politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What amazed me is that Trump managed to deeply entrench himself in suburban Republicans. I had several family friends growing up that were that sort of "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" folks that supported gay marriage but have since jumped the fucking shark into crazy town.
The surprising thing to me is just how little backbone those asshats have.
Not all of us. That used to describe me. But I realized fiscal conservatism isn't being responsible with money, it's using money to pursue a conservative social agenda. Now I'm just a cheap liberal.
In a saner world, I'd probably consider myself a conservative, in the world we actually live in though, I'm not touching anything the conservative parties have anything to do with.
I generally think that things should overall trend towards being more liberal, and conservatism should just kind of be a moderating factor, not really working against a liberal agenda, just kind of slowing it down, making sure everything is fully thought through before we jump into anything, that the plans and funding and contingencies and such are in place, and in some cases just slowing things down because some stubborn assholes (mostly the current "conservatives") need to be eased into certain changes because their tiny minds will explode if you go to fast
You are describing an actual Conservative, basically someone who acts like a brake. They can slow down or even temporarily stop progress to buy time while things are thought through. For all practical purposes these people no longer exist in the Republican Party. They've been replaced by MAGA.
However MAGA aren't "Conservatives" because they don't function as brakes. To stick with the vehicle theme MAGA is trying to shift the vehicle into reverse. They aren't just trying to stop progress they are actively trying to go backwards!. IMO these people should be called "Regressives" because that word most accurately describes their political goals. They want to unwind progress and regress to a previous time and state of existence.
Yup. The MAGA crowd isn't conservative. The MAGA crowd is regressivist, trying to install feudalism/theocracy. Meanwhile the MAGA leaders plan to take advantage of the ensuing chaos to rob the country. It's all just a big fat heist with a lot of deceived fools.
No he and you are just describing a liberal. There are not and never have been your mythical "actual conservatives". Conservatives have always been about enforcing social hierarchies. In America there isn't hereditary nobility but the Republicans have gone full mask off that they really would like that.
Well...yes. Of course we are.
At one time the Republicans were liberals and even advertised themselves as such. If you crack a history book you can see that what's happening with MAGA right now isn't the first time that the RP has been through this.
Aside from goings on in the 1870s we can look to the 1950s and the Eisenhower Republicans. You should look those up.
Nah, my lived experience says differently. Dad was a Republican and he never made any racial or social distinctions on anyone. Neither did my mother. The only people my family had a problem with were Russians...and with damn good reason. So that means he was a Republican without being a Conservative. A liberal Republican if you will...and at one time the US was full of them.
Your claims are so overly broad that they've slipped into revisionism.
The user you responded to watched Innuendo Studio on yt and came away with the one talking point (the whole hierarchy thing)
I'm only expressing my thoughts on what conservatism means to me and what I think it should be. I'm not making any claims that it is what conservatism actually is in this country or any other, or about what it has been at any point in time (even if they sometimes like to pretend that it's what they're about.) like I said, I don't align myself with any of the so-called conservative movements that are out there.
Speaking as someone who considers themselves a lefty, this is the kind of conservative I want to have a voice in my government (like, 39 seats in the Senate tops kind of voice, but it's a worthy perspective and engaging with it makes progressive plans stronger)
They were never socially liberal.
It just wasn't socially acceptable to act like an ambulatory dumpster fire at the time.
They were always what they are now. Just afraid.
"Socially liberal but fiscally conservative," they say, while voting exclusively for candidates who are socially conservative and fiscally corrupt. It's always smacked of "I'm not racist, but..." to me.
I used to have a friend like this.
Back in 2008, it was clear that she was watching Fox News for her primary source of "information" about the world and politics. Even then, it was a constant headache to push back against the one-sided, stilted, non-scientific, ideological slop that channel churns out. Since this was an election year, Facebook just made it even worse. She constantly re-posted all manner of emotionally provocative nonsense without thinking.
After the election, it only got worse. I watched this person go from semi-reasonable and rational, to a slowly devolving, emotionally driven, irrational, and fearful person over the following three years. It was as if reason itself was slowly draining out of her life. To make matters worse: at the start of this, all of her friends were socially liberal and left-leaning to deep left politically. I, along with a lot of others, slowly pulled out of her social sphere. I think she only has political sparring partners left on Facebook.
What makes me sad is that, outside of anything involving politics, this person was generous, kind, a great host, outgoing, and fun-loving. I want my friend back, but I also can't afford the time to babysit another person's broken brain forever.
The only reason suburbs even became a thing in this country was because white people with FHA loans wanted nice houses close to their jobs and the amenities of cities but didn't want their tax money going to fund black kids schools, and a lot (not all but a lot) of "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" people just want to get recognition for being an ally but descend into the kind of thinking and talking that would make Stephen Miller blush the moment they're actually asked to actually do anything to support marginalized communities, so I'm not surprised at all to see suburban Republicans fall for this
e; technically it wasn't the white people with the FHA loans who created the suburbs as we know them today so much as it was the ones administering them and in the halls of power voting on the creation of municipalities
Hang on, that doesn't track with history as I know it currently.
So suburbs already were a thing and not caused by white people not wanting to fund black schools. Yes, exit to suburbs accelerated because of that, but suburbs weren't created because of it.
Prior to Brown, many of today's suburban municipalities were just neighborhoods of the cities they were near, neighborhoods that were almost entirely populated by white people due to racist administration of FHA loans, racist zoning laws, and racist real estate business practices. Post Brown is when a lot of them started to be spun off into independent municipal governments by state legislatures with their own mayors and city councils and school districts.
So, rereading it now, I feel like I should correct my initial comment here - it wasn't the white people with FHA loans who started this process of creating segregated communities, it was the ones who administered those loans and who were writing the laws incorporating them as independent government entities.
The 'burbs mostly got built by GIs returning from WWII. There wasn't room enough in the cities for all of them. I strongly doubt that "tax money going to fund black kids schools" was even a thought for most of them, let alone a primary motivator.
Post WW2 was when racial segregation was still legal. Redlining was a long documented thing and definitely included tax money going to schools.
I'm not saying redlining didn't happen. I'm saying that returning GIs didn't intentionally build neighborhoods and redline them away from blacks to prevent paying taxes to black schools.
Maybe the GIs that physically built or bought their own homes, but the developers and companies that did the building and selling of homes to the GIs sure did.
And for a large portion of them: they would have gone along with the enforced racial segregation of the time, which was the system in place designed to separate more than just tax money.
I live in the PNW and there are developed communities, (mostly waterfront), built right after WW2 and explicitly written in their covenants bamned access to non-whites.
So a GI who bought one of those houses may not have cared too much personally, but the system is what facilitated it. Which is why it has nothing to do with personal conviction.
The human urge for bootlicking is so much stronger than I thought