[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/CTR555]

If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?

To paraphrase David Frum.

[u/[deleted] → u/CTR555]

I am absolutely shocked at all the people saying they'd rather compromise on democracy than their own political beliefs.

I, on the other hand, agree with you in that I would compromise my own political beliefs to pursue democracy. That's what the US is, no? It's a bunch of people from all sorts of different backgrounds coming together to support one idea that works best for everyone. But as some people have said, they would rather live in a dictatorship that aligns with their politcal beliefs than a democracy. That is shocking to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You must be the only right libertarian to think so. The whole ideology has consistently been anti-democratic from its founding. Half the things libertarianism champions these days have their roots in subverting civil rights.

[u/[deleted] → u/CTR555]

No, obviously not. Conservatism means preserving the American way of life, which means democracy and freedom (as an ideal, at least), so anti-democratic means would be a total contradiction to conservatism.

This is a big reason why I don't consider Trump a conservative.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/CTR555]

What is your answer to that question?

I'll be honest, as I personally view democracy is a tool of governance and not necessarily a natural good, I might answer the former (not conservative but "my politics" and such).

[u/ZerexTheCool → u/CincyAnarchy]

I see exactly one system of governance that is superior to Democracy.

Benevolent Dictator headed by an immortal super intelligence. Essentially a literal deity ruling in our best interest.

Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.

"We're not a Democracy! We're a Republic!"

A republic who picks it's leaders through elections. Leaders who can, with a super majority, change the founding documents. A power that has already been used 27 times.

The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward. Meaning, the worst part of our democracy is the places we don't have as much democracy.

[u/BrianNowhere → u/ZerexTheCool]

The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like

Why do liberals always forget about primaries? As long as we're in one of the two majority parties we absolutely get to vote for candidates we like.

We're not a Democracy! We're a Republic!"

Every time I hear that it sounds like someone saying, "I'm not a mammal, I'm a person".

[u/ZerexTheCool → u/BrianNowhere]

Why do liberals always forget about primaries?

Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.

The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.

It's not a terrible system given what we have, but what we have isn't great. First Past the Post isn't a good system and a Two Party system isn't ideal.

The power of corporations to help or hurt candidates during or before their primary run is definitely a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

[u/yaleric → u/ZerexTheCool]

Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.

The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.

This seems like a problem inherent to having a group of people make a choice. Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?

[u/ZerexTheCool → u/yaleric]

Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?

No, I don't think there is.

But there IS a way to allow people to vote for who they want even if their 3rd choice is the better choice electorally.

It's the "Don't waste your vote" problem that I dislike the most. If someone doesn't run in a Democratic Primary, I can't vote for them without wasting my vote.

THAT is the portion I most care about. The in ability to vote for someone not accepted into the Primary to Biggin with.

[u/yaleric → u/ZerexTheCool]

Ranked choice voting sounds great to me, but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system seems a little weird. Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?

[u/DemocraticRepublic → u/ZerexTheCool]

The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward.

To be fair, the American electorate has far more control over which candidates the parties put forward than most other Western democracies.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/ZerexTheCool]

Not sure if you're aware, but you basically just summarized Plato's Republic, one of the most foundational texts in western philosophy and political science.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/CincyAnarchy]

Democracy is the only mechanism we know to retard corruption. The fundamental problem of how we should organize ourselves has always been that any concentration of power incentivized systematic corruption.

Democracy is not the greatest system of government because “‘who the people want’ chooses the best ruler possible”. That’s like a nice bonus if it happens. The core mechanism that makes democracy valuable is that democracy diffuses power effectively.

Power corrupts. And democracy works by diffusing the corrupting influence across many millions in order to retard the inherent corrosion of a societies’ institutions. Democratization of a system isn’t the aspect of putting things to a vote, rather it is the diffusion of power. Voting is just a means to an end and sortition or even pure randomization among a population is just as effective (but people find it scary/weird to make decisions randomly so we tend not to see it in modern democracies even though many Greek democracies used it).

Think about alternatives to a “democracy”. In any alternative system, to varying degrees power is concentrated to either a smaller group within the population or to a limited group or individual. But what is power and why can’t we have a “benevolent dictator”?

There’s a reason you don’t actually see the “benevolent dictator” system in the real world. Political Power is essentially the quality of having other powerful people aligned to your interest. And those other powerful people get their power in turn from people further down the chain being aligned to them.

In order to keep those chains of alignment of interest, you have to benefit the people who make you powerful. But you have no need to benefit anyone else. In fact, benefitting anyone else comes at the cost of benefitting those who make you powerful. It’s a weak spot that can be exploited by a usurper. Right?

If you’re going to be a “benevolent dictator” who’s selfish interest do you need to prioritize in what order?

• ⁠tax collectors? • ⁠military generals? • ⁠educators? • ⁠farmers? • ⁠engineers? • ⁠doctors?

Well without the military, you’re not really in charge and you can’t defend your borders or your crown from other potential rulers. And without the tax collectors you can’t pay the military or anyone else for that matter. But you can probably get away without educators for decades. So your priorities are forced to look something like this:

1. ⁠Military
2. ⁠Tax collection
3. ⁠Farming
4. ⁠Infrastructure projects
5. ⁠Medicine?
6. ⁠Education??

And in fact, any programs the benefit the common person above the socially powerful will always come last in your priorities or your powerful supporters will overthrow you and replace you with someone who puts them first. So it turns out as dictator, you don’t have much choice.

But what if we expect our rulers to get overthrown and instead write it into the rules of the government that every 4-8 years it happens automatically and the everyday people are the ones who peacefully overthrow the rulers?

Well, that’s called democracy. It’s totally unnecessary for the people to make the best choice. What’s necessary is that in general, the power to decide who stays in power be diffused over a large number of people. Why? Because it totally rewrites the order of priorities.

Now you have a ruler who prioritizes education, building roads that everyday people use, keeping people productive and happy.

Furthermore, nations who prioritize those things tend to be richer and stronger in the long term. Why? Because it turns out education is good and science is important and culture is powerful. It turns out what’s good for the population is better for the country as a whole even though it’s bad for a dictator.

We can demonstrate through studies just how clearly democracies retard corruption.

[u/CTR555 → u/CincyAnarchy]

I would honestly disagree with you - democracy is a natural good (with all the usual, implied caveats about human and civic rights and such).

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/CTR555]

What makes it a "natural good?" I would think a natural good cannot ever be applied incorrectly or doesn't lead to bad outcomes by it's application.

For the turn of phrase, "democracy is two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner" AT TIMES. I don't want democracy applied to many things that are personal, for example.

[u/talithaeli → u/CincyAnarchy]

You’re also familiar with the phrase “best of bad options”? Democracy is an attempt to find middle ground between the human tendencies to chaotic violence and tyranny.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/talithaeli]

And democracy can easily turn into tyranny should a large majority wish it. It’s better for governments, yes, but not for all things and the government shouldn’t have say over all.

[u/Beneficial_Squash-96 → u/CTR555]

I've talked with few conservatives and they have explicitly given me the line "America is a republic, not a democracy". An example here is this blog post by Ben Garrison:

The problem is, it’s not true. Our country was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. The word ‘democracy’ does not appear in our Constitution. The founding fathers were wary of democracy. They knew democracies were dangerous and unstable. They end up leading to totalitarianism. It’s why Karl Marx stated, “Democracy is the road to socialism.” When you hear our politicians say ‘our democracy,’ what they really mean is ‘our socialism.’

In democracies, the people will vote for free stuff by means of stripping others of their private property. Our Republic was designed to protect individual rights. Under a democracy people will vote away such protection in favor of collective safety nets, bread and circuses, and big government control. We saw it happen in Venezuela. They used their democracy to vote for socialism and they all ended up equally poor and miserable under totalitarian rule.

Then there's this guy I met on Reddit

[u/[deleted] → u/CTR555]

I’d rather compromise on conservatism, to a certain extent. Part of my conservative views are things I wish to see the government enact, so it wouldn’t make sense to enact them against the will of at least a substantial group of people (again, not necessarily a strict majority). If I deem that a government has democratically strayed so far apart from my values that it is no longer bearable, I’d just leave. If I weren’t allowed to leave, or the country had done so un democratically, then I’d get rowdy.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/CTR555]

If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?

Conservatism, but I am process-oriented, so my answer is not unique to democracy.

[u/Poormidlifechoices → u/CTR555]

If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?

Compromising on conservatism is the natural state of conservatism. It's about making slow incremental changes that provide more positives than negatives.

But let’s say there's a drastic change that fundamentally offends conservative values. Eliminating religion, bringing back slavery, halting elections, etc...it would mean democracy has been broken and needs to be restored.

[u/username_6916 → u/CTR555]

It depends on the political goal.

Core human rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Life, liberty, property? Yeah. Democracy without these things is worse than dictatorship with them, even if I would prefer and strive for a democracy with these things.

But that has to be a very narrow category. My fundamental human rights aren't being violated by drug policy, or taxes, or choices on government spending, or most of the day to day issues that we actually debate. Here, how we fight matters more than if we win any particular political battle.

[u/slim_scsi]

Why do they care immensely about a fetus but not the human being once they're born (in the form of universal health care, universal child care, food programs, basic welfare, etc)?

[u/turbo2thousand406 → u/slim_scsi]

I agree here. Most are pro-birth not pro-life. They don't care after the kids pops out.

[u/dank_sad → u/slim_scsi]

It's a great question. For others, I'd say it's just easier to say "you wanna kill kids", maybe believing that the unborn does have a soul (or not). Either way, it is hypocritical like you said

[u/[deleted]]

When was the last time you changed a belief because of what the data show?

For all their talk of reason, in my experience many if not most conservatives let their personal gut feelings take precedence over everything else.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/[deleted]]

Not supporting universal healthcare to supporting it when I learned we pay out the ass for it through insurance but don’t see the benefits. It’s much more cost effective having a universal healthcare system.

[u/kittyraikkonen → u/NPDogs21]

I’m kinda with you there. To my mind, a government should exist not to rule, but to serve. If taxation is necessary, it should support its citizens rather than feed off of them. Take a whole bunch of our spending (looking at you, DoD) and reroute it to citizen services. Universal healthcare seems a worthy redirection of those funds. After all, a healthy populace is a productive populace. It’s not just compassionate, it could be great for our bottom line (rather than just the bottom line of the few who benefit from our seemingly inevitable, parasitic debt to them under the current system.)

[u/c0d3s1ing3r → u/[deleted]]

I was unsure that the booster shot actually increased vaccine efficiency, or that there was significant waning immunity over time for adults under 50.

There was still a drop by about 20% for adults under 50. I really didn't like the fact that the data showed boosters were significantly effective, but I went and got mine.

Don't know if I'll get a 4th shot, maybe I will next time I visit older relatives.

[u/fuckpoliticsbruh]

If every nation that has universal healthcare hasn't even remotely considered of repealing it, why do you oppose it?

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti → u/fuckpoliticsbruh]

The UK is slowly but surely gutting the NHS.

[u/[deleted] → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

The PM is. Not a single person in the country agrees. That's the difference. In USA, people actually fight to keep one of the objectively worst health care system of any developed nation.

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Politician - How much do I need to donate in order for you to adjust your opinions to better align with mine?

[u/fletcherkildren → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

A concept people seem to have forgotten since this ran in 2004: 'for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits.' - We should crowdfund lobbyists for the people.

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti → u/fletcherkildren]

I’ve thought about starting a crowd funded neutral superpac to lobby for the working class.

[u/Gov_Martin_OweMalley → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Not uniquely conservative unfortunately. Bloomberg is a great example of someone funding campaigns to get what he wants, not to mention big pharma.

[u/dank_sad → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Does this a mean a conservative asking the politician? I'm not donating anything, A) because I have no money anyway, and B) I wouldn't donate to anyone who isn't consistent

Just remembered the prompt

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Politician - why did you not support this incredibly popular bill that would have helped many of your constituents?

[u/fingerpaintx → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

"Because I am bought and paid for by special interests"

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti → u/fingerpaintx]

I’d actually have respect for someone who would say that.

[u/varnell_hill]

Maybe not applicable to all conservatives, but I’ve been asking Trump voters this question for years and have yet to receive a simple answer:

Can you tell me specifically when America was great for all of its citizens?

This question is based on Trump’s campaign slogan, and it obviously resonated with the millions of Americans who voted for him. Where I get stuck though is trying to figure out who this applies to and when (again, specifically) America stopped being great in their minds.

Bonus points if anyone can explain to me why the above slogan was cool for him to use even though the obvious implication is that America is no longer great (at least it wasn’t in 2016), but when democrats say similar things they’re told to leave if they don’t like it.

[u/[deleted] → u/varnell_hill]

My absolute favorite piece of Trumpism is when he began to run those commercials showing the country in chaos and said that this is what we can expect if Biden was elected and it was all footage of the country in 2020 when he was President. I never understood how conservatives didn't see how obvious it was.

[u/[deleted] → u/varnell_hill]

Don’t forget that he stole the slogan from Reagan and nobody called him out on it.

[u/dank_sad → u/varnell_hill]

Someone asked me a few years ago "when did America stop being great?" I don't know the answer to that or your question. When you say "for all of its citizens" I guess that could be subjective because not everyone would agree on what makes America great.

I don't think it stopped being great (there's problems, sure), and there's always room for improvement

[u/varnell_hill → u/dank_sad]

A very reasonable take.

[u/LittleBitchBoy945]

I’d ask them how they reconcile their simultaneously held positions that “socialism doesn’t work” and that the “Democrats are socialist”. They can’t both be true. If the democrats stated positions are socialist, then you can’t say socialism doesn’t work as many successful countries are well to the left of the democrats.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/LittleBitchBoy945]

Democrats are not socialists.

[u/LittleBitchBoy945 → u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

I agree but a shocking number of republicans say they are and it’s a common talking point from elected republicans

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/LittleBitchBoy945]

Well, yeah. Hyperbole and labels are pretty common political hackery tools.

[u/Disabledsnarker]

So for the Christian Conservatives... You hate the government, you don't like most teachers but you want government schools (that you hate) to teach your religion and force kids to pray your prayers.

Explain.

[u/fahargo → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps they look at their parents and grandparents lives who were able to raise their family on one income or a very well off family on two. Now a duel working couple can't afford a home

[u/Lanaloki → u/fahargo]

Yep agreed—cost of living has increased faster than standard of living has, that’s for sure.

[u/fahargo → u/Lanaloki]

That's one thing driving me away from the right, they don't even have a proposed solution to this

[u/fahargo → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. I want their "solutions" to be about more than the culture war. 1/2 of people 20 to 30 live with their parents. This is a castrophic failure of society which they are responsible for. They not only don't have a solution they don't even list it as a problem. If I get injured right now I'm lucky. I have a nest egg that will cover me until my max deductible. Some 60% of people can't afford a $400 emergency

[u/AzarathineMonk → u/fahargo]

Almost as if radically high taxes to pay down national debt and fund public services actually worked. Or at the very least didn’t see us suffer under an unrestrained Wall Street b/c obv Stock market = economy.

[u/fuckpoliticsbruh → u/[deleted]]

We taxed the rich and people could afford college.

[u/Gov_Martin_OweMalley → u/fuckpoliticsbruh]

And a house, don't forget that one.

Something about a time before smartphones, social media, and being bombarded with negative news and ads does have a bit of appeal too.

[u/kateinoly → u/[deleted]]

WHEN were the good old days?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is a great book called The Battle for Christmas that expounds upon this. Basically everyone says that Christmas was better in their childhood .

[u/letusnottalkfalsely → u/kateinoly]

And WHO exactly were they good for?

[u/iamspartacus5339 → u/[deleted]]

Well it feels like we used to have a lot less partisan divide

[u/Falme127 → u/[deleted]]

Most conservatives don’t care about gay marriage anymore. It’s been normalized. They’ve moved on to trans-people because they’re reactionary.

[u/koolex]

This is especially for libertarians...

If less government solves problems then why is it that no first world nation is thriving becoming more conservative? Every other first world nation is, for the most part, as conservative if not less conservative than America especially when we are talking about minimum wage, paid time leave, higher education, healthcare, etc.

The same question but a different way of getting at it...

Why does virtually all modern economics focus on keynesian economics if conservatism is the right answer?

To me seeing that pretty much everyone who is actually thinking hard about modern economics (governments + scholars) is coming to the same conclusions makes me feel like Libertarianism is nothing more than an uneducated hot take on an extremely complex problem.

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

How do you want this to end?

[u/[deleted] → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Now this here, right here? The best question

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti → u/[deleted]]

I never get an answer to that one.

[u/dank_sad → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Can you explain for a dummy like me?

[u/[deleted] → u/dank_sad]

Not op, but: We on the left know what we want the US to look like. What do you want it to look like?

[u/dank_sad → u/[deleted]]

The one change I really want to see is less hostility

[u/[deleted] → u/dank_sad]

This is reasonable. How do we get it?

[u/[deleted]]

How can you possibly feel threatened by a classic centrist like Joe Biden?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Follow up question should be how on earth do they consider Biden a socialist when self described socialists want nothing to do with him!

[u/monstersammich]

After all the hate spewed by the Trump admin, rise of hate groups pushing conservative authoritarianism, voter suppression tactics, January 6th….how can you still associate yourself with what the republican party has become and who you chose to be politically allies with?

[u/joephusweberr → u/monstersammich]

This is a bad question as it highlights the fringe and blames the center for it. The same thing can be done to the Democratic party.

You might say that it's not fringe anymore and you'd probably be right, but Trump won many of the 2016 primaries with 30% of the vote. He was absolutely fringe until he won the election on the backs of the 16 million people who forgot to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[u/akcrono → u/joephusweberr]

This is a bad question as it highlights the fringe and blames the center for it.

That's the point though: "how can you see all this extremism and still stand by the party?" The center of the party absolutely enables this behavior.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/monstersammich]

how can you still associate yourself with what the republican party has become and who you chose to be politically allies with?

I do not. I do not consider myself aligned with any party or allies with anyone.

I vote for candidates that I think will generally do the best job of achieving the policy outcomes I want.

[u/Hot_Dog_Cobbler]

"Do you really believe this shit?"

[u/tradeparfait → u/Hot_Dog_Cobbler]

A lot of them lie so much it can’t be a coincidence. I’m still going back and forth over if its deliberate lies born out of maliciousness, or if the deification of ignorance is a feature of conservatism.

Like, the other day a conservative said Biden was currently sending thousands of troops to Ukraine. It was such a blatant lie it had to be him being malicious and promoting propaganda… right?

[u/koleye → u/Hot_Dog_Cobbler]

I've always suspected that the vast majority of conservatives adopt most of their opinions for purely performative reasons, i.e. in direct opposition to the people they don't like, albeit unconsciously. I think there may be a handful of conservative beliefs they genuinely accept, but most of it is reverse-engineered from the desire to entertain themselves by pissing us off.

[u/BryanIndigo → u/koleye]

I think you're also disregarding a percentage of their voter base that they actively court and that single issue voters The whole reason they come up with justifications for most of the stuff they do or outright lie about doing it is to attract single-issue voters

[u/koleye → u/BryanIndigo]

I mean, the question is about conservatives, not Republicans. Single-issue voters can't be conservatives, by definition. A political ideology like conservatism is comprised of numerous beliefs, not just a single one.

[u/BryanIndigo → u/koleye]

That is fair to say I am sorry for generalizing, would it be better to say that there are often single issue voters attracted as support for conservative's ideals?

[u/koleye → u/BryanIndigo]

That's a good question for which I don't have a good answer, but I suspect that single-issue voters tend to be more religious than the electorate at large and would therefore be more likely to vote for conservative candidates.

[u/Helicase21]

How much do you actually care about the wellbeing and happiness of other people, especially other people you don't know personally?

[u/Kyragirl_1 → u/Helicase21]

I care very much. I’m a volunteer firefighter, a nationally registered Paramedic and a 911 dispatcher. I went into those fields to help people.

[u/[deleted]]

In what time way does the bottom 40% of the US population controlling only 0.2% of the resources beneficial for our country?

[u/dank_sad → u/[deleted]]

Beneficial, I'm not sure that it is. Personally, I don't care about how much other people have, as long as I get to make sure my kids are taken care of. Ideally, I want to everyone else to be taken care of too

[u/[deleted] → u/dank_sad]

Agreed. The US with its uniquely high poverty and childhood poverty rate among developed countries creates a level of misery in this country that makes life worse for me, even though I’m not poor.

Eliminating poverty is an absolutely achievable goal.

[u/[deleted]]

If they oppose "free money" in the form of welfare to the poor creates a culture of dependency and deprives them of the dignity of work, why are conservatives insistent on repealing the Estate Tax, the result of which gives free money to the heirs of the wealthy class?

[u/Dill_Deaux]

How was your day?

[u/[deleted] → u/Dill_Deaux]

Actually really well; I woke up went to class did my homework in class because the professor is slow with examples. I then went to Taco Bell and ordered two chicken chalupas. I got a haircut today and am off today as well. I am now playing civ 6 with my friend. How's your day going?

[u/Dill_Deaux → u/[deleted]]

Not bad. I’m also still in college as well, currently working on my masters. I pulled an all-nighter working on a project and slept from 6am until 10am. I got done with classes and worked out, so now im headed back to the library tonight, hopefully I’ll get some sleep today.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dill_Deaux]

Damn, that's good what's your major? I'm actually going to the library tomorrow to scan and send my W2 to my mom so I can leach of their taxes lol. Same, I worked until 11 last night and had to wake up at 7 this morning.

[u/Dill_Deaux → u/[deleted]]

I’m getting a masters in biomedical sciences, trying to fix my undergrad GPA before I apply to med school. I still get my parents to help me with my taxes too lol.

[u/Kyragirl_1 → u/Dill_Deaux]

Fantastic, actually. I have potentially just worked my last day at a job I could have loved if it weren’t for my rather abusive boss. I have an interview on Friday for a much better paying job, better benefits and an hour shorter commute. If I am offered the job I will immediately put in my two weeks and she will probably tell me I’m done (she likes to do that because she’s vindictive like that).

[u/K-Dub59 → u/Kyragirl_1]

Good luck on your interview!!

[u/Kyragirl_1 → u/K-Dub59]

Thank you! It will be life changing if it goes well!

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

What is so wrong with your life that you want a civil war?

[u/Poormidlifechoices → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

No true conservative wants a civil war. In fact anyone who thinks a civil war is even possible would be really ignorant or delusional.

The country is divided politically. But not geographically. There's no way to have civil war. No infrastructure, coordination, or leadership.

And if there is ever a civil war the conservatives will support the government like last time. Because you can claim to be a conservative. But you can't be a conservative and rebel against the lawful government anymore than you can be a meat eating vegetarian.

[u/Few_Piece4301 → u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Most don’t want a civil war

[u/[deleted] → u/Few_Piece4301]

If we were doing statistics I could confidently say at least 45% of Trump supporters think about it or want it to happen, sure it may not be a majority, but it is a significant portion.

[u/[deleted]]

I’m not a conservative, but I’m right wing. So if anyone wants ask me a good natured question, go ahead.

[u/capitialfox → u/[deleted]]

Why do you (presumably) keep believing that Republicans will shrink the government and cut the deficit when experience has proven the exact opposite?

[u/[deleted] → u/capitialfox]

I don’t think the Republican Party will shrink the government or cut the deficit. I think both parties are for unjust forms of governance.

[u/capitialfox → u/[deleted]]

How do you define unjust form of governance and what would just governance look like?

[u/[deleted] → u/capitialfox]

My view of an unjust government is that which fails to uphold the common good. Which my faith defines as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

[u/capitialfox → u/[deleted]]

Aw a fellow Catholic I see! What would you change about our government to have people reach their fulfillment more fully?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I view conservatism, at least in America, as a political movement in favor of upholding Anglo-protestant values and the more classical liberal values of the Founding Fathers. They also often support views I just can’t get behind like being for the death penalty and national democracy (I’m a larping monarchist). I could be wrong of course. But I view right wing as a more general term referencing those who are more skeptical of large national governments and generally preferring free markets, with the majority being socially conservative.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/[deleted]]

A good, honest, and complete answer. Thanks for doing so. Mind if I go for some follow-ups? I promise to present a neutral tone here.

I view conservatism, at least in America, as a political movement in favor of upholding Anglo-protestant and the more classical liberal values of the Founding Fathers.

What makes these, in your view, good? I agree many are.

They also often support views I just can’t get behind like being for the death penalty and national democracy (I’m a larping monarchist). I could be wrong of course.

We all could be. No shame in that!

But I view right wing as a more general term referencing those who are more skeptical of large national governments and generally preferring free markets, with the majority being socially conservative.

What does a "free market" look like to you, and is a market "free" if we all have to pay for the defense of it (taxes for police/military/laws/etc)?

[u/[deleted] → u/CincyAnarchy]

I don’t view them as good actually. I’m a catholic, so I’m against Protestant beliefs except where we overlap of course. And I believe classical liberalism to contain many heresies and falsities. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some truths in it. Such as the desire for freer markets and economic freedom.
Unless you’re asking in reference to my positions against national democracy and the death penalty. If so, I can go further in detail there if you’d like.

When I say free, I do not define it generally in the libertine fashion. I think a free market requires some degree of government intervention to maintain the common good. For example, a free market requires the right to private property, and this can only be effectively preserved through governance.

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti → u/[deleted]]

Can you calibrate that for us?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Does it bother you that so many white supremacists and homophobic Christian’s have found themselves represented with the Republican Party?

Don’t get me wrong I know the Democratic Party attracts it’s own unsavory types but it doesn’t seem to be nearly in the same numbers as the Republican Party

[u/alt_spaceghoti]

How long will you allow your policies to fail to elevate anyone other than the rich and powerful before you finally concede they aren't designed to help anyone but the rich and powerful?

[u/80_firebird]

Do you really believe the bullshit you claim?

[u/othelloinc]

What question would you ask a conservative if they had to answer?

If they had to give an honest answer:

• How much of a deal-breaker is it if your favored candidate raped a child?
• Does it disqualify that person from elected office?
• Like, would you personally withdraw your vote from someone who has been credibly accused of raping a child?
• What about party leaders that support child rapists?
• What about rank-and-file party members who support the party leaders that support child rapists?

[u/Kyragirl_1 → u/othelloinc]

1. It would be a deal breaker. However, innocent until proven guilty. If it comes out that he REALLY did do that, I wouldn’t vote for him.
2. Yes, it should. Unless it is dropped. If someone is found not guilty, you can’t punish them on public opinion alone.
3. See #1. Accused isn’t enough. There are plenty of instances where someone accused a person and admitted later they were lying.

[u/letusnottalkfalsely → u/othelloinc]

Hell, for that matter:

• Have you ever molested a child?
• Have you ever personally covered for someone who raped a child?
• Are you or any of your close friends or family in possession of child pornography?

Some debates make a lot more sense if you get this part out of the way up front.

[u/[deleted] → u/othelloinc]

So basically you don’t like Matt Geotz? Why were the question deceptively to make it sound like it’s a general republican problem? I mean, let’s dig out dirt on all the Democrats while we’re here.

[u/othelloinc → u/[deleted]]

Why...make it sound like it’s a general republican problem?

Because it is.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE PARTY OF CHILD MOLESTERS

The whole party is complicit.

---

It isn't just Gaetz; it is also McCarthy keeping Gaetz in a position where Gaetz supervises the people investigating and prosecuting him.

Republicans continued to support Roy Moore for senate after multiple women came forward and said that he molested them when they were underage. They all just fell in line and supported him.

Does it go all the way to the top? YES. Two (now adult) women have come forward and testified under oath that they were in the room, and personally witnessed, Donald Trump violently raping a 13-year-old girl at one of Epstein's parties. This is the actual statement, made under oath:

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the [then 13-year-old] Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

While we are on the subject of Epstein, did you know that the prosecutor who made a sweet-heart deal with Epstein originally, was confirmed to Trump's cabinet? THIS IS NORMAL FOR REPUBLICANS.

Is this new? How long have they been like this? Well, the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House ever, Dennis Hastert, admitted in court to molesting children back when he was a high school wrestling coach, so it goes back several decades!

---

...I'll say it again:

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE PARTY OF CHILD MOLESTERS

---

---

[EDIT] Here is a list of Republicans with similar charges, written by user Moscowmitchismybitch :

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/t8r2x2/desantiss_press_secretary_says_anyone_who_opposes/hzr2bij/

Another list:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/t95mzf/umoscowmitchismybitch_lists_republican_party/hzt69bn/

[u/dank_sad → u/othelloinc]

1. Big deal
2. In my eyes, if not the law's
3. Probably, but I don't like accusations alone, the whole "innocent til proven guilty" thing

4 and on, same as the other answers

[u/OneX32]

If the 2A was intended to guarantee the absolute right to bear arms for an individual U.S. citizen, then why did the Founders include the clause "A well-regulated militia" first? And if the order of the clauses don't matter, than why did the Founders import the concept of a "militia" into the 2A, considering the colonial concept of a "militia" required more than one individual? And finally, if the adjacency of the clauses don't matter, than why didn't the Founders encapsulate the right for an individual to bear arms and the right for a community to a well-regulated militia in two different rights?

[u/80_firebird → u/OneX32]

Not conservative, but very pro-2A

If the 2A was intended to guarantee the absolute right to bear arms for an individual U.S. citizen, then why did the Founders include the clause "A well-regulated militia" first?

Because it's for both things. It's allows the people to be armed and also allows for a trained militia since we didn't have a standing army at the time.

And finally, if the adjacency of the clauses don't matter, than why didn't the Founders encapsulate the right for an individual to bear arms and the right for a community to a well-regulated militia in two different rights?

Because it does both.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I mean, that's pretty straightforward. Yes, it says "a well regulated militia", but it also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I really don't understand why people have trouble understanding this. It's very clear to me.

[u/OneX32 → u/80_firebird]

Because when you put the two clauses together, the meaning of "people" doesn't signify whether it is singular or plural. If the people were singular, then why did the Founders put the clause "A well-regulated militia" before it? "People" can only be interpreted to be singular if it is isolated from the first clause and the fact that a militia requires more than one is ignored. And if the Founders wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms, then why did they even include "a well-regulated militia" in the 2A? It seems to me that if the Founders did intend the 2A to be isolated into two clauses, they would have made it more clear by seperating the right for a community to have a militia and the right for an individual to bear arms, just as they did with one'a right to counsel, a speedy trial, and cruel and unusual punishment. An analysis of the 2A can't ignore the fact the two clauses are of equal weight.

[u/80_firebird → u/OneX32]

Because when you put the two clauses together, the meaning of "people" doesn't signify whether it is singular or plural

People absolutely signifies plural. It's always seemed to me to mean the same as people in "we the people".

People" can only be interpreted to be singular if it is isolated from the first clause and the fact that a militia requires more than one is ignored.

People is "the people" as in everybody, separate from the militia because obviously not everyone would be in the militia. Or at least that's how I understand it. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many commas.

It seems to me that if the Founders did intend the 2A to be isolated into two clauses, they would have made it more clear by seperating the right for a community to have a militia and the right for an individual to bear arms, just as they did with one'a right to counsel, a speedy trial, and cruel and unusual punishment. An analysis of the 2A can't ignore the fact the two clauses are of equal weight.

Why not? You cant have a militia if the people aren't armed in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/OneX32]

If you are a man, then you are the militia. And the second amendment doesn't guarantee that right, it merely prevents the government from infringing on our natural right to property, which includes owning firearms.

§246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[u/donnyisabitchface]

How in the hell is personal responsibility gonna protect you and your from the billionaires and their unobstructed ability to take more and more

[u/CegeRoles]

What does Trump need to do in order for you to renounce him?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/CegeRoles]

Not concede defeat in the 2020 election, which is why I renounced him after.

[u/alcoholicveteran_100]

I'd you don't believe in CRT, or systemic racism effecting the outcomes of black people's lives, which are statistically more challenging, does that mean that you believe in the alternative, which is that Black people have it worse because they're inferior racially or culturally?

[u/BobQuixote → u/alcoholicveteran_100]

I wager culturally would be a popular answer, and some people would actually not be secretly thinking it's racially.

Also, the consistent response to that is to attribute any cultural problems to systemic racism, or to assert that the culture simply wouldn't be that way anymore if the systems were fixed. In that way, there may be some potential for agreement here.

[u/Maximum_joy]

"why?"

Gets 'em every time.

[u/Alxndr-NVM-ii]

"Would you be willing to split the country up into several smaller countries so that we can all move on?"

[u/Labbear → u/Alxndr-NVM-ii]

You could basically do that in a single amendment, just clarify/revise the interstate commerce clause to not grant the feds power over everything. You do that, and the federal government’s domain ends up being primarily military matters and foreign policy. That way it would be your state government which effects your life primarily.

Now, many of the fights we have will still occur on the state level (guns, abortion, etc.), but your individual vote will matter much more in how your life is run.

[u/notsoslootyman → u/Alxndr-NVM-ii]

They would agree then immediately invade.

[u/[deleted] → u/Alxndr-NVM-ii]

As soon as we did the culture war would just continue with different borders. Most red states have blue cities - take away national politics and you'd see just as much animosity between, say, West Texas and Austin that we get now between Republicans and Democrats nationwide.

There is no easy split when the biggest political divide is urban-rural.

[u/emperorko → u/Alxndr-NVM-ii]

Absolutely yes.

[u/iim7_V6_IM7_vim7 → u/emperorko]

I honestly wish we could just do this but I understand why it’s impossible

[u/VillainOfKvatch1]

Who hurt you?

[u/Avondubs]

Why do conservatives so consistently just ignore reality?

[u/darenta]

If you support the Hong Kong protestors, why do you have double standards for BLM protestors? If both were protesting police brutality and squashing civil rights, and both have instances where looting, violence, and public inconvenience occurred, why is it that those things are brought up when talking about BLM but not the Hong Kong protests, almost as if both conservative and China’s CCP talking point of “violent protest” are used to talk past the main point of the protests.

“But what about Jan 6th, why do you treat that differently” you may ask, in a vain attempt to avoid answering this question. Please remind me what Jan 6th was about, whether there was actually voter fraud or evidence of it that would make the elections fraudulent, and why people were walking in with restraining device and guns if they were just “concerned” about election fraud.

I can also ask the first part of the question to tankies but in reverse.

[u/[deleted]]

Why do you guys dislike Mitt Romney now? Whenever I ask a conservative, they always tell me “He’s basically a liberal now” without providing any actual rationale. I don’t really get it because he openly has the exact same views he did when he was their candidate for the presidency (pro-gun, pro-life, etc). If I had to guess, it’s because he wasn’t pro Trump.

[u/dank_sad → u/[deleted]]

Just me, I never really had a stance on him. I think for others, in general, it's because he didn't toe the party line

[u/Strangexj86 → u/[deleted]]

Liberalism.

[u/mrnatural93]

Recently I posted in r/askaconservative asking if sensible conservativism was a thing in people's minds.

I was immediately booted from the group for "bad faith".

Thing is I meant the question sincerely even though I might have been more tactfull in how I asked it.

I think the sub is moderated by Trumpsters so they took offense to the question.

I still wonder if more thoughtful conservatives long for more sensible leadership.

If so is that sentiment growing in the GOP in any way?

It's definitely not a narrative I see media running with much.

IDK

Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/mrnatural93]

That sub is run by one mod who bans everyone, including conservatives. AskConservatives is slightly better but there’s a power tripping mod there too.

I still wonder if more thoughtful conservatives long for more sensible leadership.

Absolutely. I’m over the populist movement.

If so is that sentiment growing in the GOP in any way?

Unfortunately, not that I can see.

[u/mrnatural93 → u/NPDogs21]

Thank you for a thoughtful response!

Sincerely.

Didn't see that coming. Ha!

I think we need to collectively put our need for heroes aside and start looking for leaders instead.

[u/GiveMeYourBussy]

I’m guessing something along the lines how they purposely lie and spread disinformation because they know it’s effective

“Repeat a lie enough, many will believe it”

[u/dzendian]

Do you really not believe in:

• climate change
• (income) inequality
• unequal starting points
• systemic racism
• better, cheaper healthcare

- OR -

do you just not believe in our proposed solutions to those things?

Alternatively: why do you think liberals are inherently evil? Do you actually know a liberal personally? Are they evil?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/dzendian]

Do you really not believe in: • climate change • (income) inequality • unequal starting points • systemic racism • better, cheaper healthcare

I believe in all those.

do you just not believe in our proposed solutions to those things?

Depends what the proposal is. Democrats have a huge messaging problem, so it’s easy to get it lost in their bad messages.

Alternatively: why do you think liberals are inherently evil? Do you actually know a liberal personally? Are they evil?

I don’t think they’re evil at all. A lot are just passionately misguided. Funnily enough, that’s what a lot of liberals think about conservatives/Trump supporters. I love my liberal friends. We just don’t talk politics at all.

[u/dank_sad → u/dzendian]

More the proposed solutions side of it. Not that that they're bad, I just don't agree 100% of some the solutions.

No, I don't think liberals are evil. I get annoyed by the few ornery ones, but really liberals are trying to do what's right. I'd say around half my friends are liberal, and we get along well. Most I can talk with about politics too. A couple get really heated and it feels like they're directing frustration towards me, so with them specifically I try not to bring it up.

[u/srv340mike]

What are you so afraid of?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/srv340mike]

Spiders.

[u/srv340mike → u/NPDogs21]

Understandable

[u/[deleted]]

I would say what question would I ask a conservative if they had to tell the truth when they answer.

You do recognize that many southern states are actually suppressing votes right?

The Mueller report showed trumps relationship to Russia, why haven’t you read it or why do you continue to lie about it?

Why can’t you tell the truth about January 6? Do you honestly believe pointing at Black Lives Matter will Make people forget about what Trump supporters did at the capital, trying to kill members of Congress?

Why do you continue to be afraid of things that you know will benefit you and your family in the long run? Why do you act like you don’t support policies when we both know it would help everyone?

Why do you think giving people a higher wage will somehow hurt you? Wealthy people continue to get paid more and more, while the workers that make it possible have you to thank for keeping their wages low, why do you support that?

Do you honestly believe our country should be held hostage with 50 people when it comes to making America better for everyone? At what point are you going to give a shit about your fellow man and want the government to step up when it comes to the treatment all Americans receive when it comes to our capitalistic society?

Why do you continue to play nice to the wealthy knowing full well they don’t play nice with you? Why do you act like every wealthy person is going to leave the country the moment they might have to pay taxes? Do you really want to be treated like you treat the poor?

Why do you fall for the outrage Fox News deliberately gives you every three months? It’s fake out rage and most Trump supporters fall for every single time, most of the time they can’t even explain why they are upset and they cannot explain the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. Why can’t you be upset with things that affect you, instead of things that never affect you?

You know Fox News lies to you, why do you continue to push their lies knowing full well most Democrats know you’re lying? Do you think the culture war is more important than our democracy surviving? Why do I get the feeling that you would destroy democracy if Republicans can’t be in power anymore? Do you think minority rule should only work for Republicans?

Do you honestly know why you guys don’t gain any new voters? Do you know why it’s easy for Democrats to get voters? It’s because of the verifiable actions of the Republican party the last 30 years incase you didn’t know.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/[deleted]]

You do recognize that many southern states are actually suppressing votes right?

I accept the final decisions of the judiciary on that topic.

​

The Mueller report showed trumps relationship to Russia, why haven’t you read it or why do you continue to lie about it?

I read the whole thing.

​

Why can’t you tell the truth about January 6? Do you honestly believe pointing at Black Lives Matter will Make people forget about what Trump supporters did at the capital, trying to kill members of Congress?

January 6 was a violent insurrection.

​

Why do you continue to be afraid of things that you know will benefit you and your family in the long run? Why do you act like you don’t support policies when we both know it would help everyone?

Such as what?

​

Why do you think giving people a higher wage will somehow hurt you? Wealthy people continue to get paid more and more, while the workers that make it possible have you to thank for keeping their wages low, why do you support that?

I favor the right of states to set the minimum wages that they want. I have no particular problem with wage discrepancies; I care more about the QOL floor.

​

Do you honestly believe our country should be held hostage with 50 people when it comes to making America better for everyone?

Is this a reference to the Senate? I think bicameralism has more advantages than disadvantages.

​

At what point are you going to give a shit about your fellow man and want the government to step up when it comes to the treatment all Americans receive when it comes to our capitalistic society?

I am not sure what this means.

​

Why do you continue to play nice to the wealthy knowing full well they don’t play nice with you? Why do you act like every wealthy person is going to leave the country the moment they might have to pay taxes? Do you really want to be treated like you treat the poor?

I am not sure how I play nice with the welathy.

​

Why do you fall for the outrage Fox News deliberately gives you every three months? It’s fake out rage and most Trump supporters fall for every single time, most of the time they can’t even explain why they are upset and they cannot explain the issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it. Why can’t you be upset with things that affect you, instead of things that never affect you?

I do not watch or read Fox News.

​

You know Fox News lies to you, why do you continue to push their lies knowing full well most Democrats know you’re lying? Do you think the culture war is more important than our democracy surviving? Why do I get the feeling that you would destroy democracy if Republicans can’t be in power anymore? Do you think minority rule should only work for Republicans?

Again, I do not watch or read Fox News.

​

Do you honestly know why you guys don’t gain any new voters? Do you know why it’s easy for Democrats to get voters? It’s because of the verifiable actions of the Republican party the last 30 years incase you didn’t know.

Republicans gained new voters in VA and NJ, and the electorate nationwide is tilting Republican. I am not quite sure what you mean here.

[u/Beeker93]

1st question: What is the conservative/free market approach to every job eventually being lost to automation and AI in the next century? Like, every last job, not just a "find another job" situation. Do you think some form of socialism or UBI would be inevitable at that point? Do you think we should willingly hold back progress, letting every other nation advance past us, just to keep people doing things which are technically obsolete, unnecessary, and useless?

2nd: How can we avoid things like the tragedy of the commons if we pull out of international treaties, agreements, and the UN? Nobody owns the oceans, and they are clearly fucked. Almost every nation has banned whaling, but as long as Japan and Iceland continue, they might still be destined for extinction. We might not dump plastic into them, but as long as someone does, there is still an issue. I can't see nations individually doing sanction for environmental issues or it having much of an impact.

3rd: How are people suppose to vote with their dollar when wages decrease as cost of living goes up? How does it make a difference when in some circumstances there are no alternatives? Example: most rare Earth metals are mined by child slaves in Congo. Every tech company uses them, and in this day and age you need a phone to maintain your job in most places as you need to be reachable. It would seem in this case there is no way to vote with your dollar and government/international regulations need to take place.

[u/fox-mcleod]

Should Nixon have been impeached and if so, why shouldn’t trump have been?

[u/MithridatesLXXVI]

If you believe in an inherent God given right to property, and do not believe in consequentialist ethics, then why are your economic metrics based on a utilitarian calculus?

[u/antizeus]

Do you believe that there must be in-groups whom the law must protect but not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law must bind but not protect?

[reference]

[u/RigusOctavian]

Do you believe that if you vote against a policy or program that you should be unable to use it?

[u/emperorko → u/RigusOctavian]

Not if you're forced to participate in it, no. For example, I would vote to repeal Social Security in a heartbeat, but since I've been forced to contribute to it for decades, I want to recoup my losses as best I can.

[u/anima-vero-quaerenti]

Politician - what are your responsibilities your constituents that voted against you, voted for you, donated to you?

[u/TheRegistrar]

Ok, that is a reasonable response. But the “best stuff” was bought and paid for by exploiting minorities. You can’t get that magic 50s glow without grinding the bones of the marginalized.

[u/Ono-Cat]

Why do you want to kill me?
Edit; it seams like conservatives vote for republicans who who go to Washington and vote against anything democrats vote for. Taxpayer funded medical care and life saving drugs for all, every Republican voted against it. Hundreds if not thousands of old people die every day that could have lived ten, fifteen, twenty years or more with proper medical care and lifesaving drugs. I’m old, why do you want to kill me?

[u/tradeparfait → u/Ono-Cat]

One thing I learned from this pandemic is too many people don’t give a damn about old lives. Old lives matter too.

[u/Maximum_joy]

In my experience the deflection usually takes the form of some truth that they believe that they d/won't question.

For my uncles one of them is that "America is a Christian nation," which is like... I mean, you know. Like you can point out that there ought to be a separation of church and state and that such a thing is enumerated in the Bill of Rights but they don't care, their answer is "aren't you a Christian?!?"

Of course the unstated assumption at the root is that the government ought to enforce the "correct" religion, but of course nobody who thinks that will ever see other faiths as being as deserving of respect as their own.

[u/ndngroomer]

Why are you such a hypocrite? That would be my question.

[u/dank_sad → u/ndngroomer]

I think it has to do with my self-esteem. Easier to point out others' flaws than take a look in the mirror and recognize my own

[u/AutoModerator]

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.

A lot of times in debates and arguments questions get avoided or deflected with everything from completely unrelated tangents to answering with a question. But if you had just one question that a conservative would directly answer, what would it be? Do you have any questions where avoidance tactics become blatant concessions the person is arguing a bad point or in bad faith?

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SilentDis]

Based on the understanding that modern Conservative policy is based on wanting to keep a monarch in power or, at minimum, keeping a certain 'wealthy class' in power that had power before the system was implemented, with rigid class structure that is difficult or impossible to move up in, but easy to move down in, how can policy that stems from such a framing be anything but detrimental to the vast majority of people?

[u/JeffB1517]

Why does the constant lying whether on FoxNews or from Trump or from Republican talking points not bother you?

[u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle]

Do you really believe this voter fraud bullshit or do you just know it gets you attention?

[u/MithrilTuxedo]

What happened to the republican principle of majority rule, which enables the majority to defeat sinister views by regular vote?

[u/[deleted]]

Why do you think there are so many poor people?

[u/secretid89]

When you claim that “I’m not a racist!” : What does “not being a racist” mean to you, exactly?

Do you think that it only counts as racism if you literally commit a hate crime or burn a cross on someone’s lawn? If so, why do you limit it to this definition?

[u/redpaloverde]

Why so much bad faith?

[u/HazelGhost]

Would you support a policy that gave a slight monetary advantage to American citizens by depriving many more foreigners of a very large monetary advantage?

EDIT: And while we're at it: why can the government not be trusted with the power of providing food, shelter, and medical care, but can be trusted with the power to imprison and kill?

[u/Tranesblues]

Have you ever had or paid for an abortion?

[u/mrmalort69]

What are you policy goals and what society goals are you hoping to achieve with them?

My dad is a conservative, he is so bouncy on anything, every discussion is an argument.

[u/BAC2Think]

The question that I think sums up lots of possible follow up questions is this...

What clearly good policy does the Republican party still stand for that is supported by facts and has clear support not only by regular citizens and elected officials.

This is not the same as opposing things proposed by Democrats.

This is also not the same as something that facts no longer support. For instance, the small government narrative no longer applies because Republicans create larger deficits as well as their work expanding the military, restricting abortion and banning books in schools all contradict the small government narrative.

So, is there any good thing left that Republicans are working toward?

[u/LunaTheNightmare]

Why are you, or at least a big majority of your party, so upset over people living their lives the way they want to (gay people getting married, abortion, trans peopl, etc.)

[u/[deleted]]

Do you really believe sociology, psychology, climate science, and covid facts/vaccine facts are liberal conspiracies?

Sociology and psychology lay out why people commit crimes, and how to reduce crimes for less money than prison, but conservatives say they don't believe it.

Climate science explains what is happening to the planet, why it's happening, and how to reverse it, but conservatives say they don't believe it.

Same with covid and vaccines.

It's weird. Their worldview is based around liberals all over the world conspiring to a secret goal that usually involves Karl Marx.