Where are Traditional Conservatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideology is dead in America. Todays Democrats stand for nothing at all except performance theater - pink dresses and paddles, anyone? Or how about Black Lives Matter Plaza? Or Trans reading hour at the library? Meanwhile, when was the last time a Democrat talked about health care? Or the environment? They don't because there is nothing there. Anti-Trump theater is the only thing that animates Democrats.

And Republicans are even worse. It's nothing but a cult of personality. There's no ideological underpinning anywhere. Just blind submission to an absurd narcissist in makeup. It's not even about returning to 19th Century Great Power politics since Republicans are doing everything possible to destroy America's national security. Republicans are beyond pathetic with their frightening devotion to a reality tv character.

So both traditional liberals and conservatives are politically homeless these days. I'd venture to guess at least 60 percent of the country hates both parties.

As a liberal leftist I agree with this. The problem is that I don’t think there is much consensus between my core views (raising my taxes is ok with me if the money goes to helping others and not war / defense spending and no one should make decisions over my body) and traditional conservatives (constitution above all, anti choice, Russia and Communism bad in all instances, let’s spend more on war, taxes must be cut, and we need to balance the budget by cutting services to people).

Maybe we can agree that some programs designed to help people are either not working or inefficient? I’m ok with reevaluating but I’m not okay with letting a kid go hungry or not lending a helping hand to an older adult at risk of homelessness (and I do agree there has been too much silly language like “unhoused” rather than homeless or “pregnant people”. And I am also not okay with support for wars in cases where the US is not directly attacked (and that in those cases we attack the attacker NOT an uninvolved country like Iraq).

Do you still strongly believe that “no one should make decisions over my body” when it comes to vaccines? Or only when you want to be allowed to physically cut and rip apart a baby that’s growing in your womb?

Unless you were a government employee, no one forced you to get a vaccine shot. You can choose not to shop at that store or continue in that job, but there was never a time someone held you down and forced a jab on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideology is dead in America. Todays Democrats stand for nothing at all except performance theater - pink dresses and paddles, anyone? Or how about Black Lives Matter Plaza? Or Trans reading hour at the library? Meanwhile, when was the last time a Democrat talked about health care? Or the environment? They don't because there is nothing there. Anti-Trump theater is the only thing that animates Democrats.

And Republicans are even worse. It's nothing but a cult of personality. There's no ideological underpinning anywhere. Just blind submission to an absurd narcissist in makeup. It's not even about returning to 19th Century Great Power politics since Republicans are doing everything possible to destroy America's national security. Republicans are beyond pathetic with their frightening devotion to a reality tv character.

So both traditional liberals and conservatives are politically homeless these days. I'd venture to guess at least 60 percent of the country hates both parties.

As a liberal leftist I agree with this. The problem is that I don’t think there is much consensus between my core views (raising my taxes is ok with me if the money goes to helping others and not war / defense spending and no one should make decisions over my body) and traditional conservatives (constitution above all, anti choice, Russia and Communism bad in all instances, let’s spend more on war, taxes must be cut, and we need to balance the budget by cutting services to people).

Maybe we can agree that some programs designed to help people are either not working or inefficient? I’m ok with reevaluating but I’m not okay with letting a kid go hungry or not lending a helping hand to an older adult at risk of homelessness (and I do agree there has been too much silly language like “unhoused” rather than homeless or “pregnant people”. And I am also not okay with support for wars in cases where the US is not directly attacked (and that in those cases we attack the attacker NOT an uninvolved country like Iraq).

Do you still strongly believe that “no one should make decisions over my body” when it comes to vaccines? Or only when you want to be allowed to physically cut and rip apart a baby that’s growing in your womb?

Yes in fact I do. The issue of vaccines is more complex because as we've seen in TX the unvaccinated impact more than just their own lives so I understand vaccine mandates. However, at the end of the day speaking for myself I still believe in individual's right to choice.

I just can’t understand people who want to force someone to inject something into their body to ostensibly try to save a newborn over here, while over there they are fighting to allow someone to rip apart a baby that’s about to be born but still a few days to go, even when there aren’t necessarily any medical reasons for doing it. How can a baby only have value after it comes out but not the day before?

I’m glad that you see the hypocrisy anyway.

FWIW I agree that neither abortion nor vaccines should be politicized. They should both be medical decisions that are made privately. I do think that anyone who aborts a baby after 20 weeks without a serious genetic or life risking medical issue should be sterilized at the same time though. It seems reasonable to prevent it from happening again. Democrats defending abortion in all cases constantly claim that this “never happens” so nobody should have a problem with that policy.

There is really no such thing as third trimester abortions unless the fetus dies or the health of the mother is at risk. I challenge you to find a case of an elective abortion of a viable fetus who was "a few days" from birth.

Hint: NO DOCTOR WOULD DO THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideology is dead in America. Todays Democrats stand for nothing at all except performance theater - pink dresses and paddles, anyone? Or how about Black Lives Matter Plaza? Or Trans reading hour at the library? Meanwhile, when was the last time a Democrat talked about health care? Or the environment? They don't because there is nothing there. Anti-Trump theater is the only thing that animates Democrats.

And Republicans are even worse. It's nothing but a cult of personality. There's no ideological underpinning anywhere. Just blind submission to an absurd narcissist in makeup. It's not even about returning to 19th Century Great Power politics since Republicans are doing everything possible to destroy America's national security. Republicans are beyond pathetic with their frightening devotion to a reality tv character.

So both traditional liberals and conservatives are politically homeless these days. I'd venture to guess at least 60 percent of the country hates both parties.

As a liberal leftist I agree with this. The problem is that I don’t think there is much consensus between my core views (raising my taxes is ok with me if the money goes to helping others and not war / defense spending and no one should make decisions over my body) and traditional conservatives (constitution above all, anti choice, Russia and Communism bad in all instances, let’s spend more on war, taxes must be cut, and we need to balance the budget by cutting services to people).

Maybe we can agree that some programs designed to help people are either not working or inefficient? I’m ok with reevaluating but I’m not okay with letting a kid go hungry or not lending a helping hand to an older adult at risk of homelessness (and I do agree there has been too much silly language like “unhoused” rather than homeless or “pregnant people”. And I am also not okay with support for wars in cases where the US is not directly attacked (and that in those cases we attack the attacker NOT an uninvolved country like Iraq).

Do you still strongly believe that “no one should make decisions over my body” when it comes to vaccines? Or only when you want to be allowed to physically cut and rip apart a baby that’s growing in your womb?

Yes in fact I do. The issue of vaccines is more complex because as we've seen in TX the unvaccinated impact more than just their own lives so I understand vaccine mandates. However, at the end of the day speaking for myself I still believe in individual's right to choice.

I just can’t understand people who want to force someone to inject something into their body to ostensibly try to save a newborn over here, while over there they are fighting to allow someone to rip apart a baby that’s about to be born but still a few days to go, even when there aren’t necessarily any medical reasons for doing it. How can a baby only have value after it comes out but not the day before?

I’m glad that you see the hypocrisy anyway.

FWIW I agree that neither abortion nor vaccines should be politicized. They should both be medical decisions that are made privately. I do think that anyone who aborts a baby after 20 weeks without a serious genetic or life risking medical issue should be sterilized at the same time though. It seems reasonable to prevent it from happening again. Democrats defending abortion in all cases constantly claim that this “never happens” so nobody should have a problem with that policy.

The issue is that getting lawyers and politicians involved in the discussion muddies the waters, particularly when things can change in a pregnancy at a moments notice and quick medical intervention may be necessary. Hence the call to leave it to the woman and her doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better question: where are the liberals who have winsome arguments and know how to win elections?

Where are the liberals who know how to avoid hitching their party to things that the electorate abhors. Where did they go?

Not seeing them anywhere.

So the problem is isn't "liberal policies or politics" but rather the center and left have allowed the right to frame EVERY issue in such a way that the right sounds reasonable when the reality is so different. The majority of the country agrees:
-abortion should be legal and safe in the first trimester and then thereafter under conditions
-sensible gun laws to keep weapons out of the hands of felons and people with mental illness
-taxation is ok if the money is well managed and spent
-federal responsibility for clean air and water, safe food and drugs are a good thing
-NATO and our western alliances have made lives better for Americans since the end of WW2 and they should remain intact

The above issues used to be consensus between both parties and now it is only one party that shares those values eventhough over 65% and in some cases over 85% share the above positions. But when the right is able to hammer and weaponize: 'states rights" "second Amendment" CRT, DEI, Defund the Police, Pro-Life as slogans that are either for their position or against the other side, and the nuance to debate and policy is lost, we end up with the lowest common denominator.

It isn’t framing. The problem with your bolded list is that:

1. In Democrat controlled states unfettered abortion access is real. Not the European-style consensus you describe. false

2. If they had the power Democrats absolutely would disarm the country. false

3. Federal responsibility for clean air and water is great until overreach happens like happened with the navigable waters case or when environmental policy is used as an economic hammer (the clean power plan). false

4. Our nato allies have absolutely been free riders (Obama was saying as much 12 years ago). And Ukraine is not a nato ally. And it hasn’t been part of a western alliance, either. We made a deal with Ukraine in 1994 that we should continue to honor

This is not about framing but about substance. Trump just usually picks the eaiswr to frame side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the primary system. We need open primaries to stop extremists from being nominated every time.

More a function of gerrymandering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traditional anti-war Democrats are now MAGA.

One issue I am with Trump
The Ukraine war.
When did the democrats become neocon?

If Trump is able to negotiate an end to the war, does he get a Nobel Peace Prize? He should, in my book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traditional anti-war Democrats are now MAGA.

One issue I am with Trump
The Ukraine war.
When did the democrats become neocon?

If Trump is able to negotiate an end to the war, does he get a Nobel Peace Prize? He should, in my book.

But can he do it without bribing, threatening, or quid pro quo?

[Anonymous]

I’d assume most of us went to work, out to dinner, to kids events, etc. Just like every other day. Not everyone lets politics consume their lives. Try it, it’s nice.

[Anonymous]

Where are the traditional liberals? They used to believe in individual freedom and peace. Now you advocate for government totalitarianism and perpetual wars. You've lost your minds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the traditional liberals? They used to believe in individual freedom and peace. Now you advocate for government totalitarianism and perpetual wars. You've lost your minds

You must be confused

You mean Trump challenging states' rights and inciting a war with China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traditional anti-war Democrats are now MAGA.

One issue I am with Trump
The Ukraine war.
When did the democrats become neocon?

If Trump is able to negotiate an end to the war, does he get a Nobel Peace Prize? He should, in my book.

Negotiation of the end of the war that ends in Russian annex some or all of a country is not a good solution, so, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d assume most of us went to work, out to dinner, to kids events, etc. Just like every other day. Not everyone lets politics consume their lives. Try it, it’s nice.

Said the person who kept silent in Germany in 1933.

[Anonymous]

Traditional Reagan conservative here, standing back and standing by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traditional Reagan conservative here, standing back and standing by.

You must be ancient

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideology is dead in America. Todays Democrats stand for nothing at all except performance theater - pink dresses and paddles, anyone? Or how about Black Lives Matter Plaza? Or Trans reading hour at the library? Meanwhile, when was the last time a Democrat talked about health care? Or the environment? They don't because there is nothing there. Anti-Trump theater is the only thing that animates Democrats.

And Republicans are even worse. It's nothing but a cult of personality. There's no ideological underpinning anywhere. Just blind submission to an absurd narcissist in makeup. It's not even about returning to 19th Century Great Power politics since Republicans are doing everything possible to destroy America's national security. Republicans are beyond pathetic with their frightening devotion to a reality tv character.

So both traditional liberals and conservatives are politically homeless these days. I'd venture to guess at least 60 percent of the country hates both parties.

As a liberal leftist I agree with this. The problem is that I don’t think there is much consensus between my core views (raising my taxes is ok with me if the money goes to helping others and not war / defense spending and no one should make decisions over my body) and traditional conservatives (constitution above all, anti choice, Russia and Communism bad in all instances, let’s spend more on war, taxes must be cut, and we need to balance the budget by cutting services to people).

Maybe we can agree that some programs designed to help people are either not working or inefficient? I’m ok with reevaluating but I’m not okay with letting a kid go hungry or not lending a helping hand to an older adult at risk of homelessness (and I do agree there has been too much silly language like “unhoused” rather than homeless or “pregnant people”. And I am also not okay with support for wars in cases where the US is not directly attacked (and that in those cases we attack the attacker NOT an uninvolved country like Iraq).

Do you still strongly believe that “no one should make decisions over my body” when it comes to vaccines? Or only when you want to be allowed to physically cut and rip apart a baby that’s growing in your womb?

Unless you were a government employee, no one forced you to get a vaccine shot. You can choose not to shop at that store or continue in that job, but there was never a time someone held you down and forced a jab on you.

It actually went a bit further than what you’re claiming. My company for example had one team working on one government project, so the entire company needed to get vaccines, even those who hadn’t heard of the government job, let alone worked on it. But I agree with you in theory that I could have just quit, and that you don’t owe me anything. Which is the same reason I don’t care about all the feds currently losing their jobs - but I know you’d call me an AH for that.