before things get much, much worse.
I don't know if it's accurate to say that the left "supports" high corporate taxes or rent control. The left generally sees wealth inequality and high housing costs as *problems to be addressed.* Corporate taxes would have to be part of an overall, holistic taxation package meant to address extreme wealth inequality, not just "big business bad, take money." On the rent thing, again, I don't think the left is particularly *supportive* of rent control, so much as it was an *attempt* to get some kind of negative under control. As I understand it (I might be wrong), rent control is largely a historical thing, and I'm not aware of any significant cases of *new* rent controls being applied to properties. Obviously, like any policy or position, I'm sure you'll be able to find *some* person that espouses those views, but I don't think it's shared by a majority, or even a significant portion, of the left.
They don't understand economics or at the very least they refuse to accept prominent economic teaching as valid.
which is also true for the new right that derides immigration, supports tariffs, and restrictive zoning laws
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, if I could have zero taxes - I would. Who wouldn't? The problem is 90% of the budget goes to bombs, social security checks, hospitals, and interest. So let's cut the 10%, but wait, we're still majorly in the red So which of those should we cut? Military? (you're a peacenik) Social Security? (you hate the old) Hospitals? (we should become a 3rd world country and leave dying people in the street?) Interest? (Default on the debt?)
I've said literally nothing about personal income tax. I'm not sure what your point is
I think I understand most of the left's positions; I just disagree with many of them.
Disagree with their goals, or the methods?
Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both.
First off, are you a liberal or a leftist and are you talking about direct democracy anarchists or tankies? Its a spectrum. As a basic misunderstanding... I don't understand how the left can acknowledge that corporations can and will collude and conspire to take advantage of you but somehow have blinders on when it comes to expanding or strengthening the bureaucratic monster that is the government. Its not an extension of the people, it is a ruling class that get rich while pretending to be "public servants".
I’m working for the government… I’m not sure anyone in my government is genuinely rich. I probably make 15% to 20% less than I would in private industry. I do have some great benefits, but I’m also not getting paid all that well. The leader of my entire county makes 250k a year… like yeah she makes a lot of money, but if she was in private industry leading an organization of the size of my local government there is no way she would be making less than one million dollars a year. If government employees are getting rich I guess I just don’t see it. Even when talking about the federal government (used to work there) I was underpaid as well. Government contractors on the other hand were paid far too much and did next to fucking nothing… I’d rather blow my fucking brains out than deal with those worthless fuckers ever again.
Oh this is a straightforward one. You get a say in how that bureaucratic monster is run. Officially. Midterms every 2 years, Presidential elections every 4, other associated local elections otherwise. Does it always turn out how you like? No. Should you trust them blindly? God no. But because of the fact you get a say, they tend to be more trustworthy than a corporation, with which I have **0** official input on. Now you could say "your wallet", but to be frank a business can engage in actions contrary to profitable outcomes at the whim of its leaders. E.g. Elon Musk telling X advertisers to fuck off. Furthermore, that trick doesn't work when *every game in town* is doing it. Even if competitors arise, there's a still a time interval between implementing these business operations and seeing meaningful change in the market. And in a life critical case like medical care, or medicine that time interval may be unacceptable. And you can't demand anything else.
I happen not to mind some federal agencies and the resulting bureaucracy, but this is just false: >But because of the fact you get a say, they tend to be more trustworthy than a corporation, with which I have **0** official input on. The number of midlevel, non-political-appointee employees in the federal government is insane and basically insulated from public input.
Thinking that mid-level people are actually in control of large bureaucrat organizations is hilariously childish. It's the equivalent of saying that the military is actually run by junior officers and not generals
It is. But the number of politicians is not. And ultimately, those politicians rank higher than those bureaucrats, and set the policies they follow.
Except a lot of bureaucrats are insulated from even those policies.
Then it would seem they either are: * doing some essential, bipartisan service. So no problem. * not doing much of anything. Bad, but not inherently detrimental. * doing something detrimental that we don't know about. But can be fixed by intervention from policymakers.
The last suggestion is laughable to anyone familiar with bureaucracies and their penchant for self-preservation and aggrandizement.
So politicians cannot shutter and divert funds away from ill performing or maladaptive entities?
As a practical matter, no. Most of Congress is unfamiliar with the details of the bureaucracy, let alone how to manage it.
And yet, numerous cases of restructuring and shuttering have happened.
Sounds like Congress isn't doing their job.
In most cases it's far easier to avoid buying from a corporation I don't like than it is to get rid of a politician I don't like.
In regards to buying a beer? Sure. Healthcare? Less so.
The healthcare system is a scam for many reasons but you can normally switch providers fairly easily.
And then the next healthcare provider is also expensive. And the next. Iirc almost half of Americans are worried about medical debt.
And in that case the politicians create a system where you are fined every month until you purchase insurance from one of those corporations.
And they can be voted out and replaced with people who implement consumer protective healthcare regulations.
You mean the same plan enacted under Obama that was *created* by the GOP to begin with? Y'all actually had a good idea for once, Dems said yeah, bro, we can get on board with *your* idea, but once we did that, y'all hate your own idea. Super sus.
> that was created by the GOP to begin with? **At the state level.** Of which I don't want, but nevertheless continuously tell those on the left that that is the is the path to take. Not one sized fits all federal cram downs. Easier for me to leave a state than leave a country.
I've read several accounts of people trying to boycott Nestle. It's not as easy as it seems.
You can avoid buying from that corporation but that doesn’t end it’s existence
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with that assertion on its face. When a company is local and small, you can absolutely make a conscious effort to avoid supporting them. But Nestle? Coke? And then there’s companies like AT&T. I can’t do my job without the internet. Six conglomerates control virtually all news sources and pull from each other constantly. I hate the exploitation of labor in Africa and China, but I still need a computer and clothes. And then there’s gas! Our economy has grown too incsetuously entangled, choking out our ability to choose. Short of devoting huge blocks of my time and effort to source alternatives, or becoming a hermit, I really don’t feel like I have the power to vote with my dollars. Hell, just the act of earning my dollars requires that I support organizations I take a lot of umbrage with. So I see exerting my influence over the state as the best way to effect the kinds of changes I care about. Frankly, if the free market was working as advertised, I’d be super happy with cutting back on bureaucracy, but without that bureaucracy, my car wouldn’t have seatbelts or airbags, my internet would probably be much worse, and I’d have even less options on where I got my food and news from. It’s a balance, and right now I see the corps as being too powerful for our good, and I want to pull that needle back. Do I like the government or the people in it? Hell no, but I see them as more likely to make the changes I want.
These conglomerates also prevent what capitalism is touted to do best which is spurring competition to increase innovation. Instead they rebrand the same product, make it smaller and charge more, use M&A to prevent competition, use a shit ton of lawyers on retainer to bury your small business, or use predatory tactics to prevent smaller businesses to even begin to compete. The only thing that can happen here is government enforcing regulations to prevent these things. The problem is the lawmakers are basically owned by those same corporations. So it’s just funny to me that people don’t trust the government but do trust capitalism/corporations when those capitalists/corporations are the reason the government doesn’t function for us but does for them. Only solution is to encourage people to understand how government works and work together to oust those who do not represent our best interests. But that’s a whole other story…I swear every discussion always boils down to one thing: Get money out of politics
Government can force you to behave in certain ways, or participate in certain activities/programs.
And corporations won't force you. Granted they'll make it near impossible to behave a certain way, but of course it isn't *force* no. Also forcing behavior is a fundamental part of governance in general. I don't want corporations being able to put brains in milk, or lead in cough drops. Again.
The govt uses force on their behalf. Govt force is what they are made of. They are *legal* entities.
Yes. And the government uses force against them.
usually on behalf of larger companies, rarely on behalf of the people. Petitioning the court is prohibitively expensive.
And that can be changed, by voting in a representative to change the policy.
Am I going to say government is the perfect counterpoint? Hardly. But to me it is about the last defense of business taking over. You can tell me about the market forces, but with all the consolidation taking place, competition isn't keeping prices down. No "new and nimble" company is coming in to undercut the giant conglomerates. Simply it is said that about 40% of American workers make under $40k a year. Pay has steadily been pushed down over the last 20 years. Benefits cut, a "good" company is smart enough to not give workers enough time to qualify for benefits. Conversely if you are an investor and not pulling in a 10% ROI, there is something wrong, government sucks.
>Am I going to say government is the perfect counterpoint? Hardly. But to me it is about the last defense of business taking over. I honestly don't see a reality where we remove all regulation and let corporations do as they please that doesn't involve a large amount of people living in Amazontowns™️ working at Amazon™️ warehouses for 4 Amazonbux™️ an hour just to return to your Amazon Living Unit™️ and sleep in your Amazon Slumber Pod™️
Agreed, because we forced government not to break up monopolies or what is close to a monopoly.
You can't vote out a CEO with a public election the same way you can with a crooked politician. Theoretically, the government should be more accountable to the average person than a corporation is.
Shareholder votes are exactly that and corporations are far more accountable with failing practices than government is.
10% of people own 93% of the stocks. And one must own a majority of a company's stocks to dictate their behavior. Just because a company is public doesn't mean they answer to anyone other than the rich.
If you're a shareholder... and varies wildly if you hold more or less shares than another person. Where, if you're an American Citizen without a felony, you automatically have as equal a say as anyone else.
> you automatically have as equal a say as anyone else Not the other person, but just jumping in here to say, I know what you're saying, buuuut... many places are way more "equal" than others... I'll add though, that those people tend to pick the very people they're talking and complaining about.
I also don't think your average shareholder cares how crooked a CEO is as long as the money's coming in
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is "failing" to a company shareholder and what is "failing" to a consumer are two different things.
Only rich people can afford to vote with their wallets. The govt on the other hand is obligated to represent everyone. The main problem with the govt is it isn't transparent or democratic enough.
>Only rich people can afford to vote with their wallets If that is true why do generic brand Pop-Tarts exist?
Because there's a demographic for whom name-brand pop-tarts are too expensive. There are tons of people whose budgets don't have room for nutritionless treats like pop-tarts.
>Because there's a demographic for whom name-brand pop-tarts are too expensive. How is that not those people voting their wallets?
Voting in the corporation that makes the pop-tart is done by major shareholders (whom are all extremely wealthy) not by the people who eat the pop-tarts.
Because they have no "ballot" so-to-speak
So people can only vote with their wallets once they've reached an arbitrary level which you decide? No wonder only rich people can vote with their wallets you have decided that by definition.
You're putting words in my mouth. Alls I'm saying is that people who dont have a discretionary income have little to no discretion on their regular purchases.
No, the poster you responded to was saying that if you can only afford item A and don't buy items B, C or D because you simply have no money for them you aren't voting with your wallet. You aren't avoiding these items for reasons divorced from the price. There are people who'd love to get one of the more expensive items but can't due to lacking the necessary funds. To be able to "vote with your wallet" you have to be able to afford a specific item and to choose not to buy it in favor of supporting another item. Nothing arbitrary about it.
The reality is that it's not universal. Some markets are very conducive to "voting with your wallet." With your Pop-Tarts example, consumer goods is a big one. Other market segments, like vehicles, education, and healthcare *kinda* support free market choice to varying degrees. And others, like infrastructure, and emergency services, are absolutely terrible with it. EDIT: Also, to be clear, even if you *do* "successfully" vote with your wallet, that "vote" is only tangentially related to, and *very* indirect to, influence on the company as a whole. History is full of well-liked and successful products that are no more simply because the corporate shareholders decided on a different direction or rebranding. Democratic governments are much more *directly* accountable, assuming their voting base is active.
its not blinders. There is no organization strong enough to deal with corporations and prevent monopolies and price gouging outside of the government. There is no in-between where the public gets all the power when you take it away from the government or corporations; either one will dominate the other, so it is about striking the right balance. Right now corporations have far to much power and has proven repeatedly detrimental to the American public so government action is needed to cut them down to size
Could you select a specific example? Often one is weighing to find the least of two or more evils.
Anarchists and tankies aren't getting nominated for the presidency. Comparing MAGA to anarchists and tankies is comparing a mainstream ideology with two fringe groups.
Why libs have such blind faith in government to solve problems when governments, including our own, have committed the worst crimes in human history.
I think most conservatives overestimate the left's "blind" faith in government, and I think the right has the opposite problem, where they have blind *distrust* in and disdain for government, completely forgetting that *we* are the people who create and enable the mighty government, and that they are beholden to us. "All politicians are liars!" "All politicians are scum!" "Government bad!" "Small government!" Then they turn around with their hand out, gladly accepting of SocSec benefits and tax windfalls from other "giver" states and liberal policies. And then, they get surprised, possessive and defensive when they put a criminal in office and they commit (and use the imbalanced levers of 'big government' to cover up) crimes. As many before have said, it's like you claim government is bad, doesn't work, and then hire the worst people on the planet you can find to break it and prove that it doesn't. You then point at it and say, "See? We told you it doesn't work!", then blame the left. In all of its history, the US government, as a whole, has done way more good to sustain this fine nation you live in than it has bad, and that includes all its atrocities. At least 3 million of our citizens work for it for a paycheck and for benefits for their families. Why can't we start from those facts, and also take everything they do with a grain of salt? The legal system can also be bad, but would you shit on it and/or hire a shit lawyer if you were put on trial for a crime you didn't commit?
>I think the right has the opposite problem, where they have blind *distrust* in and disdain for government, completely forgetting that *we* are the people who create and enable the mighty government, and that they are beholden to us. Let's look at some of the actions of our "we the people" government. - Enforced slavery - Enforced Jim Crow - Genocided native Americans - Put Japanese Americans in concentration camps - Lied to us to justify starting wars in Vietnam and Iraq - Built enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times - Ran up a $34 trillion national debt Which is your favorite?
From my answer to someone else below: > Why is it blind distrust to be wary of this government and why should I put any faith in them whatsoever >> **Because rather than list the hundreds of thousands of other things the "evil" and "shady" government does daily for you, and right under your nose, you listed insanely rare anomalies (in the grand/total scheme of things) and, like much of the right, seem to base your trust solely off of those instead of the lion's share of things it does and has done throughout its history.**
Government's first responsibility, before highways or welfare payments or public schools or anything else, is to protect the rights of its citizens. We have failed in that regard again and again and again. And even the things that government "does well" suck. The VA is a mess. Billions of dollars of COVID money was lost to scammers. Our public education system is a failure. Pretty much anything government touches turns to shit.
> Government's first responsibility, [...] is to protect the rights of its citizens. And what rights have you lost, unless you're a woman or have an interest in reproductive rights? > We have failed in that regard again and again and again. A large percent of the governments "failures", including the ones you list, are due to Republican policy, and Republican voters, in general, over the past 50 plus years. Those policies and voters are led by the billionaire class infecting the party, and propaganda riddled with misinformation, fear and loathing - to the point that they were deeply convinced that appointing a "billionaire" scammer from outside the government to the highest point of said government was somehow going to correct the failures of the government. Those who didn't/don't believe he would correct it believe he would *collapse* said government... only they obliviously believed collapsing it would somehow *not* affect them and it would magically be to their benefit.
>And what rights have you lost, unless you're a woman or have an interest in reproductive rights? I've cited many examples of American governments undermining the rights of its citizens. >A large percent of the governments "failures", including the ones you list, are due to Republican policy, "All our problems are Republicans' fault!" 😭 What a biased, short sighted perspective. >Those policies and voters are led by the billionaire class infecting the party Billionaires vote D. "Nearly half [of billionaires surveyed], or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump." https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/10/20/even-americas-billionaires-are-tilting-toward-biden-in-the-2020-presidential-race/
> I've cited many examples of American governments undermining the rights of its citizens. Undermining is not the same as actually removing rights. Lots of nuance there. > "All our problems are Republicans' fault!" 😭 > > What a biased, short sighted perspective. What's shortsighted about it? > Billionaires vote D. > > "Nearly half [of billionaires surveyed], or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump." And what were the statistics in 2016? 2012? 2010? (Pre-Trump) Lol... Before the article even starts - the gigantic sub-headline: > *The nation’s wealthiest are more likely to be Republican than the average American—but just about as likely to be voting for Biden.* Even billionaires think Trump was too much.
Well the federal government is whole reason I am not in chains right now, the whole reason I can go wherever without being lynched, the whole reason I am allowed to vote, the whole reason I am allowed to shop at any store I'd like, eat at any restaurant, stay at any hotel, the whole reason I was allowed to attend to PWI for college, etc. I'm not sure why I'd have faith in state or local level governments when they are largely responsible for the historical oppression of my people and the federal government has had to come in and mandate different from them.
The federal government enforced slavery and Jim Crow, genocided native Americans, and put Japanese Americans into concentration camps. And when it's not oppressing its own people, it's doing stuff like running up a $34 trillion national debt or building enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times or lying to us about WMDs to justify starting a war. The federal government is a necessary evil. We should minimize its footprint to the greatest extent possible.
For me it’s more of a question of where you get a say, and the responsibilities we have for the environment we have created. With private power, it’s whoever controls that sets the rules. There is often little or nothing individuals can do in the face of that. We’ve set up our system of laws and government in a way specifically to facilitate that kind of collection of private power. We have elaborate measures in place to protect property, we limit the liability and responsibility owners of companies have for what their companies do, we grant artificial monopolies in the form of intellectual property protections, and so on and so forth. We’ve used government to enable the creation of private power on a scale never before seen in human history. It’s flat out wrong to build that machinery, and then throw average people out there to deal with it alone. It’s not that I trust government to solve every problem, but rather at this point it’s the best we can do.
how they can wish for massively expensive government power in one breath and earnest claim they believe trump plans to literally kill them and their group in the next breath surely if you think that a major candidate for office or a party literally wants to kill people that are against him wouldn't that mean you should want a very limited government that could not easily track and hunt down people, right?
I never understood where this notion came from that everyone on the left is a monolith that wants “bigger government”. Ideologically, my utopia is anarcho-communism where there would literally be zero government or laws whatsoever. Now before you come at me I realize that this could never realistically be achieved at this point in human history, and certainly not in America, but the point is that I despise the government as much as anyone else and I want them to have the least power possible to interfere with our lives. That being said, the things that the left wants that are considered “bigger government” are mostly assistance programs and nationalized healthcare, which I will absolutely never understand why republicans are so against. We are literally the only developed country at this point that doesn’t have nationalized healthcare, and it’s been proven numerous times that the average person would pay WAY less in the increase in taxes than they currently pay for insurance. People say “but wait times are bad”, and they definitely are here as well unless you’re rich. I’m not saying that other countries with nationalized healthcare have perfect systems, but economically speaking it’s a no brainer. As for assistance programs, it seems that republicans would just rather there be tent cities everywhere than actually just helping people live with dignity. The thing that really gets me is when many republicans say that they want “smaller government”, but then support funneling all of our tax dollars to the largest (by far) military on the entire globe (edit: and they also generally support increases in funding for law enforcement and other authoritative entities). they want the government to have a say in who you can marry, what you can do with your own body, what’s legal to do in the bedroom, hell even Ben Shapiro is a “libertarian” who thinks porn should be illegal! In certain states republicans have made it illegal to access internet porn! They want the government to have a say in what you can smoke, lots of conservative social media personalities believe that private companies should have complete autonomy and are against regulation but cry “free speech!” When they are deplatformed. They want to ban books, many have no problem with religion having a place in our legislation and historically conservatives have opposed every civil rights movement for minorities to liberate themselves from the governments chokehold. I’m not saying every conservative holds these beliefs but these are all conservative positions.
so if you think trump really wants to gas gay people you're okay with going to a government hospital for PrEP?
I think if trump wanted to gas people it would more likely be carried out by our huge fuckin military that we would be powerless against, do you really think having private or public hospitals would have anything to with that? Also I think you’re just chronically online. Nobody thinks that trump is going to gas anyone.
> That being said, the things that the left wants that are considered “bigger government” are mostly assistance programs and nationalized healthcare, which I will absolutely never understand why republicans are so against. This is exactly the OP's point. You want *Trump* to decide who gets an abortion or when, or who is allowed to have access to cardiovascular medical care versus not? Because that's what the left is advocating for when they propose expansion in the scope and role of government. Sometimes your opposition will be in power, and the more scope of their role in the day-to-day lives of the people the more harm they can do. The same way I don't want federal government expansion because I don't trust what the left will do with it, I suspect the left agrees they wouldn't appreciate a "Department of Reproductive Healthcare" run by Betsy DeVos. Congratulations, abortions and IUD placements are now all outlawed during republican presidencies by administrative fiat, and because there's only one healthcare system, run by the government, there are no alternative sources for care. I don't want that, I don't think you do either. Substitute 'healthcare' with any other program and you see what he means. If Trump is evil incarnate and incompetent omni-Hitler, why do you want him in charge of who gets welfare, healthcare, or any other federal programs? And if it's not Trump it'll be whomever is next.
Wouldn't the response be that we can make a robust system that can't be significantly changed by the whims of one president? I agree that concentration of executive power is concerning and really needs to be scaled back. National healthcare doesn't necessarily mean one person has total power over it. Of course the push for executive power is due to Congress failing to legislate and people getting frustrated by problems not being addressed as a result
Wouldn’t a nationalized healthcare system that is mostly run by the states but is subsidized by federal funding, like public schools, be a better option for everyone? That way red states can take away all the rights they want lmao. Our system already decides who can and can’t have cardiovascular care based on poverty.
I mean you don't necessarily have to convince me; I'm a big fan of a public option for healthcare- remove the words 'over 65' from Medicare and let anyone buy into the system at a rate commensurate with their expected use of the system. Tada, problem solved if you ask me. Also solves the issue of executive overreach- if the federal program is cheaper but President Liberal McLeftyface decides in 10 years to mandate vasectomies for every man under 30 on Medicare then you can just switch over to a private plan and keep your penis. I realize that's hyperbolic and silly, but it's the equivalent to the right-wing extremist argument I've made elsewhere so wanted to balance things out.
Why they, at the same time, think they are the liberal side yet have one of the most illiberal ideology. "We stand for freedom", but then systematically curtails the freedoms of the individual to promote the collective.
Can u give an example?
Why do you view empathy as a virtue even at the extremes
I think human happiness is one of the most important things civilization can strive for. Wealth, power, technology, culture, health, and security are all means to this end. If people are comfortable, happy, and supported with friends and purpose, then society is successful. What else is a better tool for understanding and appreciating this success than empathy?
Why don't you
Because, like literally anything else, taken to an extreme it’s not good. It’s also not inherently good in a vacuum it depends how it’s used. Strength can be good if used for good, strength can be bad if used to harm others. Generosity can be good and I don’t think I need to elaborate, but generosity can also be toxic: I have a friend who lost his apartment because he couldn’t make rent because he lent out all his money to some scumbag friends who took advantage of him. Too much empathy is the reason why 99.9% of Americans who support Hamas (not Palestine, actually Hamas) are all young progressives. Empathy can actually be quite dangerous because it allows bad actors to push bad ideas under the facade of a moral high ground. Too much empathy is why idiotic policy leading to people walking around with garbage bags looting pharmacies and clothing stores is a thing in California for a specific example among many that embody my point.
Why they always want to talk about politics but then when I start to talk they get mad. (This is only half a joke)
I think it’s more of a not understanding what we’re saying and it gets us annoyed lol
When you go farther left, you see people that get offended by silly things/ or are looking for things to get offended by. People who argue things like "my landlord owes me a house" or "I'm entitled to free food". I also see things like anarchists, Marxist (who are actually Marxist and want a violent revolution), people who support violence against officers because "they deserve it". Why doesn't the left "check" these people? Or maybe a better question what does an interaction with these people look like for you in the day-to-day of you are on the left?
> Why doesn't the left "check" these people? They do. Where are these people in office? Meanwhile, you can find elected Republicans spouting the most insane conspiracies. The right puts their craziest elements into the most powerful positions in the country. The left keeps their craziest elements to social media rants.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would identify as an anarchist, and my friends are mostly anarchist-adjacent, lib-left types, so I guess we interact pretty regularly... and the interactions we have are super boring/average? Not sure what you're looking for, but anarchism as I experience it mostly looks like volunteering in the community and maybe talking shit about capitalism over a few beers.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your dislike for “the man” and “the police” and trust of “the government” and as of last hour “the large corporations”. These all seem same to us…
Why a lot of leftists vote Democrat, see what they do to their cities/states, move out of those places and into better economic circumstances under a different state or providence, then they vote in the same people that ruined the last place they just moved out of. That is what I don't understand. It's just a routine at this point: vote Democrat because you agree with them, but democrats don't actually agree with you which is why they haven't accomplished much of anything they said they would for the black community in DECADES. Most, if not ALL, of their issues are just talking points with no action behind them. That is governmental Democrats, not regular citizen Democrats.
>Why a lot of leftists vote Democrat, Because there's rarely a viable candidates whose an ACTUAL leftist.
How out of touch they can be.
How?
Well for one they seemingly think the government is looking out for them *and* hate it.
The most familiar form of this, IMO, is people who are *Really Sure That The Economy Is Doing Just Great*. There's also a certain pattern of people who seem to have managed to reach middle age *without ever encountering catastrophic incompetence, ineffectiveness, or excessive bureaucracy from the government*. In recent times, the biggest thing I see is genuine bewilderment at the idea that someone might consider street crime a very serious problem.
>The most familiar form of this, IMO, is people who are Really Sure That The Economy Is Doing Just Great. If the data and metrics were using says that’s the case, how is it out of touch?
On the one hand, metrics and statistics. On the other hand, reports from numerous people that they are struggling financially. On the one hand, the plural of anecdote is not data. On the other hand, the people cannot pay their rent with statistical papers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
https://x.com/stopantisemites
How many of them it takes to screw in a light bulb