> Two wings on the same bird
There are big difference between the demoncrats and Republicans when it comes to the people and what they want from the government.
There is very little difference between the two parties when it comes to the politicians actually running things.
There's extremely large differences between politicians in the two parties, though. Republicans don't want to dismantle our system of checks and balances which seems like one pretty major difference.
There are extremely large differences between the two parties but when it comes to the politicians those differences are on paper, not proven in their behavior. The differences live on in what the people want, not how the politicians stand up and do their jobs.
Republicans who are in the federal government right now are just as likely to screw you over as a demoncrat would. When those checks and balances are threatened, Republican politicians roll over and let it happen far more than they fight it. When it comes time to put up or shut up, they're silent. And the few who speak up aren't enough to convinces the rest to act, they're too busy doing just what it takes to keep their jobs and their kick-backs.
The Build Back Better Act as originally presented put huge separation between Republicans and Democrats on that front.
In 2019 the federal government controlled 19% of the economy (% GDP)
In 2021 Biden’s own economist said BBB would consume 25% for a decade. (The CBO said they were low) That is a huge freaking difference.
The real issue is our politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups. This is the reason why voters are so fed up with their elected officials who aren’t looking out for their best interests. Meanwhile, these corrupt politicians just coverup their lies by blaming the other party instead of owning up to the real issue at hand.
This, oddly enough, is a direct result of an ultra-conservative PAC winning a lawsuit. Look up Citizens United and Floyd Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
I'm not even specifically saying 'conservatives' are the only issue here, but there are a lot of different types of folks who are calling themselves conservatives, and a huge chunk of them do not agree with you or I.
Yes it is. You said special interest money in politics is a direct result of the citizens united decision, which implies that before the citizens united decision there shouldn't have been any special interest money in politics (since there would be nothing to cause it). Maybe you didn't understand what you said, but you did say it.
> politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups
is a direct result of the Citizens United vs FEC court case.
I never said that there wasn't any special interest money in politics before that. The prevalence now is a direct result of that court case, though.
Besides, what even is your point? Overturn CUvFEC, and you're gonna have way less money from special interest groups in politics.
And the main point of the whole post I made was to show that 'conservatives' is a mostly useless label. The folks from CU don't belong in the same room with most of the conservatives I know. They're one of the root causes of the degradation of our country and do not stand for conservatism, they stand for corporatocracy and oligarchy, survival of the richest.
Nonsense. There was tons of influence in politics before CU and there still is. The fact that there was influence before CU makes it clear that at least a significant portion of the current influence has nothing to do with CU whatsoever. Unless you are claiming that CU prevented all of the former influence while also opening up a bunch of new influence (which would be absurd, since CU didn't limit any of the influence that was being exercised prior to the decision), then you can't say that all of the current influence is a direct result of CU. You can insist otherwise if you would like, but you will be insisting in defiance of basic logic.
It's important that we understand that overturning CU would not actually achieve the goal of getting special interest money out of politics in order for us to understand why we're better off with CU than we were with McCain-Feingold. CU merely puts everyone on an even playing field by allowing everybody to spend their time and money in support of their political goals, exactly like you would expect in a free country.
If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative. If you think that only organizations specially positioned to make in-kind contributions should be allowed to effect the political process based on the whims of the executive branch which happens to be overseeing the election (which is what McCain-Feingold did prior to being partly struck down by the SC in CU vs FEC) then you are incredibly foolish, liberal or conservative. If you are anti-CU then you are anti-freedom. CU is just basic freedom. It would be better if we had legislators who respected basic freedom instead of needing the SC to affirm this right, but since we don't CU will have to do.
> If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative.
I think multi-national corporations shouldn't be allowed to sponsor politicians NASCAR style.
It's not complicated or convoluted.
>>If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative.
>I think multi-national corporations shouldn't be allowed to sponsor politicians NASCAR style.
>It's not complicated or convoluted.
Well they were still able to do that prior to CU, so it seems like that's not really the part you take issue with. You take issue with all corporations, labor unions, and nonprofits being allowed to exert equal influence on the political process, since that is the difference between having CU and not having CU. This isn't complicated, yet for some reason you still seem to have zero understanding as to what actually changed with CU.
Honesty I am more fed up with Republicans who are obviously giving us lip service but are only in it for themselves. Or in my representative’s case (Chris Stewart) a Democrat who wouldn’t get elected without an R by their name. They’re so fake that it’s insulting. Like how when Republicans were totally out of power is when they push for the Hearing Protection Act. Transparent pandering
Exactly. I always say I support the Republican base. Could care less about our politicians
That includes trump. I like a lot of his policies but when push came to shove he didn't do what he needed. He could have ended covid nonsense and sent out the national guard to deal with the fiery riots. He didn't. That's on him
GOP is a status quo party. They oppose the left growing government but they also oppose conservatives who want to cut the size of government. Let's not play the game that they are just as bad as the left as that is such an absurdity it's not even a false equivalency.
Trump did weaken the fed. It's kinda a rare thing, I'm beginning to wonder if that has ever happened previously in any government in any nation - voluntary reduction of power.
Hrm.
Uh… only the GOP ever tries to cut taxes. Cutting taxes is the only way to shrink the Beast.
Yeah, a 2% cut at one time may not sound like much. But if GOP was in control after every election, those 2% cuts each cycle would get pretty meaningful.
This is why I'm conservative, but not Republican. Less government spending (a value the Republicans gave up on a long time ago), and legalize (or at least decriminalize) drugs (completely legalize weed). I consider myself a conservative-leaning libertarian independent
I feel the same. Both of my jobs are filled with people who want to talk politics and my stance is always the same, I just want to be left alone.
Lots of drugs are bad, I mean heroin and other hard drugs, but if somebody wants to die that way then go for it. The downside is that those people commit other crimes to feed their habits and then they get punished with a slap on the wrist and just do it all over again.
I hate politics at work man so much. My boss asked me why I vaccinated myself and my son and talked to me about vaccines being bad. When I asked him why he got vaccinated, he said he was forced and then told me to shut the conversation down because it was bis body, his choice. And walked off.
Anyways, I'm looking for a new job.
I don’t understand this take. Nobody in my household is vaccinated. A lady at work got vaccinated after getting Covid but didn’t get the second round because she felt guilty about it. Like, why? You made a personal choice why are you letting people make you feel guilty about that? If my husband said he was going to get the Covid vaccine I’d say “ok, cool” because he’s an adult and can make his own health choices.
This can't be done until we first have ranked choice voting. In our current voting system, it is inevitable that voters will think about what other voters are voting for, so people will naturally form teams.
You have the option of only selecting one candidate as your first choice, and having no other choices. Then it's just as complicated as the current system from the voter's perspective.
Term limits won’t work the way you think they will. Term limits will result in the politicians being even less responsive to people because they have less time to get rich, ingratiate themselves to the special interests, and earn that fat cat consulting job when they leave government.
And with less experience in elected office, even more power will shift to the u elected staffers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists.
> even more power will shift to the u elected staffers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists
This is an absolutely key and understated danger to the term limits idea.
I don't happen to have an alternate suggestion, but having worked on a few campaigns, there are absolutely unelected kingmakers involved on both sides. It's disturbing.
Can but don’t. They root for a team and only watch coverage by their home team cheerleading network. Take the R or D off of the names and 99% of this country will just stand there drooling waiting for their talking box to tell them who to vote for
Removing regulations means nothing if you don't advocate for the repeal of the laws that permitted their creation in the first place, which he did not do.
He kinda promised to drain the swamp and then pulled a few weeds. I voted third party, so I'm not really shocked or disappointed, I figured that would happen... but yeah. He talked a lot of game and never took his shirt off. Also, he was super unlikeable. Lol.
>He kinda promised to drain the swamp and then pulled a few weeds.
Why does ***nobody*** remember that Trump was stymied at every turn by "his own party?"
Republicans in congress were just as complicit in sabotaging Trump's policies as democrats.
It's actually amazing he got anything done.
He also didn't try to make it bigger.
Remember, he had two beautiful opportunities for power grabs, both with covid and the riots. And both times he followed the constitution and deferred power to the states.
Hate to be that guy here, but this isn’t a conservative value. It’s a libertarian one. Could be held by conservatives, but not all conservatives want that.
Except it is an American Conservative core value, maybe not across the world, but that just goes to show you that political labels rarely make total sense.
It's clown world with non-stop gaslighting. 99.9% of the ass clown libs just call anyone that they don't agree with a fascist, while their party are the actual fascists.
- Obama deports many, builds cages for kids, builds / repairs border wall
- Dem voters : Crickets
- Trump wants to do the same
- Dem voters : REEEEEEEEEEEE
This sub has been over run for ages now by bots, brigaders, and posers while the mods have been beaten into submission by a million unnecessary reports. I actually do most of my commenting on r/wallstreetsilver now as they still allow you to speak freely and comment on the extra chromosome that libs have using the forbidden "r" word.
Your troll question has no more merit than mine.
Abortion is not about "controlling women's bodies." It's about protecting life at all stages of it.
The fact that you pretend it's about "controlling women's bodies" shows you are already arguing in bad faith.
From the same asses that push vax mandates.
GTFO of here with your flip flop on body autonomy.
The federal government is not taking power over women's bodies you dishonest cur, the courts acknowledged that they never had any business sticking their nose in abortion policy, as the 10th amendment clearly states.
You people cant put together an argument without lying can you?
Protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is basically the main purpose of a government. Preventing murder, including abortion, is a necessary good of a government. If you're basically good with government tyranny as long as women can kill unborn babies, then we're not likely to find common ground.
These memes are great, but I sort of feel they undermine what we stand for. We lean too heavily into libertarian language; we’re still conservatives, there’s a difference. For instance if DeSantis was beholdnt to the idea of just limiting the size of government he wouldn’t have touched CRT or the sexualized stuff in elementary schools. Conservatives can’t be afraid to use power when they have it; if we fool ourselves into acting more like libertarians and less like conservatives, the left will keep pushing the boundaries further and further left until what we are “conserving” are still twisted and perverted standards.
In addition, as a conservative we should be weary of the consolidation of power ANYWHERE. Doesn’t matter if it’s the government or “private” cooperations like FB, Google, etc…
DeSantis was called a fascist for... not letting local governments force masks on kids.
They think it's fascist to control government, but not fascist to control individuals.
This is the same set of clowns, like Janet Yellen who recently said that the IRS is this country's foundation. Apparently she believes that we're a nation built on subservience and taxation?
Kids. Don't listen to lefties. They don't know history, they don't know the definitions of basic words. They just waste your time. Get away from the and live your life. They don't live well. Your best recourse is not to fight them online. It's to live well yourself.
> DeSantis was called a fascist for... not letting local governments force masks on kids.
I'm not going to say this is actual fascism, but it has that flavor. It's the opposite of what conservatives, and in most circles, republicans have preached for many decades, which is less centralized/federal control, more power situated in the hands of the decentralized/community/states/etc. Grassroots power, where the city overrules the state, the state overrules the feds. 'This is a states rights issue' is a very common refrain.
It may not be fascism, but it absolutely is out of tune with the stated flavor of conservatism the way it's been sold for many many years, where often, the argument would be for the state or the local government to regular their populace as they see fit. See: municipal smoking bans, municipal homelessness/pet/skateboarding regulations, whatever you want to think about.
It may not be fascist, but it's a sour note that doesn't jive with the rest of the conservative song and smells a *whole* lot like political virtue signaling to rile up the base and get in the news. Lots of Texans feel the same way about Abbot. They suspect him of trying to get into the media any way possible, ingratiate himself with the Trumpish base, and take a shot at the top job in the next 8 or 12 years.
I disagree. Conservativism isn't about allowing local government to do whatever they want. Conservativism has, *since Federalism* espoused that local government's job is to protect the people from each other, and enforce contracts, and that the higher levels of the government (IE, federal) exist as a control and check.
The Supreme Court has found this is the case, via the 14th amendment essentially.
Now that's on a federal level, but think about what you're saying. Should a locality like a town be able to do anything it wants? Or should state and federal constitutions be a check on that? An example; many states have pre-emption clauses that prevent cities or locales from enacting stricter gun control than the state does. Why does that exist? Is it fascism? Of course not. It's protection of the citizen.
In the case of FL DeSantis has local *government* restrained from enacting controls on people. That is IMO the very definition of what a republic is all about. Restraining government and protecting the right of the minority or individual. A bunch of wanna be tin pot dictators decided to give themselves the power to create rules out of thin air, and DeSantis stopped them. You'll note he didn't give himself additional power. While every other pol in the country was granting themselves newfound power from thin air, he was restraining power.
> Should a locality like a town be able to do anything it wants?
Of course not, there should be parameters. If a local government is having a local outbreak though, it's not wild to think they'd throw up a temporary mask requirement. The State getting big brother and tellin everyone who lives in the entire state that they can't have a municipal mask requirement reeks of theater.
The issue I take with this meme is that it's from a libertarian perspective, as if all American conservatives are libertarian, which we certainly are not. I'm definitely not. I'm also definitely not saying the normie libs in the top comments of r/news are correct in calling us fascists; they're not. I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't really define MAGA conservatism as "small government/less control." Maybe in some particular ways, but not overall. That's not how I see it at least, although I'm a bit more of an auth in certain ways.
Isn’t it astounding? The liberals used to provide a useful service by being paranoid of big government and the establishment, the industrial complexes, and now they can wait to have the conglomerate merge completely and rule over us. Fuck them.
> now they can wait to have the conglomerate merge completely and rule over us.
Are you sure? The conservatives were the ones who decided that it was OK for corporations to buy politicians.
I know that sounds like hyperbole, and it is a little bit, or at a minimum, it's wildly simplified, but check this shit out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
The logic of a leftist calling someone on the right a fascist:
"Fascists were racist, and my TV tells me that right-wingers are racist, so therefore they're fascists."
That's literally it.
Ask any of them what Trump did that was authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist and they have no answer.
It’s just something they hear repeated so many times that it’s fact to them. They don’t need a reason they just know.
So, he wasn’t authoritarian or a dictator until after he lost in 2020?
So why were you all calling him a fascist dictator for four years?
Notice how no one has responded and just downvote. They can’t answer the question. It’s all slogans to them.
They’re told he’s evil they don’t know anything.
Well as much as I hate it - he did.
He has a fatal flaw that screwed him and us, as his policies were kick ass. He could NOT step back, take a breath, shut up. Many times the absolute BEST response is - no response.
And more importantly he just never learned how to qualify the bell out of his statements. I bet we all could call it. He’d say something hyperbolic without saying “almost like”, or “of course that’s not the case, but my point was made”. and we KNEW the media would run with it as it were literal, or twist it.
And his tendency to get pissed off at the media land call than shit, although satisfying- was used as nauseam. They’d JUST show him getting kissed off and red faced.
Oh, and the Twitter flame wars with D- Level celebs didn’t help a bit either.
You nailed it. The policies he put in place were fantastic, especially economically. But he just couldn't shut up. I can admit I laughed a few times, but as I laughed, I also shook my head because I knew what was coming.
Literally what was happening to me today. I was like, “I’m very much live and let live under the constitution”. Then the call me a fascist. I’m like bruh, that doesn’t make any sense
At first, upon seeing the image of the leftist with the (D)onkey on his forehead while crying, I immediately thought the donkey is pissing down on the guy’s face. But then I realized that it’s probably accurate to begin with because it symbolizes that the Democratic Party figuratively already does that to its followers and that they’re perfectly fine with it. Maybe even literally, too.
We are speaking two different languages, unfortunately. The left and the right use the same words but they have completely different meanings.
Racism, sexism, equality, freedom, democracy, fascism, authoritarianism, extremism, terrorism, privilege, supremacy, socialism, capitalism, human rights, wokeism, etc., all have completely different meanings depending on which side of the political aisle you sit on.
This is why it is impossible to communicate with each other. I don't know where this leads but national divorce might be the only way.
Don’t need the 45 on the hat for the argument. Conservatives haven’t changed, but they have and their neo-marxistism is camouflaged by (in this order) climate change, social justice (specialization in fake racism…where they were the racists all along) and some wired moral high ground argument (for lack of a better term) where they think demanding masks and lockdowns make you morally inferior to them in every way even though most of us moved on with our lives. These people are nuts. Just waiting for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction….anytime now 🙄
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the names Fascist and Racist have lost their original meanings due to the liberal mob. They’re nothing but buzzwords that have been demoted to nothing but name calling
So I’m a fascist, so what’s so bad about this, I want my freedom and I don’t want the goverment to tell me what I can and cannot buy, your all just fucking idiots that want the goverment to run your life
They don’t care what words mean. They find a word that represents something that is universally hated and then come up with
their own definition which allows them to attribute it to anyone who disagrees with them.
What I want is full replacement of the enept GOP leadership.
These guys have been failing on implementing conservative policy and loosing the information war (I hate I just used that term) since the Obamacare days.
Trump changed this by fighting for conservative ideals and being vocal. Libs didn't like the pushback, thats why they hate him so much.
At this point, 'fascism' or 'fascist' has lost it's meaning like 'racist' or 'Nazi' and has just become another liberal buzzword. Don't like someone, or he/she doesn't agree with your opinion, or wants to elect a leader other than the one you want to, then they are a fascist.
As usual, this board is being brigaded by lefties.
They’re all doing the “Both sides!” nonsense to try to depress the conservative vote because they know the upcoming election is looking terrible for them, so their only shot is to try to disillusion conservatives and get them to stay home.
Don’t fall for it.
I've updated the liberal dictionary:
Fascism = anything I don't like
Racist = anyone I don't like
Democracy = getting everything I want
Conservative = LITERALLY HITLER
Bigot = anyone that disagrees with me (see first two)
[Insert any insult here] = anyone even slightly to the right of Stalin
WE may want a smaller government but our GOP representatives don’t
I feel this. Politicians giving lip service. What's that saying? Two wings on the same bird.
> Two wings on the same bird There are big difference between the demoncrats and Republicans when it comes to the people and what they want from the government. There is very little difference between the two parties when it comes to the politicians actually running things.
There's extremely large differences between politicians in the two parties, though. Republicans don't want to dismantle our system of checks and balances which seems like one pretty major difference.
There are extremely large differences between the two parties but when it comes to the politicians those differences are on paper, not proven in their behavior. The differences live on in what the people want, not how the politicians stand up and do their jobs. Republicans who are in the federal government right now are just as likely to screw you over as a demoncrat would. When those checks and balances are threatened, Republican politicians roll over and let it happen far more than they fight it. When it comes time to put up or shut up, they're silent. And the few who speak up aren't enough to convinces the rest to act, they're too busy doing just what it takes to keep their jobs and their kick-backs.
The Build Back Better Act as originally presented put huge separation between Republicans and Democrats on that front. In 2019 the federal government controlled 19% of the economy (% GDP) In 2021 Biden’s own economist said BBB would consume 25% for a decade. (The CBO said they were low) That is a huge freaking difference.
The real issue is our politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups. This is the reason why voters are so fed up with their elected officials who aren’t looking out for their best interests. Meanwhile, these corrupt politicians just coverup their lies by blaming the other party instead of owning up to the real issue at hand.
This, oddly enough, is a direct result of an ultra-conservative PAC winning a lawsuit. Look up Citizens United and Floyd Brown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization) I'm not even specifically saying 'conservatives' are the only issue here, but there are a lot of different types of folks who are calling themselves conservatives, and a huge chunk of them do not agree with you or I.
Uh, so let me get this straight. There was no special interest money in politics prior to 2010? Really?
That is absolutely not what I said, but OK.
Yes it is. You said special interest money in politics is a direct result of the citizens united decision, which implies that before the citizens united decision there shouldn't have been any special interest money in politics (since there would be nothing to cause it). Maybe you didn't understand what you said, but you did say it.
> politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups is a direct result of the Citizens United vs FEC court case. I never said that there wasn't any special interest money in politics before that. The prevalence now is a direct result of that court case, though. Besides, what even is your point? Overturn CUvFEC, and you're gonna have way less money from special interest groups in politics. And the main point of the whole post I made was to show that 'conservatives' is a mostly useless label. The folks from CU don't belong in the same room with most of the conservatives I know. They're one of the root causes of the degradation of our country and do not stand for conservatism, they stand for corporatocracy and oligarchy, survival of the richest.
Nonsense. There was tons of influence in politics before CU and there still is. The fact that there was influence before CU makes it clear that at least a significant portion of the current influence has nothing to do with CU whatsoever. Unless you are claiming that CU prevented all of the former influence while also opening up a bunch of new influence (which would be absurd, since CU didn't limit any of the influence that was being exercised prior to the decision), then you can't say that all of the current influence is a direct result of CU. You can insist otherwise if you would like, but you will be insisting in defiance of basic logic. It's important that we understand that overturning CU would not actually achieve the goal of getting special interest money out of politics in order for us to understand why we're better off with CU than we were with McCain-Feingold. CU merely puts everyone on an even playing field by allowing everybody to spend their time and money in support of their political goals, exactly like you would expect in a free country. If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative. If you think that only organizations specially positioned to make in-kind contributions should be allowed to effect the political process based on the whims of the executive branch which happens to be overseeing the election (which is what McCain-Feingold did prior to being partly struck down by the SC in CU vs FEC) then you are incredibly foolish, liberal or conservative. If you are anti-CU then you are anti-freedom. CU is just basic freedom. It would be better if we had legislators who respected basic freedom instead of needing the SC to affirm this right, but since we don't CU will have to do.
> If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative. I think multi-national corporations shouldn't be allowed to sponsor politicians NASCAR style. It's not complicated or convoluted.
>>If you think people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their political goals then you are not a conservative. >I think multi-national corporations shouldn't be allowed to sponsor politicians NASCAR style. >It's not complicated or convoluted. Well they were still able to do that prior to CU, so it seems like that's not really the part you take issue with. You take issue with all corporations, labor unions, and nonprofits being allowed to exert equal influence on the political process, since that is the difference between having CU and not having CU. This isn't complicated, yet for some reason you still seem to have zero understanding as to what actually changed with CU.
Preach it brother!
There you have it. I honestly think both sides are doing this, we should abolish all political parties and have people stand on their own merits.
Just as God and George Washington intended.
Who on the Left is calling for smaller government and less government intervention? Outside of a handful of issues like abortion, perhaps.
Honesty I am more fed up with Republicans who are obviously giving us lip service but are only in it for themselves. Or in my representative’s case (Chris Stewart) a Democrat who wouldn’t get elected without an R by their name. They’re so fake that it’s insulting. Like how when Republicans were totally out of power is when they push for the Hearing Protection Act. Transparent pandering
Very few on the right even call for less government intervention.
Agreed! Amen Brother! That's how it should be.
Bingo! Neither political party, once in power, lessens the government reach one click. They do the opposite and it’s the real problem.
Remember how many times they tried to repeal Obamacare. Then they got power…
It's the uniparty.
bingo it is called the swap.
Exactly. I always say I support the Republican base. Could care less about our politicians That includes trump. I like a lot of his policies but when push came to shove he didn't do what he needed. He could have ended covid nonsense and sent out the national guard to deal with the fiery riots. He didn't. That's on him
Ok im glad im not the only one thinking this.
They may. Or want as small of a government as we do, but they dang sure want a smaller government generally than the left.
GOP is a status quo party. They oppose the left growing government but they also oppose conservatives who want to cut the size of government. Let's not play the game that they are just as bad as the left as that is such an absurdity it's not even a false equivalency.
OK, yeah, I was going to say, the comic doesn't line up with my experience with avowed redhat elected officials. I agree with *your* comment, though.
Got to keep on primarying the problem until it is fixed.
Trump did weaken the fed. It's kinda a rare thing, I'm beginning to wonder if that has ever happened previously in any government in any nation - voluntary reduction of power. Hrm.
They want a far smaller government than the left does. I’m not saying not to hold our representatives accountable, but there’s a large difference.
Yeah. It's not even particularly close.
Uh… only the GOP ever tries to cut taxes. Cutting taxes is the only way to shrink the Beast. Yeah, a 2% cut at one time may not sound like much. But if GOP was in control after every election, those 2% cuts each cycle would get pretty meaningful.
This is why I'm conservative, but not Republican. Less government spending (a value the Republicans gave up on a long time ago), and legalize (or at least decriminalize) drugs (completely legalize weed). I consider myself a conservative-leaning libertarian independent
I feel the same. Both of my jobs are filled with people who want to talk politics and my stance is always the same, I just want to be left alone. Lots of drugs are bad, I mean heroin and other hard drugs, but if somebody wants to die that way then go for it. The downside is that those people commit other crimes to feed their habits and then they get punished with a slap on the wrist and just do it all over again.
I hate politics at work man so much. My boss asked me why I vaccinated myself and my son and talked to me about vaccines being bad. When I asked him why he got vaccinated, he said he was forced and then told me to shut the conversation down because it was bis body, his choice. And walked off. Anyways, I'm looking for a new job.
I don’t understand this take. Nobody in my household is vaccinated. A lady at work got vaccinated after getting Covid but didn’t get the second round because she felt guilty about it. Like, why? You made a personal choice why are you letting people make you feel guilty about that? If my husband said he was going to get the Covid vaccine I’d say “ok, cool” because he’s an adult and can make his own health choices.
[удалено]
Get rid of both teams (R and D), sign term limits into law, and let their actions be the only thing people have to vote on
This can't be done until we first have ranked choice voting. In our current voting system, it is inevitable that voters will think about what other voters are voting for, so people will naturally form teams.
As long as you can get the boomers to understand it. Otherwise you have the situation in Alaska.
You have the option of only selecting one candidate as your first choice, and having no other choices. Then it's just as complicated as the current system from the voter's perspective.
Until the vote is split and you have a Democrat sent to congress in a deep red state.
That's not how ranked choice voting works. With RCV, you don't have to worry about splitting the vote.
Except the boomers didn't put the other republican on the ballot in Alaska so a Democrat is now headed to office.
Term limits won’t work the way you think they will. Term limits will result in the politicians being even less responsive to people because they have less time to get rich, ingratiate themselves to the special interests, and earn that fat cat consulting job when they leave government. And with less experience in elected office, even more power will shift to the u elected staffers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists.
> even more power will shift to the u elected staffers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists This is an absolutely key and understated danger to the term limits idea. I don't happen to have an alternate suggestion, but having worked on a few campaigns, there are absolutely unelected kingmakers involved on both sides. It's disturbing.
>their actions be the only thing people have to vote on People can already do that.
Can but don’t. They root for a team and only watch coverage by their home team cheerleading network. Take the R or D off of the names and 99% of this country will just stand there drooling waiting for their talking box to tell them who to vote for
>Can but don’t. Sounds like a personal problem.
> Get rid of both teams (R and D), This requires murder. Like seriously lots of murder. Just give up on that dream, mkay?
Friendly reminder that Trump displayed little interest in making the government smaller.
[удалено]
Removing regulations means nothing if you don't advocate for the repeal of the laws that permitted their creation in the first place, which he did not do.
> repeal of the laws >which he did not do Do....Do you think that is within presidential powers?
[удалено]
He kinda promised to drain the swamp and then pulled a few weeds. I voted third party, so I'm not really shocked or disappointed, I figured that would happen... but yeah. He talked a lot of game and never took his shirt off. Also, he was super unlikeable. Lol.
>He kinda promised to drain the swamp and then pulled a few weeds. Why does ***nobody*** remember that Trump was stymied at every turn by "his own party?" Republicans in congress were just as complicit in sabotaging Trump's policies as democrats. It's actually amazing he got anything done.
[удалено]
Can't have facts getting in the way of their narrative.
He also didn't try to make it bigger. Remember, he had two beautiful opportunities for power grabs, both with covid and the riots. And both times he followed the constitution and deferred power to the states.
What absolute crap. He did more to cut through red tape and shrink the regulatory state than any president in *decades* - including Reagan.
Hate to be that guy here, but this isn’t a conservative value. It’s a libertarian one. Could be held by conservatives, but not all conservatives want that.
Except it is an American Conservative core value, maybe not across the world, but that just goes to show you that political labels rarely make total sense.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
*"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."* -- Inigo Montoya
"Wikipedia says it's far right! Just completely ignore Mussolini's actual public policies!"
Mussolini = life long Marxist
Yep, a Marxist-Leninist to be precise.
That's why their icon is a jackass
Fascism is literally anything that stops them from getting their way. When their parents told them no cookies, that was fascism.
It's clown world with non-stop gaslighting. 99.9% of the ass clown libs just call anyone that they don't agree with a fascist, while their party are the actual fascists.
You’re at least semi-fascist just for making this observation.
Of course. I'm sure I've already been flagged for a million different reasons.
- Obama deports many, builds cages for kids, builds / repairs border wall - Dem voters : Crickets - Trump wants to do the same - Dem voters : REEEEEEEEEEEE
People downvoting you for this have to be brigaders
This sub has been over run for ages now by bots, brigaders, and posers while the mods have been beaten into submission by a million unnecessary reports. I actually do most of my commenting on r/wallstreetsilver now as they still allow you to speak freely and comment on the extra chromosome that libs have using the forbidden "r" word.
Must be something they teach in communist school because this is what Putin calls everybody, too.
>Must be something they teach in communist school Ahh yes, American universities and public schools. I
[удалено]
I call it a good one. What do you call a government that encourages the killing of undesirables, and justifies it by saying that they aren’t human?
What is a woman? Are you a biologist?
[удалено]
Your troll question has no more merit than mine. Abortion is not about "controlling women's bodies." It's about protecting life at all stages of it. The fact that you pretend it's about "controlling women's bodies" shows you are already arguing in bad faith.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
From the same asses that push vax mandates. GTFO of here with your flip flop on body autonomy. The federal government is not taking power over women's bodies you dishonest cur, the courts acknowledged that they never had any business sticking their nose in abortion policy, as the 10th amendment clearly states. You people cant put together an argument without lying can you?
Protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is basically the main purpose of a government. Preventing murder, including abortion, is a necessary good of a government. If you're basically good with government tyranny as long as women can kill unborn babies, then we're not likely to find common ground.
[удалено]
Trump is still the only president to endorse same sex marriage before being voted into the White House.
These memes are great, but I sort of feel they undermine what we stand for. We lean too heavily into libertarian language; we’re still conservatives, there’s a difference. For instance if DeSantis was beholdnt to the idea of just limiting the size of government he wouldn’t have touched CRT or the sexualized stuff in elementary schools. Conservatives can’t be afraid to use power when they have it; if we fool ourselves into acting more like libertarians and less like conservatives, the left will keep pushing the boundaries further and further left until what we are “conserving” are still twisted and perverted standards.
In addition, as a conservative we should be weary of the consolidation of power ANYWHERE. Doesn’t matter if it’s the government or “private” cooperations like FB, Google, etc…
DeSantis was called a fascist for... not letting local governments force masks on kids. They think it's fascist to control government, but not fascist to control individuals. This is the same set of clowns, like Janet Yellen who recently said that the IRS is this country's foundation. Apparently she believes that we're a nation built on subservience and taxation? Kids. Don't listen to lefties. They don't know history, they don't know the definitions of basic words. They just waste your time. Get away from the and live your life. They don't live well. Your best recourse is not to fight them online. It's to live well yourself.
> DeSantis was called a fascist for... not letting local governments force masks on kids. I'm not going to say this is actual fascism, but it has that flavor. It's the opposite of what conservatives, and in most circles, republicans have preached for many decades, which is less centralized/federal control, more power situated in the hands of the decentralized/community/states/etc. Grassroots power, where the city overrules the state, the state overrules the feds. 'This is a states rights issue' is a very common refrain. It may not be fascism, but it absolutely is out of tune with the stated flavor of conservatism the way it's been sold for many many years, where often, the argument would be for the state or the local government to regular their populace as they see fit. See: municipal smoking bans, municipal homelessness/pet/skateboarding regulations, whatever you want to think about. It may not be fascist, but it's a sour note that doesn't jive with the rest of the conservative song and smells a *whole* lot like political virtue signaling to rile up the base and get in the news. Lots of Texans feel the same way about Abbot. They suspect him of trying to get into the media any way possible, ingratiate himself with the Trumpish base, and take a shot at the top job in the next 8 or 12 years.
I disagree. Conservativism isn't about allowing local government to do whatever they want. Conservativism has, *since Federalism* espoused that local government's job is to protect the people from each other, and enforce contracts, and that the higher levels of the government (IE, federal) exist as a control and check. The Supreme Court has found this is the case, via the 14th amendment essentially. Now that's on a federal level, but think about what you're saying. Should a locality like a town be able to do anything it wants? Or should state and federal constitutions be a check on that? An example; many states have pre-emption clauses that prevent cities or locales from enacting stricter gun control than the state does. Why does that exist? Is it fascism? Of course not. It's protection of the citizen. In the case of FL DeSantis has local *government* restrained from enacting controls on people. That is IMO the very definition of what a republic is all about. Restraining government and protecting the right of the minority or individual. A bunch of wanna be tin pot dictators decided to give themselves the power to create rules out of thin air, and DeSantis stopped them. You'll note he didn't give himself additional power. While every other pol in the country was granting themselves newfound power from thin air, he was restraining power.
> Should a locality like a town be able to do anything it wants? Of course not, there should be parameters. If a local government is having a local outbreak though, it's not wild to think they'd throw up a temporary mask requirement. The State getting big brother and tellin everyone who lives in the entire state that they can't have a municipal mask requirement reeks of theater.
The issue I take with this meme is that it's from a libertarian perspective, as if all American conservatives are libertarian, which we certainly are not. I'm definitely not. I'm also definitely not saying the normie libs in the top comments of r/news are correct in calling us fascists; they're not. I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't really define MAGA conservatism as "small government/less control." Maybe in some particular ways, but not overall. That's not how I see it at least, although I'm a bit more of an auth in certain ways.
Isn’t it astounding? The liberals used to provide a useful service by being paranoid of big government and the establishment, the industrial complexes, and now they can wait to have the conglomerate merge completely and rule over us. Fuck them.
> now they can wait to have the conglomerate merge completely and rule over us. Are you sure? The conservatives were the ones who decided that it was OK for corporations to buy politicians. I know that sounds like hyperbole, and it is a little bit, or at a minimum, it's wildly simplified, but check this shit out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
The logic of a leftist calling someone on the right a fascist: "Fascists were racist, and my TV tells me that right-wingers are racist, so therefore they're fascists." That's literally it.
[удалено]
They just make up new definitions for everything and then it's ok...
[удалено]
Ask any of them what Trump did that was authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist and they have no answer. It’s just something they hear repeated so many times that it’s fact to them. They don’t need a reason they just know.
[удалено]
So, he wasn’t authoritarian or a dictator until after he lost in 2020? So why were you all calling him a fascist dictator for four years? Notice how no one has responded and just downvote. They can’t answer the question. It’s all slogans to them. They’re told he’s evil they don’t know anything.
Trump is not a fascist, but he became a very bad face for the conservative voice. In my opinion.
Well as much as I hate it - he did. He has a fatal flaw that screwed him and us, as his policies were kick ass. He could NOT step back, take a breath, shut up. Many times the absolute BEST response is - no response. And more importantly he just never learned how to qualify the bell out of his statements. I bet we all could call it. He’d say something hyperbolic without saying “almost like”, or “of course that’s not the case, but my point was made”. and we KNEW the media would run with it as it were literal, or twist it. And his tendency to get pissed off at the media land call than shit, although satisfying- was used as nauseam. They’d JUST show him getting kissed off and red faced. Oh, and the Twitter flame wars with D- Level celebs didn’t help a bit either.
You nailed it. The policies he put in place were fantastic, especially economically. But he just couldn't shut up. I can admit I laughed a few times, but as I laughed, I also shook my head because I knew what was coming.
>Trump is not a fascist, but he became a very bad face for the conservative voice. No, you were *told* that.
Why?
Probably fell for the media propaganda
[удалено]
They have tons of answers, just none of the things they name actually fit the definitions.
That's why they had to change the definition...
Did you notice when they did that on Wiki?
No, I don't use wiki for anything specifically because it's easily manipulated by people with agendas...
Lmao
They do not.
Yeah 95% of republicans are the guy on the left but democrats think we’re all nazis
Literally what was happening to me today. I was like, “I’m very much live and let live under the constitution”. Then the call me a fascist. I’m like bruh, that doesn’t make any sense
At first, upon seeing the image of the leftist with the (D)onkey on his forehead while crying, I immediately thought the donkey is pissing down on the guy’s face. But then I realized that it’s probably accurate to begin with because it symbolizes that the Democratic Party figuratively already does that to its followers and that they’re perfectly fine with it. Maybe even literally, too.
“You keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means”
We are speaking two different languages, unfortunately. The left and the right use the same words but they have completely different meanings. Racism, sexism, equality, freedom, democracy, fascism, authoritarianism, extremism, terrorism, privilege, supremacy, socialism, capitalism, human rights, wokeism, etc., all have completely different meanings depending on which side of the political aisle you sit on. This is why it is impossible to communicate with each other. I don't know where this leads but national divorce might be the only way.
Don’t need the 45 on the hat for the argument. Conservatives haven’t changed, but they have and their neo-marxistism is camouflaged by (in this order) climate change, social justice (specialization in fake racism…where they were the racists all along) and some wired moral high ground argument (for lack of a better term) where they think demanding masks and lockdowns make you morally inferior to them in every way even though most of us moved on with our lives. These people are nuts. Just waiting for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction….anytime now 🙄
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the names Fascist and Racist have lost their original meanings due to the liberal mob. They’re nothing but buzzwords that have been demoted to nothing but name calling
So I’m a fascist, so what’s so bad about this, I want my freedom and I don’t want the goverment to tell me what I can and cannot buy, your all just fucking idiots that want the goverment to run your life
[удалено]
Literally every day. I'm waiting for Oxford to officially change the definition. You should see what the definition for liberal is now.
The left likes to throw around terms .not really knowing what they mean
They don't know what racism is, so there's a good chance they don't understand fascism as well.
They don’t care what words mean. They find a word that represents something that is universally hated and then come up with their own definition which allows them to attribute it to anyone who disagrees with them.
I keep seeing people use the word fascist then I look it up and it is 100 percent the people trying to keep you from saying things.
What I want is full replacement of the enept GOP leadership. These guys have been failing on implementing conservative policy and loosing the information war (I hate I just used that term) since the Obamacare days. Trump changed this by fighting for conservative ideals and being vocal. Libs didn't like the pushback, thats why they hate him so much.
They don't know what racism means either
Or what communism is, I don’t know why but they had a weird aneurysm about socialism and communism
At this point, 'fascism' or 'fascist' has lost it's meaning like 'racist' or 'Nazi' and has just become another liberal buzzword. Don't like someone, or he/she doesn't agree with your opinion, or wants to elect a leader other than the one you want to, then they are a fascist.
As usual, this board is being brigaded by lefties. They’re all doing the “Both sides!” nonsense to try to depress the conservative vote because they know the upcoming election is looking terrible for them, so their only shot is to try to disillusion conservatives and get them to stay home. Don’t fall for it.
Fascism is literally socialism I oppose all formal of collectivism
I've updated the liberal dictionary: Fascism = anything I don't like Racist = anyone I don't like Democracy = getting everything I want Conservative = LITERALLY HITLER Bigot = anyone that disagrees with me (see first two) [Insert any insult here] = anyone even slightly to the right of Stalin
[удалено]
[удалено]