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.*
True. One thing that Limbaugh did that absolutely is a good thing is save talk radio. You might disagree with him but he expanded free speech and gave opportunities to more people to have a voice on talk radio and later podcasts.
This might not have even been his intention but because of his success it made it easier for others to have a voice and succeed and he expanded a genre that was on its way out.
You know literally nothing about the Southern Strategy. Nixon's Southern Strategy was a focus on the sunbelt which was rapidly moving towards industrialization, and to vote Republican along with the northern states.
It was not only not an attempt to court the racists of the Deep South, Nixon in fact lost the Deep South to his Democrat opponent and segregationist, George Wallace.
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 know of the conservative radio pundits but who were some of the liberal or progressive radio pundits? I don’t recall any significant liberal or progressive radio hosts.
progressives have late night comedy they way conservatives have talk radio. every late night comedy show lens progressive, save Real time. Daily show, Last week tonight, Seth Myers, Kimmel and Colbert.
Conservatives have radio, liberals have pop culture.
Examples: mainstream publications like [*Rolling Stone*](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/) and [Cosmopolitan](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a61143979/lgbtq-abortion-dobbs-pride/) are not historically political publications, yet they regularly publish political content- *always* from a leftist perspective. (Both of these links were not hard to find- I clicked on them from the top half of the home page.).
TV shows regularly get political, pushing stories about social issues that nearly always paint the liberal side in a more positive light than the conservative side.
Hardly
"*Howard Stern Tells Off Critics Who Say He’s ‘Woke’ Now: I’m Anti-Trump, Pro-Vaccine and Support Transgender People… ‘I Am Woke, Motherf—er’*"
https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/howard-stern-woke-tells-off-critics-trump-vaccines-1235729247/
Is that actually realistic?
Sure, this matches people up to fight more, but people still have such deep foundational disagreements. I don't think this will make things any more compatible.
It would certainly help.
Social media gives anonymity. Hard to talk the same amount of shit to someone when you’re in literal punching distance.
Social media also amplifies the extreme voices.
Before social media, the village idiots were ridiculed into insignificance.
Now, the village idiot can connect with 10,000 other village idiots, make themselves appointed a power mod and control the narrative for millions of people.
Not to mention, it’s far more productive having face-to-face conversations.
I noticed that it changed with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. That made it us vs them. I used to be a republican. But I reserve the right to criticize republicans and democrats like the mainstream media. I don’t want bias. I want the truth. Trump is not the truth. The recent Supreme Court decision has not only made him a king, but taken away any transparency for his “private meetings”. This gives enormous power to the incumbent. If you all cannot see what Donald Trump is, I fear for our country.
>Social media gives anonymity.
>Now, the village idiot can connect with 10,000 other village idiots, make themselves appointed a power mod and control the narrative for millions of people.
>Not to mention, it’s far more productive having face-to-face conversations.
AMEN TO THAT
It won't but Republicans were used to electing milk toast Republicans that didn't fight back. Trump came along and changed that. He saved and destroyed the Republican party. I won't be voting for him but I understand why people do. Many people don't even like him yet think he is still better than Biden.
Honestly, the bitterness was there, but Trump was a huge catalyst. The left is upset because we see Trump as an absolute criminal moron. He was able to put mechanisms is place to increase his power.
He’s probably going to be president again. After yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, he’ll be free to unleash his delusional retribution. It’s going to be 4 years of him focused on revenge as opposed to the taking care of the issues necessary to lead our country.
It’s going to be so bad that the mistake of re electing him will be obvious. It may wake us up. His actions will be apparent to all but the dumbest. His leadership may be so bad it helps to bring us together.
Its a long shot but well see.
Maybe the Democrats should run someone better. Their overreach and political prosecution of their enemies doesn't help either. I wish we had better options and I will be voting third party but if Trump wins the Democrats are to blame.
Trump was not a catalyst.
Former leftist here. The left hates Trump because they hated all Republicans. They had been doing this shit LONG before Trump even descended on that escalator, accusing everyone who opposed Obama of racism, declaring anyone right-of-center to be every horrible thing in the book. They had been getting steadily worse over years, and continue to do so.
The Democrats have been doing shit to increase their power and wield the government against their political opponents for years, and their base just cheers them on and justifies it. The left absolutely does not give a fuck about the abuse of power or corruption - ESPECIALLY if it works in their favor.
The only thing Trump did that pissed them off was compete. The left don't care about anything else AT ALL. They just know they are told to hate him, and nothing more.
And a big part of the problem is that they refuse to accept that. "Easier to fool a man than it is to convince a man he's been fooled."
As a former liberal, i Concur.
Trump was the mask of moment for the left, the right picked him in response to decades of Mockery desperate for some one to fight back and the left couldn't handle the afront.
as some one who grew up watching the Jon Stewart, i honestly think The Daily Show is partly to blame.
Well that's ridiculous to actually believe that the left just hates trump because they hate Republicans; that none of the criticisms are founded in any rational thought whatsoever. If you're speaking from experience as a leftist, is that why *you* disliked trump? Either way, you literally cant defend that argument with any substance.
As a leftist myself, I dislike him for many reasons specific to his personal behavior. This includes holding federal aid hostage due to political grievances. And one thing that really bothers me is the cronyism. Appointing a friend of big oil to head the EPA is destructive.
I’m sorry sir, if you can’t see Trumps obvious deficiencies, I think you have a blind spot. I’m sorry you have been feeling hated by the left. Is there any possibility your perceptions do not match reality?
“Perceptions don’t match reality”?
Is it possible yours doesn’t?
This shit has been going on for a long time.
Here’s a leftist explaining it in detail and how we got here.
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
My perceptions often don’t match reality. The difference is that I’m smart enough to accept it. I work hard every day to get closer to the truth.
Have you done a critique of Trump? Do you really think he would be good for the country?
Given the Democrats spent four years pushing Biden and saying "he's not in cognitive decline", don't you think that accusing others of "blind spots" to "the obvious deficiencies" of anyone is maybe not exactly a winning move? Everyone left-of-center -- heck even the moderate left - could see it, and yet the hangers on kept denying it. Heck, some people are STILL denying it! 'He had a cold at that debate otherwise he would have wiped the floor with Trump!'
I never denied he is old. Old people sometimes don’t do well at night. It was bad, there’s no getting around it. Trumps probably going to win. If he does, you will see why so many are opposed. The Supreme Court opened the door for him to tear the country apart.
Biden did better last night when commenting on the Supreme Court. He did better the next day at the rally.
At the debate, Trump told multiple aggregous falsehoods. The biggest was that everyone wanted Roe overturned.
My candidate is old but he has good intentions. Trump has too many negatives plus he’s delusional.
He is aging. It was important to have someone who had beaten Trump. That’s how much Dems did not like Trump. At least, 45% of Dems say he should step down. I defended him and would still against Trump. I don’t have a crystal ball, but Kamala is better than Trump. Why has Trump been talking to Putin? Flynn was making phones call to him from Panama and making promises to release sanctions. This idea that Putin is scared of Trump? Trump, personally, withheld aid to Ukraine! Paul Manafort lead his 2016 campaign? He was working for the Russian placed president of Ukraine and lobbied for other foreign dictators.
> The left hates Trump because they hated all Republicans
I don't hate all Republicans, just the ones that slander POWs and push lies about election fraud to the point that civil discourse is a thing of the past.
There isn't an election the Democrats have lost that they haven't claimed their opponent cheated on in several decades now, and they make fun of literally EVERYONE who opposes them, INCLUDING POWs.
American culture needs to swallow a big pill of humility. The biggest reason how I see media driving polarization is that it plays into our arrogance. You can go on TYT and listen to Ana Kasparian tell you how dumb conservatives are and how much better & smarter you are for being liberal. At the same time, you can turn on the Daily Wire and listen to Ben Shapiro tell you how dumb liberals are and how much better & smarter you are for being conservative. It's only through humility and recognizing the value our opponents bring to the table will we be able to pull out of this spiral of polarization.
Not sure how it would be accomplished, but more interaction with people who you personally disagree with. Conservatives should spend time in large, diverse cities, and progressives should spend time in rural America. I can’t help but feel that a lot of people have simply never really tried to understand the other side.
I don’t need to ask what rural and conservative Americans are about, I grew up with them and most of my family are both. I think there are more people who grew up rural and moved to big cities than the other way around.
I’ve seen a lot of rural conservatives intentionally outgroup themselves - they’re not nearly as much of a mystery to the rest of us that they seemingly want to be.
There is a nationwide program where they match you with a stranger that has the opposite point of view and you talk on zoom for an hour. I did it a few years ago. I am trying to figure out what it was called. It was a cool program, does anyone know the name of it?
The best ways I can think of are
1. Do away with partisan gerrymandering and have the courts or nonpartisan commissions create House and State legislative districts.
2. Do away with partisan primaries and replace them with the Alaskan system of open jungle primaries where the top four vote getters move onto the general election. Use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in the general.
The above would 1) stop politicians from choosing their voters and 2) would enable people to vote **for** candidates they want rather **against** candidates they don't want.
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.*
100%.
That would also reduce the importance of Federal govt races and politics in general.
Right now, the Fed Govt races are higher stakes than they should be.
Completely agree. People care because they feel there is so much power in DC and so much at stake. If you go back to the government model in the early days of the country, there just isn’t as much to get worked up about with respect to the federal government.
I'll take DC any day over the pure fucking corruption I have seen in local government. Localization makes it easier to get away with shit not harder. The media doesn't pay attention.
If a Trump is so bad, I’d rather have him be a mayor than a president. The stupidity can be confined. The stakes are lower in local government, so the normies have a shot.
That'll just balkanize the USA further.
Here are my suggestions, which may require Constitutional Amendments:
1. Limit gerrymandering. One proposal is to limit all jurisdiction polygons to 6 lines or 7 lines.
2. Diminish the two-party-system by borrowing ideas from other democracies. There is no perfect system, but ours gets a "D".
3. Make it easier to vote so that more centrists vote. The fervent end-points are overrepresented.
4. Split President into Domestic and Foreign Affairs.
5. Make Federal DOJ a 4th branch to reduce influence by Prez.
6. Use "decimal allocation" of Electoral College votes to make candidates have to court all the states instead of just swing states. (It doesn't diminish the "extra power" of smaller states the EC gives, just changes how votes are tallied to make it finer-grained. I personally would like to see EC eliminated, but that would never pass.)
7. Require teaching of critical thinking and logic in grade school. The course doesn't have to mention political issues, just explain and illustrate the common fallacies. \[Added\]
>That'll just balkanize the USA further.
That's going to happen regardless. What it will do is allow each side to have space to do things they way they want to do them. The one size fits all approach is going to keep ratcheting up tension until it snaps.
The problem is theirs a huge agenda of pushing policies on others, like Green energy. CA basically sets the standards for all cars because automakers don't want to make multiple versions of the same cars.
Pollution has to be weighted as a cost/benefit. You could go zero emissions tomorrow, but there's consequences for that. If you want everyone in super clean or electric cars, you price out poor people.
Hybrids and EV's are getting cheaper over time. It's expected Corolla-sized cars will reach parity with ICE in roughly 15 years. The more that are produced, the more R&D comes to improve their economics. It's an investment.
Further, ICE pollution causes asthma and other health down-sides that also affect the poor.
People often have to move to find a job to survive. While we may prefer to move near like-minded people, that's often not feasible.
And it may not be healthy as a country, creating group-think silos that magnify bad ideas.
>And it may not be healthy as a country, creating group-think silos that magnify bad ideas.
The Internet already does this, magnitudes greater in affect than living in local communities. I think your concerns are misplaced.
While true, we shouldn't exacerbate the problem. Children younger than about 13 are usually forbidden from the full internet by parents. (Although my kids became master hackers, usually via social engineering relatives.)
Why can't we find compromise? For instance the divide is urban/suburban vs and rural more than anything. How do you manage to let city people in a state live the way they want and rural people live the way they want without compromise?
You can compromise on issues that are less important, or where you're not that far apart. But the divide in America has factions with not just different but mutually exclusive beliefs about what a human's rights are.
As for the urban/rural divide? Kind of an extreme long shot in reality, but if I could snap my fingers and make it happen, let individual counties start shuffling around states. We already see this idea taking root with eastern rural counties in Oregon talking about breaking off from Oregon and joining Idaho.
>But the divide in America has factions with not just different but mutually exclusive beliefs about what a human's rights are.
So what happens if one state says a person or group has less rights than if they lived in another state and that person or group of people is unable to leave the state that is denying them rights?
>Kind of an extreme long shot in reality, but if I could snap my fingers and make it happen, let individual counties start shuffling around states
How would you prevent all the greater metropolitan areas being in different states than their surrounding counties?
>So what happens if one state says a person or group has less rights than if they lived in another state and that person or group of people is unable to leave the state that is denying them rights?
This already happens.
>How would you prevent to all the greater metropolitan areas being in different states than their surrounding counties?
Why would I want to prevent that?
> We can’t find compromise because there are people in this country that see invading hordes of aliens as no different, no worse, and no better than my countryman
is there something wrong with seeing humans as humans regardless of background though? surely you can find compromise with that thought
> create the districts based on a percentage of the total mass of the state
what does this mean? are you talking about land mass? why should land mass factor more than population?
Nope. When a person tries to use their humanity, as an excuse to enslave someone else with nonsensical obligations insane demands and tries to use their very existence as an excuse to take away my rights, my freedoms, my property, my wealth, my future, my means of self-determination and self preservation and out of my people they stop being human.
Do you feel you are being enslaved? Who is enslaving you?
>Because it’s fair, beach district is equal in size and representation.
Why is that fair and not going by population?
>Yeah I am, I have pay income and property taxes to feed, house, and reward either a bunch of domestically grown failures, and or a bunch of imported failures (both legally allowed and allowed to invade the country) and in return these people vote away my rights, freedoms, future, etc.
Are taxes slavery?
>It’s not fair by population because then the urban zones dominate the suburban and whirl areas to the detriment of everybody,
People are more important than land right?
Incorrect. He has full immunity for "core presidential powers." These are explicitly defined in the constitution. So he can't be charged with a crime for using his veto power, for example.
He has presumptive immunity for all official acts. That doesn't actually mean he is immune. It means prosecutors have a high bar to clear in terms of proof.
So the president asked his subordinates to commit crimes, and they do, then he pardons them. The president is not committing the crimes directly, but the effect is still the same. Also “core presidential powers” is still quite broad.
News agencies actually adhering to journalistic standards and ethics again, and barring that actually linking to primary sources when they talk about them. If they're talking about a court case, I want to see the legal filings, if they're talking about a law I want to see the bill or statute, if they're talking about a statement I want to see a link to the full quote or video not snippets.
Use of news to push half truth partesian narratives is just completely irresponsible and has lead us to this state of divisiveness because everyone isn't just operating on separate facts, but little facts at all.
>News agencies actually adhering to journalistic standards and ethics again
You'd also have to include streamers, podcasts, and tik tok content creators if that's going to have much effect in this day and age.
>Use of news to push half truth partesian narratives is just completely irresponsible and has lead us to this state of divisiveness because everyone isn't just operating on separate facts, but little facts at all.
I agree.
Outrage sells. Especially if the reasons for the outrage are nearly or entirely made up.
News agencies and online news sources are in it for the money.
It'd be socialist to regulate them into something other than maximum profit margin seekers, of course. Can't have socialism around in this country! /s but far too many people would agree with that
The flair does not clearly describe my politics. Imagine something between a liberal progressive to a liberal libertarian with an incredibly pro 2A bias. Likes recycling, wind, solar, thinks we need more nuclear power plants. Pro concealed carry. Shooting targets out at 1,000 yards. LGBTQ and trans folks should be able to pursue happiness as long as they're not harming others. Etc.
When you say socialism, I think it's important to clarify - Capital "S" Socialism? Or little "s" socialism?
For example, I'm all for social safety nets. Someone that's lost their job shouldn't have to be without shelter or food, and private charity isn't up to the task of solving that issue. Little s socialism type stuff.
Do I believe that the State should control the means of production and all national resources? Heck no. So not capital S Socialism.
There are two books which I would like to give to every partisan on all sides:
1. The Three Languages of Politics by Arnold Kling, in which he lays out a theory explaining why political language is so damned polarizing and the arguments are intractable. It's free as an ebook on the Cato Institute website, or you can just listen to all 2.5 hours of [The Three Languages of Politics audiobook on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVhRK_doSJ4).
1. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, who explains his psychological and sociological research into the roots of morality, and how his research forced him to understand, to his surprise, that conservatism is not a mental illness or cognitive deficiency. The audiobook is available for free on Overdrive's Libby through your public library, or you can see [Jonathan Haidt's gripping presentation of The Righteous Mind at Talks at Google](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2APK3tlPL_0).
Here's the short of it:
1. The Three Languages of Politics are oppressed/oppressor (progressive), civilization/barbarism (conservative), and liberty/coercion (libertarian), all phrased with the morally good group or behavior first and the morally bad second. Nobody gives any ground because they feel territorial about it, not logical, and their arguments are meant to reinforce tribal lines, not to convince opponents.
1. The Righteous Mind explains and exposits Moral Foundations Theory, the idea that progressives have two or three instinctive moral guidelines (is it caring for the harmed? Is it fair/equitable?), while conservatives have an additional three or four guidelines to our morality *which progressives instinctively believe are mere excuses to justify many depraved evils*: liberty, loyalty, sanctity, and authority.
The Moral Foundations Test can reveal your underlying instinctive reactions, but beware that you may come away from it with more empathy towards those whose policies you despise: https://moralfoundations.github.io/
>The Moral Foundations Test can reveal your underlying instinctive reactions, but beware that you may come away from it with more empathy towards those whose policies you despise:
So I took this and while I appreciated the depth of some of the questions, as a whole, no, I did not grow empathy for conservative morality. I’m very glad I didn’t notice that three of the values were In-Group Loyalty, Purity, and Authority until after I’d done it, I don’t think I could’ve taken it seriously.
Thanks for at least taking the plunge!
Nobody, not even Haidt and his research partners, are sure why some people “grow” those moral instincts and why others don’t. I’m nearly done with the Righteous Mind audiobook, and he explains how he himself didn’t understand the purity/sanctity/holiness moral foundation until he spent time researching in India. It turns out the vast majority of the non-European peoples championed by three-foundation liberals have cultures based on all six foundations.
You're too kind;-). If thevguy above is hateful of the survey.
> shake the dust from your feet..[and leave]..for it'll be better...parousia....Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be...for those people
Or So I'm paraphrasing the ~~synaptic~~ synoptic gospel
Opening the minds of radical leftists in this voice is rather pearls to swine..they are devoted to dehumanizing those on the "right" based on ways those on the right allegedly dehumanizing them
I very much thank you for the reading material, and I would like to invite you to join a community here on Reddit by the name of r/neuropolitics2 ( and its younger brother, r/neuropolitics) It is a discussion group about the...hold on ( got interrupted)
I also swear you around in r/trueobjectivism . Perhaps we share a lot of our wvuew in common
..Nice meeting you....look forward to further introduction... and thanks again for the reading...
Accept that we have a political cycle that sweeps old political eras out and installs new ones.
We are exiting our 6th era and entering into our 7th.
That the 6th era's political establishment is clinging to power harder than any previous era.
That maga becomes the Republicans leaders in the 7th & new Democratic leadership eventually emerges too.
The world doesn't end.
Eventually the cycle returns and the 7th era gives way to the 8th....
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
I'm not American, but I'll presume you mean this wider anyways.
Stop demonising people. You use the term polarization, others use the term tribalism. But the real issue is we look at the opposing side as being demonic. We all have opinions and most of them come from places that make sense within our lives. None of us a fools, it just seems that way because we come from places so far outside others fields of view.
In real terms, I would like to have a (nuanced) conversation with work colleagues over politics. Why shouldn't we want to do this? But in the workplace, that's generally a bad thing. Or rather, if you have a conservative point of view, good luck. There is no way I'm going to sacrifice my (quite stable) working life (which supports my family) by espousing my political views in front of everyone. Why?
Edit. And I'll go a step further. My supressing my political views in work (or amongst wider family or friends) just makes me resentful. We should all realise that this is the leading cause in the rising again of Fascism, both in Europe and elsewhere. When enough people aren't listened to. And IMO, the attitudes on the left is causing it. But it will come to a head on the right.
Maybe have the conservative court rule conservatively. I’m shocked the immunity discussion isn’t front and center here. They’ve really gone over their skis with that one.
> I’m shocked the immunity discussion isn’t front and center here
I'm not. I've seen a lot of people in denial about it and I think a lot of regretfully Trump voting conservatives feel a little ashamed that's what their party stands for. For weeks here I've been hearing people say that democrats are being too hyperbolic about Trump authoritarianism, and now that the supreme court has made taken the first crack at it I'd be shocked if those same guys wanted to admit they were wrong.
Here is what I would do:
Stop pushing the narrative that voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote.
This is one narrative that I am sick and tired of hearing. Even if your candidate that you vote for does not win, your vote still counts towards what you believe in. If you allow people to diversify their beliefs, then you can see there will be less polarization and more cooperation within the parties. For example, the 4 most prominent third parties are the Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Let them have a say in politics instead of a uniparty that rules as a 2-Party system. Everyone deserves a say.
Left and Right are not monolithic, they are various factions all over the political spectrum and they all deserve a say, including non-quadrant ideals.
Unfortunately, most people will continue to view voting this way until we change the system so that it's literally impossible to "waste" a vote. That means your support for one candidate has to be independent of your support for another candidate, so you don't have to worry about supporting candidates you actually like. [Approval Voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/) is by far the most effective way to achieve this, and we're already starting to see some change in that direction, with Fargo and St. Louis recently switching to approval.
We are pushing ranked choice voting in Alaska. The election that sent Mary Peltola to the House was ranked choice.
Lots of people fighting against it though. I will stand by ranked choice voting best I can. It gives you the opportunity to vote for you favorite candidate without “wasting” your vote.
Like if this election was ranked choice you could vote for RFK Jr. first(or any 3rd party candidate), and Biden 2nd. If RFK(or who you voted for) does get enough 1st place votes then he gets knocked out and your vote would go to Biden.
It’s not perfect, and any die hard Republican or democrat is going to fight it tooth and nail, but it gives us options. People can vote more to their liking instead of against the lesser of two evils. I’m all for it. Even as a right leaning person knowing this would mean a lot more left leaning people breaking into more traditionally red areas. I just think it’ll bring more candidates that are closer to center when they don’t have to put a D or an R next to their name, and don’t have to pander to those parties.
Have you seen the analysis of that special election? [Palin was a spoiler](https://youtube.com/shorts/zAEITqsdvNE?si=NBNXYuhi0kSon2b5), which is fairly interesting when you get really [into the weeds on it](https://electionscience.org/archive/rcv-fools-palin-voters-into-electing-a-progressive-democrat/). RCV spoilers behave differently than they do under our current system and I find the behavior more acceptable than what we have now. But spoilers don't exist at all under approval, which is ideal.
In the end, I want voters to be able to cast their ballot without worrying it might backfire on them, and I want people in office who actually represent their constituents. That would inevitably result in a few more liberals winning offices in rural areas and a few more conservatives winning offices in urban areas, but I don't actually particularly care who wins, as long as the people who get into office actually represent the voters.
There are only two ways to get a third party in power, and only one of them is any kind of decently sustainable.
One way is to have one of the current parties collapse and fail to win elections, seeing the opposition party sweep into power at broad supermajority rates. This would effectively make us a one-party state, and they don't have a great track record. Assuming that party doesn't seize power and suspend democracy (we still have elections), then either that party fractures and we have two parties again, or another party rises up to challenge and we have... two parties again.
The other way is to get rid of first-past-the-post voting. That's the **real** reason we have a two-party "system." It's not some grand conspiracy, it's just *math.* Instant runoff, approval voting, ranked choice... whatever, there are few voting systems *worse* than first-past-the-post, and getting rid of that will allow for the real nuance and moderation that the American voter is so desperate for.
Learn about the fears and concerns from those that you disagree with. Try to find some common ground. Elect more moderates that believe in compromise.
Possibly rank choice voting but I don't know enough about it and if it is actually the best solution.
That’s not really the point. The point is to at least get them to disagree without hating each other for existing on this planet. We are capable of doing that if Silicon Valley would get out of our way.
How about eliminating all official recognition of political parties? Make them 100% private. There's no reason the govt needs to participate in team sports.
So party isn't listed on the ballot, it's not possible to skip the names and vote a straight party ticket (which is an option in some states), and the govt isnt involved in the primary process. Encourage people to vote for candidates, not party. That wouldn't eliminate the problem but it would help a little.
It's frustrating to find folks on the left and right that get super tribal about it, like politics is no more important than someone's favorite sport's team.
Most days, it feels like people want to find ways to hurt the other side more than they want to find ways to solve problems.
I think the republicans and democrats really need to give a chance to different options instead of both electing the farthest left or right candidates as their horse. There were better choices than both Trump v Hillary or Trump v Biden. It’s sad for most of us who are very centerline and focus on issues instead of party affiliation
Biden is probably one of the most centrist politicians in our party we would literally have to elect Joe Manchin or a Republican to go much farther right
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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 post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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 post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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.*
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.*
We need to shift the focus back to state legislatures. Too many people think that congress can just pass any law they want, and when it gets inevitably shot down by the courts they're confused.
States have 90% of the legislative power over the people. This enables differently minded people to enjoy different laws. With some exceptions, we need to stop trying to force everything on everyone.
I don’t want it, but a serious and legit existential threat such as an adversary bombing/invading the US would unite us like nothing since WWII, and arguably ever. I would gladly fight alongside blue haired radicals if I meant we were attempting to preserve the republic.
Outside of that, a 24 month moratorium on cable news and the internet for all voting age adults. Go get some sunshine, be around people who think, look, act, and believe differently than you for a bit. We’d all be the better for it.
In short, the former is more likely than the latter.
It was a nice run.
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.*
Idk, I might be biased but if you look at places like here or the conservatice sub and politics, there is a fundamental difference in attitude and how extreme they are. They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us. Its unhinged madness.
I think that for the most part, the far left has to come out of its delerium and until that happens we will always edge closer to civil war. Hell, france had an election and it was the left that stormed the country. It was the left that razed multiple cities in the summer of love. It was the left that shut down colleges for a war we are not even fighting. Its the left that glues itself to streets and disrupts everyday people to solve "pollution".
The right had one single riot in my living memory and the left is calling it "an attempt to end the country" even though 0 of the people involved have been convicted of the crime of insurrection.
Im just saying its hard, and I dont know where to start...
> They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us. Its unhinged madness.
Remember when people were [hanging effigies of Obama](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/04/barack-obama-effigy-hanged-georgia)?
The desire for politically motivated violence is not unique to any party.
The article you linked said it was one person in total. The entirety of politics is full of people describing the need to bypass the constitution because conservatives are actual fascists so its justified. They are calling for the assassination of a presidential candidate.
Then AOC's first reply is to call for the removal of the judges instead of passing a law that defines "official presidential acts".
And also I don't remember that one instance because the firemen removed it before noon, because that wasnt "the right is violent" it was "this single person is crazy".
> The article you linked said it was one person in total.
If you were around during Obama's presidency, you know that it was hardly a unique position.
Hell, down here in Texas, the shooting ranges had targets with caricatures of Obama on them. Not just one range either, half the ones in my area.
There's zero room to play the "*Oh, it only happens with X political side, my side is just above that sort of behavior*" card.
Human beings are fantastic at othering, and then vilifying the people outside their group.
Personally, I'm tired of it. I know conservatives aren't cartoonish villains. I might not agree with the way they want to do things, but we both want the same thing - a better country.
> I might not agree with the way they want to do things, but we both want the same thing - a better country.
This is true. I know plenty of left leaning people that are sane, we just disagree. My problem, and this is a both issues problem, is that the official parties seem to be ran by increasingly extreme segments. Like, we have had effective domestic terrorism with all the riots and college shut downs, but only 1 of them are labelled as a bad thing.
We are heading towards a dangerous place, and while in my perspective conservatives are largely not doing enough to stop it, the left primarily seem to be the ones pressing the gas pedal.
Tbh all I want to do is stop living through once in a lifetime, historical events.
Imo, Americans are a bit prone to sensationalism, all over the political map, so that's one thing. Perhaps it's just a part of American society to see things like that on at least a small scale.
But the polarization, extremism, and trends the other person is talking about, that's a phenomenon not only in the US but all over the Western world. It's as true in France as it is in the US or Canada or Australia. And imo, that makes it a different beast.
> But the polarization, extremism, and trends the other person is talking about, that's a phenomenon not only in the US but all over the Western world. It's as true in France as it is in the US or Canada or Australia. And imo, that makes it a different beast.
You're not wrong.
But the argument I'm fighting is the one that says extremism is the sole domain of the left.
I didn't read that as the argument the other person was making... I don't think anyone would deny that extremism exists on the right too.
But it does seem to me that left-wing extremism is a bigger, more prevalent problem. So is the way the media treats it.
Like as an example - this is off the top of my head mind you, so sorry if the exact details are off - but in Canada, there was a guy who threw a pig's head on the doorstep of a mosque. People assume that's right-wing extremism (I guess all anti-Muslim sentiment gets labelled as rightwing, I don't recall if that was actually true or not, but for the sake of argument let's say it is). So that's right-wing exremism. It was slammed all over the media, and all kinds of high-level people were making big gesutres against it. On the other hand, left-wing extremism led to something like 100 churches being targeted by arson (with like, 60 or something all in one summer) and our government was making *excuses* for them and even said it was understandable anger. Both things are extremism, but only one is ever openly *called* extremism, and *treated* as extremism.
With that in mind, I would definitely agree with the other guy that in the West, there is more, and more severe, extremism on the left than on the right. Not that it doesn't exist on the right, but it's not to as great a degree, and left-wing extremism is treated with kid gloves compared to right-wing extremism.
I noticed a more extremist attitude among those on the left in my own life, too. To be fair, though, it's not like it's all lefties, and if you asked me 20 years ago if I thought extremism was rampant on the left I'd have said no. But the woke and hardcore leftist extremism has become popular enough on the left that it has come to basically define the modern left, and these days it has quite a lot of power and influence, *that* causes a *ton* of problems because it's inherently quite extreme.
I mean, if you're on the right, you're going to pay more attention to media that caters to the right and highlights crazy people on the left.
The exact same thing happens on the left.
You cannot trust media of any sort to be statistically accurate, let alone unbiased or fair. "If it bleeds, it leads" - they make money by selling outrage and pushing emotional buttons.
If you get off the internet and talk to people in your area that aren't on the right, you'll find that the majority of them are pretty rational and reasonable.
>If you get off the internet and talk to people in your area that aren't on the right, you'll find that the majority of them are pretty rational and reasonable.
Oh dude, I wish that were true. I'm guessing the rest of the comment you wrote was more or less context for this viewpoint here, correct me if I'm wrong.
But like, this isn't about left vs right media. I actually gave you examples from *both* sides of the spectrum, and how they were covered by the MSM outlets in my country - this isn't about what stories I do or don't pay attention to. The original comment was about extremism on the left, and you don't have to turn to right-wing media *at all* to see pleny of examples of it, and of it being treated with kid gloves. How else you describe the "understandable anger" comment, the denial that they're hate crimes? How else you describe "the summer of love" with BLM? You can't be seriously saying the only reason anyone, you know, *notices* *things* is because they're overly keyed into right-wing media... or that the only reason anyone thinks that stuff is extremism is cos they've been low-key manipulated by only reading one side of the story. Like, seeing BLM burn and loot stuff all over the continent, taking over part of Portland, shooting a few cops, and one of the leaders praying to Allah on Twitter to not kill white people, and realizing that's a) extremist behaviour and b) it's a leftist group, is not exactly rocket science to put together, and doesn't require some bias to see it that way. If anything, it requires heavy bias to *not* see it as left-wing extremism.
But more than that... your last sentence there is patently wrong. I know you mean well, but tbh, this take would've made sense if it were still 2005 lol. We're way past that now. If you've managed to go this long without this garbage affecting your personal life, your city, neighbourhood, workplace, etc then props to you, you're very lucky. But this is absolutely not just weirdos online who need to touch some grass. This has bled into the personal lives of myself and almost everyone I know to some degree.
>They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us.
That's the strategy - when you label someone a "nazi" or "fascist" (as Dems have done to every Republican candidate for president in my lifetime) then it's an open invitation to violence. After all, what happens to Nazis in every film? They are the bad guys and get blown away.
Yes, back in the day, Republicans accused Democrats of being communists, but I very seldom hear anything like that anymore.
Because the left is just openly communist now lol. For real, some name calling has always happened but whats brewing on the left feels incredibly different. It really feels like they no longer see parts of the country as americans, just as actual "violent enemies".
They settled (and they shouldn't have). But Fox News is the ONLY major media outlet that leans right, and that's why it drives liberals nuts.
All the others: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, all lean left. Without Fox News there wouldn't at least be a counterbalance on broadcast news.
Fox settled because they were wrong. The Murdoch media got in wrong in England with unethical behaviour there and they got it very wrong on Fox News, as well, by reporting the election in an unethical way.
I’d say the rest of the media you list are quite centrist and reliably demonstrate ethical journalism.
Of course you believe all media that leans left is "centrist".
Let me guess - you also believe newspapers like the NYT, WaPo, etc are centrist too, despite the fact that they solely endorse only Democrats for president, and virtually all other offices?
I think Americans are more centrist than you would like them to be. That’s why majorities support same-sex marriage and abortion rights, which right-wingers think are only leftist positions. It’s also why the popular vote for presidents v. the electoral college vote is also centrist.
Start with NPR and PBS mandating that they choose and report on all stories from conservative, liberal and balanced positions. Require that they hire reporters, writers and editors who are sympathetic to all viewpoints.
I don’t quite get how this would work. Sometimes some issues are just factual and there aren’t two (or more) sides.
To avoid making it conservative vs liberal… take the flat earth theory. There’s the correct side, that earth is not flat, and everything else.
I think having a more intellectually diverse workforce would be a good idea, and maybe requiring stories to be “just the facts” and then have editorials from multiple sides on complex issues to discuss those facts.
Not all issues are as cut and dry as flat earth BS.
The abortion issue has good arguments on both sides, same with preventing kids from transitioning to young.
I wish all the issues were just factual
Go back to all of the laws between 1776 to 1960....
Hold stop.
On what Universal Truths of the Universe should 80 percent of USA be discarded for 20 percent of history at the tail end?
K, so I'll be straight up about the fact that this answer will probably seem really biased, but hear me out lol. This is based on my own personal experience and those of people I know. Also, I know this is based on a non-American context, but since other Western countries are facing similar issues with polarization - and I know there's a lot of translation between my experiences in Canada and Australia despite being different countries - I think probably there's some translation from that to US society on this matter too.
I think the left needs to take a very hard turn away from woke politics. And yeah, I do think at the end of the day, woke ideologies and their promotion by various institiutions are at the root of this issue.
Like, myself, I'm more of a right-leaning centrist overall (I'm fairly socially conservative, but I'm less right-wing on things like economics and so on). I used to have *tons* of friends who had different views than me. Like, literally, as a socially conservative die-hard Christian, the majority of my friends used to be left-leaning atheists and agnostics - because despite our differences, we were generally capable of having reasonable conversations about this stuff, and also of seeing each other as more than just the things we disagreed on. But that all ended when these former friends went down various woke rabbit holes (also New Atheist rabbit holes, though that seems to have sort of died out to some degree - I kind of see them as brothers or cousins in an ideological family though, they have some similar goals attitudes, and tactics to them). Suddenly these people were filled with rage and hatred, and refused to engage in good-faith discussions, and forgot about their histories with people who thought differently than them, preferring to stereotype them as whatever bad thing their ideology dictated. And it seems to me that those on the right have reacted strongly against that - and understandably so, nobody likes being treated that way, and to be frank the woke stuff is patently insane and manipulative on top of it. Those ideas have spread around a lot and caused so much division. I'm not saying the right is perfect here either (or centrists with right-wing views on these topics) - I've known some people who knee-jerk-reacted so hard against woke things that they actually became sexist, racist etc themselves (and that's true for people all over the political map). I'm just saying, wokeness is a massive problem, and the left and many institutions have adopted it to a very great degree.
But before that stuff gained traction, sure we had disagreements, but we actually agreed on a lot of things. Like, I'm in counselling right now, in part trying to work through some of these experiences and changes... and my counsellor had a very hard time believing that one of my former best friends was an atheist nihilist who didn't care about things like sexual morality, and not only was for abortion, but openly stated she believes it kills a baby, but it didn't matter cos nobody's life had inherent meaning anyway. But the thing is, at the end of the day we actually agreed on a lot - we liked each other's company, we believed in things like free speech and freedom of belief, the right to be respected as a human being, the need for level-headed exploration of different ideas, we had shared interests we bonded over, we agreed not only that things like racism were bad but also could agree on what racism was in the first place, we could see and appreciate the good in each other, we could be supportive of each other as human beings even if we disagreed on many topics of importance.
Once she went woke, it wasn't *just* the hot-button issues themselves that were divisive, it was her whole attitude and approach that changed - as well as many definitions, which make meaningful discussion difficult. I was no longer her friend with many good qualities that she disagreed with on some things, I was the benefactor of an evil and oppressive regime who doesn't deserve any rights because I would only use them for evil. I talked about racism as basic prejudice, she talked about it as a necessarily systemic thing where white people could never be the victims no matter what. Within this framework, you can't have any meaningful or level-headed conversations. Like literally, at this point I found it easier and more pleasant to openly and seriously disagree with a guy who was an actual white-nationalist budding neo-Nazi than it was to gently disagree with BLM supporters. That says a lot, imo.
I think if the left works to abandon wokeness, the right will respond better and bridges will be built. To use another personal example lol - my cousin is a die-hard super leftie, and I always felt a bit uncomfortable about that (due to experiences like with my former friend above). But since my cousin had a kid, we've seen eye to eye more often - for example on things like educational policies surrounding trans issues, like how in many places the schools weren't notifying parents of this stuff. She was like, hell no, that's *my* kid and I have a right to know this stuff, and now that's two things we could agree on - parental rights are important and the education system was screwed up here. That built a little bridge. And for my own part, I was willing to take that at face value and let the bridge be built. *But* her belief on this is a departure from the woke mentality. And she was *willing* to concede that and agree with right-wingers at least on these points, which many woke people are not.
Like I said, I'm not gonna pretend that right-wingers or those taking a given right-wing view are always perfect and reasonable. But I think the woke stuff is at the core of this, and since it's infested the left to the point where it almost defines the left at this point, I think the best thing to move away from this is for left-wingers to strongly distance themselves from it and push back against it.
“The only way we can conceive of compromise is if the other side abandons all of its belief’s and positions and become a lighter version of the conservatives”
That’s not compromise, it’s capitulation.
You get everything you want with nothing lost. This isn’t a serious attempt at sitting down at the table to talk things out
That's why I brought up all those examples. You can say it's not serious all you want, but I'm being very serious. As I said, I used to have *a ton* of friends who thought differently from me on all kinds of topics. I'm 40 years old now, and from the time I was out of high school up until a few years ago, that was the case. My beliefs and behaviours didn't change; theirs did. You think it's not serious to me, to lose nearly all of my longtime friends to this stuff? I was easily able to have conversations about all kinds of topics with them and still not only be civil, but actually be friends - and *I still can,* with lefties who haven't adopted the woke mentality and belief set. This is why I said wokeness is at the core or the problem, that it's come to define the left, and thus it actually is up to leftists to ditch it if they wanna get along with others and decrease polarization. Your idea that I'm saying all leftists must abandon their views, when I'm talking specifically about wokeness, just kind of exemplifies the point.
Like, one of my best and oldest friends is a full-on socialist. I also had an atheist, leftist work friend who would discuss this stuff with me all the time. And we'd not only manage, but actually *enjoy* these chats - cos we all have this approach to each other where we'd hear out the other person, consider their views fairly and try to understand them, treat the other person respectfully and with friendliness, and cos the whole thing was in good faith we could handle having our views poked at a bit.
Woke people are basically incapable of discussing things in good faith. It seems to me that it's because in essence, their worldview dictates that anyone who thinks differently from them is basically evil. They also will pre-judge the validity of your viewpoint based on your social class, and no matter what they do they'll interpret everything you say and do by that light. Everything has to be seen their way and done their way or it's bad/stupid and those who won't cave are irredeemable. If you give real consideration to a view that's not woke, even just for the sake of having a productive conversation, then you are enabling evil by simply *hearing* and *considering* it. That is a highly polarized view that promotes further polarization. I've lost too many friends to this ideology and seen it a dozen times; that's what it is. And convsersely I've seen the better behaviour of lefties I know who haven't succumbed to it, who are able to get along with others. It is the key factor here.
So yes, sorry/not sorry, but if that's your belief system, you *will* be divisive and condescending to anyone who substantially disagrees with you. I have yet to see otherwise from woke types. You can say that's not fair all you want but it's the truth. Just like how cult members never think it's their views that are the problem even as they become isolated, broke, and weird. No no, it's not the cultish thinking, it's everyone else that's the problem, in their minds. Woke thinking is super divisive, and woke thinking has come to define the left, so it's no surprise that there's as much division as there is.
That’s not gonna happen. Firstly, woke as conservatives use it is nearly meaningless aside from being things they don’t like. Secondly, “wokeness” wasn’t something the left came down with all of a sudden, the beliefs underpinning it are behind most leftist thought. And thirdly, shockingly, *progressivism is about progress.* Disbelieving something because it faces public opposition is liberal moderate shit.
The polarization is a natural response to...
1. The Left pushing so Left. 2024 Joe Biden would call 1984 Joe Biden a *"far-right MAGA asdfasjda!"*
2. The ballot is the bullet. The more you vote to force me to do/say things via the barrel of the gun then the less we can agree to disagree. [We need to downsize DC!](https://youtu.be/PPoQI_DsTa4)
The liberal progressive establishment has to give up on immigration.
Not with gestures (like that bill that got shot down a few months ago), actual substantive support for immigration controls and deportations. That is the number one issue fueling the division and mistrust, not only in America but Europe as well. Unfortunately, this is not possible because the globalists behind the leftists are absolutely committed to immigration as an end goal.
I’m not going to pretend to be versed in that bill. My understanding is that it was in part a cynical move by Democrats to be able to say they’re doing things on immigration - it wasn’t palatable by many Democrats, but definitely was genuinely substantial enough for Republicans to want to get this passed. Then in an equally cynical counter-move Trump pressed for Republicans to not pass it to build up a narrative that Dems aren’t doing enough.
Skimming over it it looks like it supplied a bunch of funding towards border enforcement, investigations, tracking etc.
Was it really not a step in the right direction (according to conservative priorities/goals), and should we not expect a Republican majority to take any of those steps if they were in control in the future?
The dealbreaker was a segment in FERM (family expedited removal management). In exchange for hypothetical promise of more expedited removal hearings, FERM would have allowed release from detention into the United States while those hearings occurred.
Having this on the books in a future hypothetical Trump administration would be a huge win for the democrats because it would create a legal avenue for catch & release into the country that the president would then have to undo legally in Congress before it could be stopped.
That's why it was a non-starter. The democrats PITCHED it as an immigration resolution, but it's actual effect is to obstruct Trump 2024-2028's ability to immediately start shipping people out from detention back to their home countries.
Get a good politician on one side and you can do it for the most part. The reason there is such polarization right now is that most major members in both parties are very opposite and pretty damn bad. I'm by no means calling RFK an amazing candidate, however, he bridged the gap to republican voters in a lot of areas and he was essentially thrown out of the democratic party for it.
On another note; does anyone think it's weird so many people want him to step aside but his family wants him to keep going? I'm not sure if they're just that selfish or if they genuinely believe he is a good candidate. I think Jill loves the royalty treatment a little bit too much.
> Get a good politician
They last about as long as a snowball in hell. Morals and ethics really get in the way of running against a political opponent.
I mean, it does make all politics possible, sadly.
So the people with the most money decide the political fate of our nation far more than you or I do.
Well to an extent, they have more disposable income for sure. I still think a large share of donations for political campaigns comes from middle class households.
>I'm by no means calling RFK an amazing candidate, however, he bridged the gap to republican voters in a lot of areas and he was essentially thrown out of the democratic party for it.
You act as if the mere fact of reaching across the board is what got him shunned. Do we just ignore the huge conspiracy anti-vax bullshit he was peddling? I mean, come on man.... the dude still thinks vaccines cause autism.
At least try to attempt to see this from the other side. because you are extremely off base on this take.
Just as much of his platform that can be deemed republican can be deemed democratic. Just a couple of examples is public health policy and more sustainable economic reform, wanting to work against big companies.
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.*
For every single person to turn off their phones / computers and stay off social media for 12+ months.
And turn off cable news
And conservative radio. Let’s not forget that rush and Gingrich where the godfathers of the polarization we see today
And shutting down partisan actors who can only imagine blame flowing in one direction. That’s includes you.
It’s purely opinion that Gingrich and Limbaugh started the polarization in America.
True. One thing that Limbaugh did that absolutely is a good thing is save talk radio. You might disagree with him but he expanded free speech and gave opportunities to more people to have a voice on talk radio and later podcasts. This might not have even been his intention but because of his success it made it easier for others to have a voice and succeed and he expanded a genre that was on its way out.
Yeah, outside of the Southern Strategy goal of splitting the populace.
You know literally nothing about the Southern Strategy. Nixon's Southern Strategy was a focus on the sunbelt which was rapidly moving towards industrialization, and to vote Republican along with the northern states. It was not only not an attempt to court the racists of the Deep South, Nixon in fact lost the Deep South to his Democrat opponent and segregationist, George Wallace.
Thanks for the history lesson, but I lived 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.*
I know of the conservative radio pundits but who were some of the liberal or progressive radio pundits? I don’t recall any significant liberal or progressive radio hosts.
progressives have late night comedy they way conservatives have talk radio. every late night comedy show lens progressive, save Real time. Daily show, Last week tonight, Seth Myers, Kimmel and Colbert.
Conservatives have radio, liberals have pop culture. Examples: mainstream publications like [*Rolling Stone*](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/) and [Cosmopolitan](https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a61143979/lgbtq-abortion-dobbs-pride/) are not historically political publications, yet they regularly publish political content- *always* from a leftist perspective. (Both of these links were not hard to find- I clicked on them from the top half of the home page.). TV shows regularly get political, pushing stories about social issues that nearly always paint the liberal side in a more positive light than the conservative side.
Howard Stern
Trump's friend that only boomers listen to/watch Howard Stern?
Hardly "*Howard Stern Tells Off Critics Who Say He’s ‘Woke’ Now: I’m Anti-Trump, Pro-Vaccine and Support Transgender People… ‘I Am Woke, Motherf—er’*" https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/howard-stern-woke-tells-off-critics-trump-vaccines-1235729247/
Is that actually realistic? Sure, this matches people up to fight more, but people still have such deep foundational disagreements. I don't think this will make things any more compatible.
It would certainly help. Social media gives anonymity. Hard to talk the same amount of shit to someone when you’re in literal punching distance. Social media also amplifies the extreme voices. Before social media, the village idiots were ridiculed into insignificance. Now, the village idiot can connect with 10,000 other village idiots, make themselves appointed a power mod and control the narrative for millions of people. Not to mention, it’s far more productive having face-to-face conversations.
I noticed that it changed with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. That made it us vs them. I used to be a republican. But I reserve the right to criticize republicans and democrats like the mainstream media. I don’t want bias. I want the truth. Trump is not the truth. The recent Supreme Court decision has not only made him a king, but taken away any transparency for his “private meetings”. This gives enormous power to the incumbent. If you all cannot see what Donald Trump is, I fear for our country.
“I noticed” I didn’t. “SC” You’re wildly misinterpreting what that SC ruling was about and you sound like a partisan.
>Social media gives anonymity. >Now, the village idiot can connect with 10,000 other village idiots, make themselves appointed a power mod and control the narrative for millions of people. >Not to mention, it’s far more productive having face-to-face conversations. AMEN TO THAT
It won't but Republicans were used to electing milk toast Republicans that didn't fight back. Trump came along and changed that. He saved and destroyed the Republican party. I won't be voting for him but I understand why people do. Many people don't even like him yet think he is still better than Biden.
Honestly, the bitterness was there, but Trump was a huge catalyst. The left is upset because we see Trump as an absolute criminal moron. He was able to put mechanisms is place to increase his power. He’s probably going to be president again. After yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, he’ll be free to unleash his delusional retribution. It’s going to be 4 years of him focused on revenge as opposed to the taking care of the issues necessary to lead our country. It’s going to be so bad that the mistake of re electing him will be obvious. It may wake us up. His actions will be apparent to all but the dumbest. His leadership may be so bad it helps to bring us together. Its a long shot but well see.
Maybe the Democrats should run someone better. Their overreach and political prosecution of their enemies doesn't help either. I wish we had better options and I will be voting third party but if Trump wins the Democrats are to blame.
Trump was not a catalyst. Former leftist here. The left hates Trump because they hated all Republicans. They had been doing this shit LONG before Trump even descended on that escalator, accusing everyone who opposed Obama of racism, declaring anyone right-of-center to be every horrible thing in the book. They had been getting steadily worse over years, and continue to do so. The Democrats have been doing shit to increase their power and wield the government against their political opponents for years, and their base just cheers them on and justifies it. The left absolutely does not give a fuck about the abuse of power or corruption - ESPECIALLY if it works in their favor. The only thing Trump did that pissed them off was compete. The left don't care about anything else AT ALL. They just know they are told to hate him, and nothing more. And a big part of the problem is that they refuse to accept that. "Easier to fool a man than it is to convince a man he's been fooled."
Absolutely. They complain about overreach and celebrate it when they do it.
What overreach? Who is conducting "political prosecution of their enemies", and how so? Do you have valid proof of this claim?
As a former liberal, i Concur. Trump was the mask of moment for the left, the right picked him in response to decades of Mockery desperate for some one to fight back and the left couldn't handle the afront. as some one who grew up watching the Jon Stewart, i honestly think The Daily Show is partly to blame.
Well that's ridiculous to actually believe that the left just hates trump because they hate Republicans; that none of the criticisms are founded in any rational thought whatsoever. If you're speaking from experience as a leftist, is that why *you* disliked trump? Either way, you literally cant defend that argument with any substance. As a leftist myself, I dislike him for many reasons specific to his personal behavior. This includes holding federal aid hostage due to political grievances. And one thing that really bothers me is the cronyism. Appointing a friend of big oil to head the EPA is destructive.
I’m sorry sir, if you can’t see Trumps obvious deficiencies, I think you have a blind spot. I’m sorry you have been feeling hated by the left. Is there any possibility your perceptions do not match reality?
“Perceptions don’t match reality”? Is it possible yours doesn’t? This shit has been going on for a long time. Here’s a leftist explaining it in detail and how we got here. https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
My perceptions often don’t match reality. The difference is that I’m smart enough to accept it. I work hard every day to get closer to the truth. Have you done a critique of Trump? Do you really think he would be good for the country?
“The difference is I’m smart enough” Did you read the article? And I’m not a Trump fan. He’s just better than the alternative.
No, not yet. I promise I will later. I have heard about it, it’s not good.
Given the Democrats spent four years pushing Biden and saying "he's not in cognitive decline", don't you think that accusing others of "blind spots" to "the obvious deficiencies" of anyone is maybe not exactly a winning move? Everyone left-of-center -- heck even the moderate left - could see it, and yet the hangers on kept denying it. Heck, some people are STILL denying it! 'He had a cold at that debate otherwise he would have wiped the floor with Trump!'
I never denied he is old. Old people sometimes don’t do well at night. It was bad, there’s no getting around it. Trumps probably going to win. If he does, you will see why so many are opposed. The Supreme Court opened the door for him to tear the country apart. Biden did better last night when commenting on the Supreme Court. He did better the next day at the rally. At the debate, Trump told multiple aggregous falsehoods. The biggest was that everyone wanted Roe overturned. My candidate is old but he has good intentions. Trump has too many negatives plus he’s delusional.
He is aging. It was important to have someone who had beaten Trump. That’s how much Dems did not like Trump. At least, 45% of Dems say he should step down. I defended him and would still against Trump. I don’t have a crystal ball, but Kamala is better than Trump. Why has Trump been talking to Putin? Flynn was making phones call to him from Panama and making promises to release sanctions. This idea that Putin is scared of Trump? Trump, personally, withheld aid to Ukraine! Paul Manafort lead his 2016 campaign? He was working for the Russian placed president of Ukraine and lobbied for other foreign dictators.
Him having deficiencies doesn't mean those deficiencies are why he's hated.
> The left hates Trump because they hated all Republicans I don't hate all Republicans, just the ones that slander POWs and push lies about election fraud to the point that civil discourse is a thing of the past.
There isn't an election the Democrats have lost that they haven't claimed their opponent cheated on in several decades now, and they make fun of literally EVERYONE who opposes them, INCLUDING POWs.
American culture needs to swallow a big pill of humility. The biggest reason how I see media driving polarization is that it plays into our arrogance. You can go on TYT and listen to Ana Kasparian tell you how dumb conservatives are and how much better & smarter you are for being liberal. At the same time, you can turn on the Daily Wire and listen to Ben Shapiro tell you how dumb liberals are and how much better & smarter you are for being conservative. It's only through humility and recognizing the value our opponents bring to the table will we be able to pull out of this spiral of polarization.
Great answer. People love drama though, so it seems like that type of political entertainment will always rise to the top.
Yeah, you're not wrong there.
Accurate
Not sure how it would be accomplished, but more interaction with people who you personally disagree with. Conservatives should spend time in large, diverse cities, and progressives should spend time in rural America. I can’t help but feel that a lot of people have simply never really tried to understand the other side.
I don’t need to ask what rural and conservative Americans are about, I grew up with them and most of my family are both. I think there are more people who grew up rural and moved to big cities than the other way around. I’ve seen a lot of rural conservatives intentionally outgroup themselves - they’re not nearly as much of a mystery to the rest of us that they seemingly want to be.
There is a nationwide program where they match you with a stranger that has the opposite point of view and you talk on zoom for an hour. I did it a few years ago. I am trying to figure out what it was called. It was a cool program, does anyone know the name of it?
The best ways I can think of are 1. Do away with partisan gerrymandering and have the courts or nonpartisan commissions create House and State legislative districts. 2. Do away with partisan primaries and replace them with the Alaskan system of open jungle primaries where the top four vote getters move onto the general election. Use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in the general. The above would 1) stop politicians from choosing their voters and 2) would enable people to vote **for** candidates they want rather **against** candidates they don't want.
[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.*
completely agree,we all need to talk to people we dont necessarily agree with just to start a conversation and figure what we can do as a country
Less power concentrated in DC. Power is like manure: it works best when it’s spread around, and attracts vermin when it’s all in a pile.
100%. That would also reduce the importance of Federal govt races and politics in general. Right now, the Fed Govt races are higher stakes than they should be.
Completely agree. People care because they feel there is so much power in DC and so much at stake. If you go back to the government model in the early days of the country, there just isn’t as much to get worked up about with respect to the federal government.
I'll take DC any day over the pure fucking corruption I have seen in local government. Localization makes it easier to get away with shit not harder. The media doesn't pay attention.
If a Trump is so bad, I’d rather have him be a mayor than a president. The stupidity can be confined. The stakes are lower in local government, so the normies have a shot.
That'll just balkanize the USA further. Here are my suggestions, which may require Constitutional Amendments: 1. Limit gerrymandering. One proposal is to limit all jurisdiction polygons to 6 lines or 7 lines. 2. Diminish the two-party-system by borrowing ideas from other democracies. There is no perfect system, but ours gets a "D". 3. Make it easier to vote so that more centrists vote. The fervent end-points are overrepresented. 4. Split President into Domestic and Foreign Affairs. 5. Make Federal DOJ a 4th branch to reduce influence by Prez. 6. Use "decimal allocation" of Electoral College votes to make candidates have to court all the states instead of just swing states. (It doesn't diminish the "extra power" of smaller states the EC gives, just changes how votes are tallied to make it finer-grained. I personally would like to see EC eliminated, but that would never pass.) 7. Require teaching of critical thinking and logic in grade school. The course doesn't have to mention political issues, just explain and illustrate the common fallacies. \[Added\]
>That'll just balkanize the USA further. That's going to happen regardless. What it will do is allow each side to have space to do things they way they want to do them. The one size fits all approach is going to keep ratcheting up tension until it snaps.
The problem is theirs a huge agenda of pushing policies on others, like Green energy. CA basically sets the standards for all cars because automakers don't want to make multiple versions of the same cars.
So CA should accept more pollution to make smaller states happy?
Pollution has to be weighted as a cost/benefit. You could go zero emissions tomorrow, but there's consequences for that. If you want everyone in super clean or electric cars, you price out poor people.
Hybrids and EV's are getting cheaper over time. It's expected Corolla-sized cars will reach parity with ICE in roughly 15 years. The more that are produced, the more R&D comes to improve their economics. It's an investment. Further, ICE pollution causes asthma and other health down-sides that also affect the poor.
People often have to move to find a job to survive. While we may prefer to move near like-minded people, that's often not feasible. And it may not be healthy as a country, creating group-think silos that magnify bad ideas.
>And it may not be healthy as a country, creating group-think silos that magnify bad ideas. The Internet already does this, magnitudes greater in affect than living in local communities. I think your concerns are misplaced.
While true, we shouldn't exacerbate the problem. Children younger than about 13 are usually forbidden from the full internet by parents. (Although my kids became master hackers, usually via social engineering relatives.)
Why can't we find compromise? For instance the divide is urban/suburban vs and rural more than anything. How do you manage to let city people in a state live the way they want and rural people live the way they want without compromise?
You can compromise on issues that are less important, or where you're not that far apart. But the divide in America has factions with not just different but mutually exclusive beliefs about what a human's rights are. As for the urban/rural divide? Kind of an extreme long shot in reality, but if I could snap my fingers and make it happen, let individual counties start shuffling around states. We already see this idea taking root with eastern rural counties in Oregon talking about breaking off from Oregon and joining Idaho.
>But the divide in America has factions with not just different but mutually exclusive beliefs about what a human's rights are. So what happens if one state says a person or group has less rights than if they lived in another state and that person or group of people is unable to leave the state that is denying them rights? >Kind of an extreme long shot in reality, but if I could snap my fingers and make it happen, let individual counties start shuffling around states How would you prevent all the greater metropolitan areas being in different states than their surrounding counties?
>So what happens if one state says a person or group has less rights than if they lived in another state and that person or group of people is unable to leave the state that is denying them rights? This already happens. >How would you prevent to all the greater metropolitan areas being in different states than their surrounding counties? Why would I want to prevent that?
[удалено]
> We can’t find compromise because there are people in this country that see invading hordes of aliens as no different, no worse, and no better than my countryman is there something wrong with seeing humans as humans regardless of background though? surely you can find compromise with that thought > create the districts based on a percentage of the total mass of the state what does this mean? are you talking about land mass? why should land mass factor more than population?
[удалено]
Nope. When a person tries to use their humanity, as an excuse to enslave someone else with nonsensical obligations insane demands and tries to use their very existence as an excuse to take away my rights, my freedoms, my property, my wealth, my future, my means of self-determination and self preservation and out of my people they stop being human. Do you feel you are being enslaved? Who is enslaving you? >Because it’s fair, beach district is equal in size and representation. Why is that fair and not going by population?
[удалено]
>Yeah I am, I have pay income and property taxes to feed, house, and reward either a bunch of domestically grown failures, and or a bunch of imported failures (both legally allowed and allowed to invade the country) and in return these people vote away my rights, freedoms, future, etc. Are taxes slavery? >It’s not fair by population because then the urban zones dominate the suburban and whirl areas to the detriment of everybody, People are more important than land right?
Do you think giving the President full immunity for crimes hurts this?
It probably would. Luckily, he doesn't have it.
He had full immunity for all official act, which is very broadly defined.
Incorrect. He has full immunity for "core presidential powers." These are explicitly defined in the constitution. So he can't be charged with a crime for using his veto power, for example. He has presumptive immunity for all official acts. That doesn't actually mean he is immune. It means prosecutors have a high bar to clear in terms of proof.
So the president asked his subordinates to commit crimes, and they do, then he pardons them. The president is not committing the crimes directly, but the effect is still the same. Also “core presidential powers” is still quite broad.
[удалено]
End first-past-the-post.
The parties in power would never let that happen.
News agencies actually adhering to journalistic standards and ethics again, and barring that actually linking to primary sources when they talk about them. If they're talking about a court case, I want to see the legal filings, if they're talking about a law I want to see the bill or statute, if they're talking about a statement I want to see a link to the full quote or video not snippets. Use of news to push half truth partesian narratives is just completely irresponsible and has lead us to this state of divisiveness because everyone isn't just operating on separate facts, but little facts at all.
>News agencies actually adhering to journalistic standards and ethics again You'd also have to include streamers, podcasts, and tik tok content creators if that's going to have much effect in this day and age. >Use of news to push half truth partesian narratives is just completely irresponsible and has lead us to this state of divisiveness because everyone isn't just operating on separate facts, but little facts at all. I agree.
Oh man, that'd be awesome. And yes that'd go a long way.
Outrage sells. Especially if the reasons for the outrage are nearly or entirely made up. News agencies and online news sources are in it for the money. It'd be socialist to regulate them into something other than maximum profit margin seekers, of course. Can't have socialism around in this country! /s but far too many people would agree with that
> Can't have socialism around in this country! /s Are you implying socialism isn't that bad? As a libertarian?
The flair does not clearly describe my politics. Imagine something between a liberal progressive to a liberal libertarian with an incredibly pro 2A bias. Likes recycling, wind, solar, thinks we need more nuclear power plants. Pro concealed carry. Shooting targets out at 1,000 yards. LGBTQ and trans folks should be able to pursue happiness as long as they're not harming others. Etc. When you say socialism, I think it's important to clarify - Capital "S" Socialism? Or little "s" socialism? For example, I'm all for social safety nets. Someone that's lost their job shouldn't have to be without shelter or food, and private charity isn't up to the task of solving that issue. Little s socialism type stuff. Do I believe that the State should control the means of production and all national resources? Heck no. So not capital S Socialism.
There are two books which I would like to give to every partisan on all sides: 1. The Three Languages of Politics by Arnold Kling, in which he lays out a theory explaining why political language is so damned polarizing and the arguments are intractable. It's free as an ebook on the Cato Institute website, or you can just listen to all 2.5 hours of [The Three Languages of Politics audiobook on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVhRK_doSJ4). 1. The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, who explains his psychological and sociological research into the roots of morality, and how his research forced him to understand, to his surprise, that conservatism is not a mental illness or cognitive deficiency. The audiobook is available for free on Overdrive's Libby through your public library, or you can see [Jonathan Haidt's gripping presentation of The Righteous Mind at Talks at Google](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2APK3tlPL_0). Here's the short of it: 1. The Three Languages of Politics are oppressed/oppressor (progressive), civilization/barbarism (conservative), and liberty/coercion (libertarian), all phrased with the morally good group or behavior first and the morally bad second. Nobody gives any ground because they feel territorial about it, not logical, and their arguments are meant to reinforce tribal lines, not to convince opponents. 1. The Righteous Mind explains and exposits Moral Foundations Theory, the idea that progressives have two or three instinctive moral guidelines (is it caring for the harmed? Is it fair/equitable?), while conservatives have an additional three or four guidelines to our morality *which progressives instinctively believe are mere excuses to justify many depraved evils*: liberty, loyalty, sanctity, and authority. The Moral Foundations Test can reveal your underlying instinctive reactions, but beware that you may come away from it with more empathy towards those whose policies you despise: https://moralfoundations.github.io/
>The Moral Foundations Test can reveal your underlying instinctive reactions, but beware that you may come away from it with more empathy towards those whose policies you despise: So I took this and while I appreciated the depth of some of the questions, as a whole, no, I did not grow empathy for conservative morality. I’m very glad I didn’t notice that three of the values were In-Group Loyalty, Purity, and Authority until after I’d done it, I don’t think I could’ve taken it seriously.
Thanks for at least taking the plunge! Nobody, not even Haidt and his research partners, are sure why some people “grow” those moral instincts and why others don’t. I’m nearly done with the Righteous Mind audiobook, and he explains how he himself didn’t understand the purity/sanctity/holiness moral foundation until he spent time researching in India. It turns out the vast majority of the non-European peoples championed by three-foundation liberals have cultures based on all six foundations.
You're too kind;-). If thevguy above is hateful of the survey. > shake the dust from your feet..[and leave]..for it'll be better...parousia....Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be...for those people Or So I'm paraphrasing the ~~synaptic~~ synoptic gospel Opening the minds of radical leftists in this voice is rather pearls to swine..they are devoted to dehumanizing those on the "right" based on ways those on the right allegedly dehumanizing them I very much thank you for the reading material, and I would like to invite you to join a community here on Reddit by the name of r/neuropolitics2 ( and its younger brother, r/neuropolitics) It is a discussion group about the...hold on ( got interrupted) I also swear you around in r/trueobjectivism . Perhaps we share a lot of our wvuew in common ..Nice meeting you....look forward to further introduction... and thanks again for the reading...
Retag... good morning sir
Accept that we have a political cycle that sweeps old political eras out and installs new ones. We are exiting our 6th era and entering into our 7th. That the 6th era's political establishment is clinging to power harder than any previous era. That maga becomes the Republicans leaders in the 7th & new Democratic leadership eventually emerges too. The world doesn't end. Eventually the cycle returns and the 7th era gives way to the 8th....
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
I'm not American, but I'll presume you mean this wider anyways. Stop demonising people. You use the term polarization, others use the term tribalism. But the real issue is we look at the opposing side as being demonic. We all have opinions and most of them come from places that make sense within our lives. None of us a fools, it just seems that way because we come from places so far outside others fields of view. In real terms, I would like to have a (nuanced) conversation with work colleagues over politics. Why shouldn't we want to do this? But in the workplace, that's generally a bad thing. Or rather, if you have a conservative point of view, good luck. There is no way I'm going to sacrifice my (quite stable) working life (which supports my family) by espousing my political views in front of everyone. Why? Edit. And I'll go a step further. My supressing my political views in work (or amongst wider family or friends) just makes me resentful. We should all realise that this is the leading cause in the rising again of Fascism, both in Europe and elsewhere. When enough people aren't listened to. And IMO, the attitudes on the left is causing it. But it will come to a head on the right.
Neuter the executive powers to the point where they have little to no effect on anyone's life.
Maybe have the conservative court rule conservatively. I’m shocked the immunity discussion isn’t front and center here. They’ve really gone over their skis with that one.
> I’m shocked the immunity discussion isn’t front and center here I'm not. I've seen a lot of people in denial about it and I think a lot of regretfully Trump voting conservatives feel a little ashamed that's what their party stands for. For weeks here I've been hearing people say that democrats are being too hyperbolic about Trump authoritarianism, and now that the supreme court has made taken the first crack at it I'd be shocked if those same guys wanted to admit they were wrong.
Creating immunity out of whole cloth yet pretending while pretending they aren’t activist jurists.
Here is what I would do: Stop pushing the narrative that voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote. This is one narrative that I am sick and tired of hearing. Even if your candidate that you vote for does not win, your vote still counts towards what you believe in. If you allow people to diversify their beliefs, then you can see there will be less polarization and more cooperation within the parties. For example, the 4 most prominent third parties are the Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Let them have a say in politics instead of a uniparty that rules as a 2-Party system. Everyone deserves a say. Left and Right are not monolithic, they are various factions all over the political spectrum and they all deserve a say, including non-quadrant ideals.
Unfortunately, most people will continue to view voting this way until we change the system so that it's literally impossible to "waste" a vote. That means your support for one candidate has to be independent of your support for another candidate, so you don't have to worry about supporting candidates you actually like. [Approval Voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/) is by far the most effective way to achieve this, and we're already starting to see some change in that direction, with Fargo and St. Louis recently switching to approval.
We are pushing ranked choice voting in Alaska. The election that sent Mary Peltola to the House was ranked choice. Lots of people fighting against it though. I will stand by ranked choice voting best I can. It gives you the opportunity to vote for you favorite candidate without “wasting” your vote. Like if this election was ranked choice you could vote for RFK Jr. first(or any 3rd party candidate), and Biden 2nd. If RFK(or who you voted for) does get enough 1st place votes then he gets knocked out and your vote would go to Biden. It’s not perfect, and any die hard Republican or democrat is going to fight it tooth and nail, but it gives us options. People can vote more to their liking instead of against the lesser of two evils. I’m all for it. Even as a right leaning person knowing this would mean a lot more left leaning people breaking into more traditionally red areas. I just think it’ll bring more candidates that are closer to center when they don’t have to put a D or an R next to their name, and don’t have to pander to those parties.
Have you seen the analysis of that special election? [Palin was a spoiler](https://youtube.com/shorts/zAEITqsdvNE?si=NBNXYuhi0kSon2b5), which is fairly interesting when you get really [into the weeds on it](https://electionscience.org/archive/rcv-fools-palin-voters-into-electing-a-progressive-democrat/). RCV spoilers behave differently than they do under our current system and I find the behavior more acceptable than what we have now. But spoilers don't exist at all under approval, which is ideal. In the end, I want voters to be able to cast their ballot without worrying it might backfire on them, and I want people in office who actually represent their constituents. That would inevitably result in a few more liberals winning offices in rural areas and a few more conservatives winning offices in urban areas, but I don't actually particularly care who wins, as long as the people who get into office actually represent the voters.
There are only two ways to get a third party in power, and only one of them is any kind of decently sustainable. One way is to have one of the current parties collapse and fail to win elections, seeing the opposition party sweep into power at broad supermajority rates. This would effectively make us a one-party state, and they don't have a great track record. Assuming that party doesn't seize power and suspend democracy (we still have elections), then either that party fractures and we have two parties again, or another party rises up to challenge and we have... two parties again. The other way is to get rid of first-past-the-post voting. That's the **real** reason we have a two-party "system." It's not some grand conspiracy, it's just *math.* Instant runoff, approval voting, ranked choice... whatever, there are few voting systems *worse* than first-past-the-post, and getting rid of that will allow for the real nuance and moderation that the American voter is so desperate for.
Happy Cake Day!
Honestly, I think most Americans would love for there to be anybody but Trump or Biden to be President.
The first step would be to abolish partisan elections. That's the first step.
Explain
Remove the (R) and (D)'s from the ballots.
Ah!
Total Victory of one side over another,the bell has been rung and nothing is stopping this train
I don't think that's how that works.... Any system that has the freedoms of speech will always have opposing tribes.
Learn about the fears and concerns from those that you disagree with. Try to find some common ground. Elect more moderates that believe in compromise. Possibly rank choice voting but I don't know enough about it and if it is actually the best solution.
Abolish sites like Facebook and Twitter forever.
Will this actually make people who, say, have opposite ideas on abortion able to agree? I'm not seeing it.
That’s not really the point. The point is to at least get them to disagree without hating each other for existing on this planet. We are capable of doing that if Silicon Valley would get out of our way.
And who exactly does this "abolishing"?
The government, duh.
Yeah no thanks. Government doesn't need that power.
And Reddit
How about eliminating all official recognition of political parties? Make them 100% private. There's no reason the govt needs to participate in team sports. So party isn't listed on the ballot, it's not possible to skip the names and vote a straight party ticket (which is an option in some states), and the govt isnt involved in the primary process. Encourage people to vote for candidates, not party. That wouldn't eliminate the problem but it would help a little.
Can’t ease it if it’s done purpose.
It's frustrating to find folks on the left and right that get super tribal about it, like politics is no more important than someone's favorite sport's team. Most days, it feels like people want to find ways to hurt the other side more than they want to find ways to solve problems.
I think the republicans and democrats really need to give a chance to different options instead of both electing the farthest left or right candidates as their horse. There were better choices than both Trump v Hillary or Trump v Biden. It’s sad for most of us who are very centerline and focus on issues instead of party affiliation
Biden is probably one of the most centrist politicians in our party we would literally have to elect Joe Manchin or a Republican to go much farther right
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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 post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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 post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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.*
A president that puts the country before the party Imagine a president that calls out their own party and defends the opposition
[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.*
Are you a fan of Mitt Romney? Arguably he could be a good candidate.
Isn't that the gut democrats claimed would put black people in chains?
I was being genuine with that question, and I wasn't an ultra partisan making that claim back in 2012.
We need to shift the focus back to state legislatures. Too many people think that congress can just pass any law they want, and when it gets inevitably shot down by the courts they're confused. States have 90% of the legislative power over the people. This enables differently minded people to enjoy different laws. With some exceptions, we need to stop trying to force everything on everyone.
I don’t want it, but a serious and legit existential threat such as an adversary bombing/invading the US would unite us like nothing since WWII, and arguably ever. I would gladly fight alongside blue haired radicals if I meant we were attempting to preserve the republic. Outside of that, a 24 month moratorium on cable news and the internet for all voting age adults. Go get some sunshine, be around people who think, look, act, and believe differently than you for a bit. We’d all be the better for it. In short, the former is more likely than the latter. It was a nice run.
[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.*
Idk, I might be biased but if you look at places like here or the conservatice sub and politics, there is a fundamental difference in attitude and how extreme they are. They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us. Its unhinged madness. I think that for the most part, the far left has to come out of its delerium and until that happens we will always edge closer to civil war. Hell, france had an election and it was the left that stormed the country. It was the left that razed multiple cities in the summer of love. It was the left that shut down colleges for a war we are not even fighting. Its the left that glues itself to streets and disrupts everyday people to solve "pollution". The right had one single riot in my living memory and the left is calling it "an attempt to end the country" even though 0 of the people involved have been convicted of the crime of insurrection. Im just saying its hard, and I dont know where to start...
> They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us. Its unhinged madness. Remember when people were [hanging effigies of Obama](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/04/barack-obama-effigy-hanged-georgia)? The desire for politically motivated violence is not unique to any party.
The article you linked said it was one person in total. The entirety of politics is full of people describing the need to bypass the constitution because conservatives are actual fascists so its justified. They are calling for the assassination of a presidential candidate. Then AOC's first reply is to call for the removal of the judges instead of passing a law that defines "official presidential acts". And also I don't remember that one instance because the firemen removed it before noon, because that wasnt "the right is violent" it was "this single person is crazy".
> The article you linked said it was one person in total. If you were around during Obama's presidency, you know that it was hardly a unique position. Hell, down here in Texas, the shooting ranges had targets with caricatures of Obama on them. Not just one range either, half the ones in my area. There's zero room to play the "*Oh, it only happens with X political side, my side is just above that sort of behavior*" card. Human beings are fantastic at othering, and then vilifying the people outside their group. Personally, I'm tired of it. I know conservatives aren't cartoonish villains. I might not agree with the way they want to do things, but we both want the same thing - a better country.
> I might not agree with the way they want to do things, but we both want the same thing - a better country. This is true. I know plenty of left leaning people that are sane, we just disagree. My problem, and this is a both issues problem, is that the official parties seem to be ran by increasingly extreme segments. Like, we have had effective domestic terrorism with all the riots and college shut downs, but only 1 of them are labelled as a bad thing. We are heading towards a dangerous place, and while in my perspective conservatives are largely not doing enough to stop it, the left primarily seem to be the ones pressing the gas pedal. Tbh all I want to do is stop living through once in a lifetime, historical events.
Imo, Americans are a bit prone to sensationalism, all over the political map, so that's one thing. Perhaps it's just a part of American society to see things like that on at least a small scale. But the polarization, extremism, and trends the other person is talking about, that's a phenomenon not only in the US but all over the Western world. It's as true in France as it is in the US or Canada or Australia. And imo, that makes it a different beast.
> But the polarization, extremism, and trends the other person is talking about, that's a phenomenon not only in the US but all over the Western world. It's as true in France as it is in the US or Canada or Australia. And imo, that makes it a different beast. You're not wrong. But the argument I'm fighting is the one that says extremism is the sole domain of the left.
I didn't read that as the argument the other person was making... I don't think anyone would deny that extremism exists on the right too. But it does seem to me that left-wing extremism is a bigger, more prevalent problem. So is the way the media treats it. Like as an example - this is off the top of my head mind you, so sorry if the exact details are off - but in Canada, there was a guy who threw a pig's head on the doorstep of a mosque. People assume that's right-wing extremism (I guess all anti-Muslim sentiment gets labelled as rightwing, I don't recall if that was actually true or not, but for the sake of argument let's say it is). So that's right-wing exremism. It was slammed all over the media, and all kinds of high-level people were making big gesutres against it. On the other hand, left-wing extremism led to something like 100 churches being targeted by arson (with like, 60 or something all in one summer) and our government was making *excuses* for them and even said it was understandable anger. Both things are extremism, but only one is ever openly *called* extremism, and *treated* as extremism. With that in mind, I would definitely agree with the other guy that in the West, there is more, and more severe, extremism on the left than on the right. Not that it doesn't exist on the right, but it's not to as great a degree, and left-wing extremism is treated with kid gloves compared to right-wing extremism. I noticed a more extremist attitude among those on the left in my own life, too. To be fair, though, it's not like it's all lefties, and if you asked me 20 years ago if I thought extremism was rampant on the left I'd have said no. But the woke and hardcore leftist extremism has become popular enough on the left that it has come to basically define the modern left, and these days it has quite a lot of power and influence, *that* causes a *ton* of problems because it's inherently quite extreme.
I mean, if you're on the right, you're going to pay more attention to media that caters to the right and highlights crazy people on the left. The exact same thing happens on the left. You cannot trust media of any sort to be statistically accurate, let alone unbiased or fair. "If it bleeds, it leads" - they make money by selling outrage and pushing emotional buttons. If you get off the internet and talk to people in your area that aren't on the right, you'll find that the majority of them are pretty rational and reasonable.
>If you get off the internet and talk to people in your area that aren't on the right, you'll find that the majority of them are pretty rational and reasonable. Oh dude, I wish that were true. I'm guessing the rest of the comment you wrote was more or less context for this viewpoint here, correct me if I'm wrong. But like, this isn't about left vs right media. I actually gave you examples from *both* sides of the spectrum, and how they were covered by the MSM outlets in my country - this isn't about what stories I do or don't pay attention to. The original comment was about extremism on the left, and you don't have to turn to right-wing media *at all* to see pleny of examples of it, and of it being treated with kid gloves. How else you describe the "understandable anger" comment, the denial that they're hate crimes? How else you describe "the summer of love" with BLM? You can't be seriously saying the only reason anyone, you know, *notices* *things* is because they're overly keyed into right-wing media... or that the only reason anyone thinks that stuff is extremism is cos they've been low-key manipulated by only reading one side of the story. Like, seeing BLM burn and loot stuff all over the continent, taking over part of Portland, shooting a few cops, and one of the leaders praying to Allah on Twitter to not kill white people, and realizing that's a) extremist behaviour and b) it's a leftist group, is not exactly rocket science to put together, and doesn't require some bias to see it that way. If anything, it requires heavy bias to *not* see it as left-wing extremism. But more than that... your last sentence there is patently wrong. I know you mean well, but tbh, this take would've made sense if it were still 2005 lol. We're way past that now. If you've managed to go this long without this garbage affecting your personal life, your city, neighbourhood, workplace, etc then props to you, you're very lucky. But this is absolutely not just weirdos online who need to touch some grass. This has bled into the personal lives of myself and almost everyone I know to some degree.
> Remember when people were hanging effigies of Obama? https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1528381
Did you miss the bit where I said "The desire for politically motivated violence is not unique to any party."?
>They are literally calling for violent revolution and the literal assassination of elective/judges and the removal of branches of government. They are 100% convinced that conservatives are power hungry fascists actively seeking to end the country, so they "have" to do it to protect people from us. That's the strategy - when you label someone a "nazi" or "fascist" (as Dems have done to every Republican candidate for president in my lifetime) then it's an open invitation to violence. After all, what happens to Nazis in every film? They are the bad guys and get blown away. Yes, back in the day, Republicans accused Democrats of being communists, but I very seldom hear anything like that anymore.
Because the left is just openly communist now lol. For real, some name calling has always happened but whats brewing on the left feels incredibly different. It really feels like they no longer see parts of the country as americans, just as actual "violent enemies".
Media stop being the lying leftist propaganda machine they currently are.
I wouldn’t call Fox News liberal but didn’t they just pay a large fine for spreading lies?
They settled (and they shouldn't have). But Fox News is the ONLY major media outlet that leans right, and that's why it drives liberals nuts. All the others: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, all lean left. Without Fox News there wouldn't at least be a counterbalance on broadcast news.
Fox settled because they were wrong. The Murdoch media got in wrong in England with unethical behaviour there and they got it very wrong on Fox News, as well, by reporting the election in an unethical way. I’d say the rest of the media you list are quite centrist and reliably demonstrate ethical journalism.
Of course you believe all media that leans left is "centrist". Let me guess - you also believe newspapers like the NYT, WaPo, etc are centrist too, despite the fact that they solely endorse only Democrats for president, and virtually all other offices?
I think Americans are more centrist than you would like them to be. That’s why majorities support same-sex marriage and abortion rights, which right-wingers think are only leftist positions. It’s also why the popular vote for presidents v. the electoral college vote is also centrist.
What about the lying right propaganda media machine?
Everybody knows what Fox News is. Their lies don’t do the damage of the MSM.
Start with NPR and PBS mandating that they choose and report on all stories from conservative, liberal and balanced positions. Require that they hire reporters, writers and editors who are sympathetic to all viewpoints.
I don’t quite get how this would work. Sometimes some issues are just factual and there aren’t two (or more) sides. To avoid making it conservative vs liberal… take the flat earth theory. There’s the correct side, that earth is not flat, and everything else. I think having a more intellectually diverse workforce would be a good idea, and maybe requiring stories to be “just the facts” and then have editorials from multiple sides on complex issues to discuss those facts.
Not all issues are as cut and dry as flat earth BS. The abortion issue has good arguments on both sides, same with preventing kids from transitioning to young. I wish all the issues were just factual
Go back to all of the laws between 1776 to 1960.... Hold stop. On what Universal Truths of the Universe should 80 percent of USA be discarded for 20 percent of history at the tail end?
so black people need to live under jim crow since you just removed the civil rights act
K, so I'll be straight up about the fact that this answer will probably seem really biased, but hear me out lol. This is based on my own personal experience and those of people I know. Also, I know this is based on a non-American context, but since other Western countries are facing similar issues with polarization - and I know there's a lot of translation between my experiences in Canada and Australia despite being different countries - I think probably there's some translation from that to US society on this matter too. I think the left needs to take a very hard turn away from woke politics. And yeah, I do think at the end of the day, woke ideologies and their promotion by various institiutions are at the root of this issue. Like, myself, I'm more of a right-leaning centrist overall (I'm fairly socially conservative, but I'm less right-wing on things like economics and so on). I used to have *tons* of friends who had different views than me. Like, literally, as a socially conservative die-hard Christian, the majority of my friends used to be left-leaning atheists and agnostics - because despite our differences, we were generally capable of having reasonable conversations about this stuff, and also of seeing each other as more than just the things we disagreed on. But that all ended when these former friends went down various woke rabbit holes (also New Atheist rabbit holes, though that seems to have sort of died out to some degree - I kind of see them as brothers or cousins in an ideological family though, they have some similar goals attitudes, and tactics to them). Suddenly these people were filled with rage and hatred, and refused to engage in good-faith discussions, and forgot about their histories with people who thought differently than them, preferring to stereotype them as whatever bad thing their ideology dictated. And it seems to me that those on the right have reacted strongly against that - and understandably so, nobody likes being treated that way, and to be frank the woke stuff is patently insane and manipulative on top of it. Those ideas have spread around a lot and caused so much division. I'm not saying the right is perfect here either (or centrists with right-wing views on these topics) - I've known some people who knee-jerk-reacted so hard against woke things that they actually became sexist, racist etc themselves (and that's true for people all over the political map). I'm just saying, wokeness is a massive problem, and the left and many institutions have adopted it to a very great degree. But before that stuff gained traction, sure we had disagreements, but we actually agreed on a lot of things. Like, I'm in counselling right now, in part trying to work through some of these experiences and changes... and my counsellor had a very hard time believing that one of my former best friends was an atheist nihilist who didn't care about things like sexual morality, and not only was for abortion, but openly stated she believes it kills a baby, but it didn't matter cos nobody's life had inherent meaning anyway. But the thing is, at the end of the day we actually agreed on a lot - we liked each other's company, we believed in things like free speech and freedom of belief, the right to be respected as a human being, the need for level-headed exploration of different ideas, we had shared interests we bonded over, we agreed not only that things like racism were bad but also could agree on what racism was in the first place, we could see and appreciate the good in each other, we could be supportive of each other as human beings even if we disagreed on many topics of importance. Once she went woke, it wasn't *just* the hot-button issues themselves that were divisive, it was her whole attitude and approach that changed - as well as many definitions, which make meaningful discussion difficult. I was no longer her friend with many good qualities that she disagreed with on some things, I was the benefactor of an evil and oppressive regime who doesn't deserve any rights because I would only use them for evil. I talked about racism as basic prejudice, she talked about it as a necessarily systemic thing where white people could never be the victims no matter what. Within this framework, you can't have any meaningful or level-headed conversations. Like literally, at this point I found it easier and more pleasant to openly and seriously disagree with a guy who was an actual white-nationalist budding neo-Nazi than it was to gently disagree with BLM supporters. That says a lot, imo. I think if the left works to abandon wokeness, the right will respond better and bridges will be built. To use another personal example lol - my cousin is a die-hard super leftie, and I always felt a bit uncomfortable about that (due to experiences like with my former friend above). But since my cousin had a kid, we've seen eye to eye more often - for example on things like educational policies surrounding trans issues, like how in many places the schools weren't notifying parents of this stuff. She was like, hell no, that's *my* kid and I have a right to know this stuff, and now that's two things we could agree on - parental rights are important and the education system was screwed up here. That built a little bridge. And for my own part, I was willing to take that at face value and let the bridge be built. *But* her belief on this is a departure from the woke mentality. And she was *willing* to concede that and agree with right-wingers at least on these points, which many woke people are not. Like I said, I'm not gonna pretend that right-wingers or those taking a given right-wing view are always perfect and reasonable. But I think the woke stuff is at the core of this, and since it's infested the left to the point where it almost defines the left at this point, I think the best thing to move away from this is for left-wingers to strongly distance themselves from it and push back against it.
“The only way we can conceive of compromise is if the other side abandons all of its belief’s and positions and become a lighter version of the conservatives” That’s not compromise, it’s capitulation. You get everything you want with nothing lost. This isn’t a serious attempt at sitting down at the table to talk things out
That's why I brought up all those examples. You can say it's not serious all you want, but I'm being very serious. As I said, I used to have *a ton* of friends who thought differently from me on all kinds of topics. I'm 40 years old now, and from the time I was out of high school up until a few years ago, that was the case. My beliefs and behaviours didn't change; theirs did. You think it's not serious to me, to lose nearly all of my longtime friends to this stuff? I was easily able to have conversations about all kinds of topics with them and still not only be civil, but actually be friends - and *I still can,* with lefties who haven't adopted the woke mentality and belief set. This is why I said wokeness is at the core or the problem, that it's come to define the left, and thus it actually is up to leftists to ditch it if they wanna get along with others and decrease polarization. Your idea that I'm saying all leftists must abandon their views, when I'm talking specifically about wokeness, just kind of exemplifies the point. Like, one of my best and oldest friends is a full-on socialist. I also had an atheist, leftist work friend who would discuss this stuff with me all the time. And we'd not only manage, but actually *enjoy* these chats - cos we all have this approach to each other where we'd hear out the other person, consider their views fairly and try to understand them, treat the other person respectfully and with friendliness, and cos the whole thing was in good faith we could handle having our views poked at a bit. Woke people are basically incapable of discussing things in good faith. It seems to me that it's because in essence, their worldview dictates that anyone who thinks differently from them is basically evil. They also will pre-judge the validity of your viewpoint based on your social class, and no matter what they do they'll interpret everything you say and do by that light. Everything has to be seen their way and done their way or it's bad/stupid and those who won't cave are irredeemable. If you give real consideration to a view that's not woke, even just for the sake of having a productive conversation, then you are enabling evil by simply *hearing* and *considering* it. That is a highly polarized view that promotes further polarization. I've lost too many friends to this ideology and seen it a dozen times; that's what it is. And convsersely I've seen the better behaviour of lefties I know who haven't succumbed to it, who are able to get along with others. It is the key factor here. So yes, sorry/not sorry, but if that's your belief system, you *will* be divisive and condescending to anyone who substantially disagrees with you. I have yet to see otherwise from woke types. You can say that's not fair all you want but it's the truth. Just like how cult members never think it's their views that are the problem even as they become isolated, broke, and weird. No no, it's not the cultish thinking, it's everyone else that's the problem, in their minds. Woke thinking is super divisive, and woke thinking has come to define the left, so it's no surprise that there's as much division as there is.
That’s not gonna happen. Firstly, woke as conservatives use it is nearly meaningless aside from being things they don’t like. Secondly, “wokeness” wasn’t something the left came down with all of a sudden, the beliefs underpinning it are behind most leftist thought. And thirdly, shockingly, *progressivism is about progress.* Disbelieving something because it faces public opposition is liberal moderate shit.
The polarization is a natural response to... 1. The Left pushing so Left. 2024 Joe Biden would call 1984 Joe Biden a *"far-right MAGA asdfasjda!"* 2. The ballot is the bullet. The more you vote to force me to do/say things via the barrel of the gun then the less we can agree to disagree. [We need to downsize DC!](https://youtu.be/PPoQI_DsTa4)
The liberal progressive establishment has to give up on immigration. Not with gestures (like that bill that got shot down a few months ago), actual substantive support for immigration controls and deportations. That is the number one issue fueling the division and mistrust, not only in America but Europe as well. Unfortunately, this is not possible because the globalists behind the leftists are absolutely committed to immigration as an end goal.
I’m not going to pretend to be versed in that bill. My understanding is that it was in part a cynical move by Democrats to be able to say they’re doing things on immigration - it wasn’t palatable by many Democrats, but definitely was genuinely substantial enough for Republicans to want to get this passed. Then in an equally cynical counter-move Trump pressed for Republicans to not pass it to build up a narrative that Dems aren’t doing enough. Skimming over it it looks like it supplied a bunch of funding towards border enforcement, investigations, tracking etc. Was it really not a step in the right direction (according to conservative priorities/goals), and should we not expect a Republican majority to take any of those steps if they were in control in the future?
The dealbreaker was a segment in FERM (family expedited removal management). In exchange for hypothetical promise of more expedited removal hearings, FERM would have allowed release from detention into the United States while those hearings occurred. Having this on the books in a future hypothetical Trump administration would be a huge win for the democrats because it would create a legal avenue for catch & release into the country that the president would then have to undo legally in Congress before it could be stopped. That's why it was a non-starter. The democrats PITCHED it as an immigration resolution, but it's actual effect is to obstruct Trump 2024-2028's ability to immediately start shipping people out from detention back to their home countries.
Thanks, I appreciate the breakdown
A bill capping at 5000 migrants a day and giving the administration the ability to by pass the rules was not much a win for anyone
Get a good politician on one side and you can do it for the most part. The reason there is such polarization right now is that most major members in both parties are very opposite and pretty damn bad. I'm by no means calling RFK an amazing candidate, however, he bridged the gap to republican voters in a lot of areas and he was essentially thrown out of the democratic party for it. On another note; does anyone think it's weird so many people want him to step aside but his family wants him to keep going? I'm not sure if they're just that selfish or if they genuinely believe he is a good candidate. I think Jill loves the royalty treatment a little bit too much.
> Get a good politician They last about as long as a snowball in hell. Morals and ethics really get in the way of running against a political opponent.
money
I mean, it does make all politics possible, sadly. So the people with the most money decide the political fate of our nation far more than you or I do.
Well to an extent, they have more disposable income for sure. I still think a large share of donations for political campaigns comes from middle class households.
>I'm by no means calling RFK an amazing candidate, however, he bridged the gap to republican voters in a lot of areas and he was essentially thrown out of the democratic party for it. You act as if the mere fact of reaching across the board is what got him shunned. Do we just ignore the huge conspiracy anti-vax bullshit he was peddling? I mean, come on man.... the dude still thinks vaccines cause autism. At least try to attempt to see this from the other side. because you are extremely off base on this take.
That’s…. Not why rfk has been cast out.
What views did RFK share with democrats that would constitute him being a democrat?
Just as much of his platform that can be deemed republican can be deemed democratic. Just a couple of examples is public health policy and more sustainable economic reform, wanting to work against big companies.