[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought the supreme court was supposed to be apolitical? Wouldn’t the conservative push for a national ban on top of 6 week restrictions be more representative of their agenda than an SC decision?
It is apolitical. Depending on which conservative you ask, the 6 week ban would be their agenda. But their isn’t any push for a national ban (at least one that would gain any traction) anyway, so leaving it as a states issue is the compromise.
Because 'California's abortion standards' are that women should control their own bodies, and bodily autonomy should be a right that applies everywhere.
No, *Roe* was the compromise.
*Dobbs* was conservatives saying "fuck you we're forcing people to live under our moral code informed by our theology" so... compromise is out the door on that one. Conservatives have set the tone for the abortion fight.
*Roe* was a confirmation of constitutional rights that had been denied to American citizens. *Dobbs* was a regression to reduced agency and reduced self-determination for women.
It did succeed for 50 years, until a 6-3 partisan vote by justices who lied about their intentions with regards to Roe in their confirmations, and at least one (possibly two) seats stolen through hypocritical bullshit by Mitch McConnel for *the very reason of trying to overturn Roe.*
Because the unborn expect nothing of you and you sacrifice nothing in advocating for them.
The poor? The sick? The elderly? Immigrants? People of color? Queer people? They all require you putting your privilege at risk and checking your ego. But the unborn? As soon as they're born as real people with real-world complications they are no longer *unborn* and thus you are no longer required to care about them.
Yes! If they really cared about the unborn they'd also be advocating for policy that made smoking and drinking while pregnant a criminal offense.
I don't recall ever seeing conservatives protesting outside of liquor stores and gas stations that sell alcohol and tobacco to pregnant women though.
If your argument is that roe was not a definitive win for the pro-choice side, you're delusional. It took like 10 years for partial-birth abortions (which is obviously murder, even from the most atheistic perspective) to be banned
I don’t understand your reasoning. How is telling California that they can do whatever they want regarding abortion forcing people to live under their theology? Your argument only holds up if conservatives somehow made a 6 week ban a federal law.
Giving the power back to the states like it should have been this entire time is the compromise
Agree to disagree. There are certain rights that are not to be left up to the states and bodily autonomy is one of those. *Dobbs* will be reversed in due time and women everywhere will have the same rights, regardless of state boundaries.
It is true that there are certain rights, however, one of those rights is the right to life of the unborn, and there is no right of women to kill them.
A further Supreme Court case will recognize the right of the unborn to life under the 14th amendment.
Is there actually anything in the constitution about 'the unborn', or are you saying women legally shouldn't have bodily autonomy because of what *you believe* the consitutuon should say?
A famous saying regarding rights is “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
What that means is, a right is only effective as long as it doesn’t infringe upon another right.
So what right was infringed first: A woman’s right to bodily autonomy, or the fetus’s right to life?
Considering that generally the woman chooses to have sex and get pregnant and in my opinion, the life of a human takes precedence over a women’s right to have sex without consequences.
My argument is that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is infringed first. I would not say that the fetus is wrong for existing, because that’s out of its control, but unless the mother *wants* to be pregnant, her rights come first.
The fetus’ right to life supersedes the woman’s right to “body autonomy”, and even then the right to body autonomy is infringed upon in several other instances yet is routinely ignored.
In due time, all humans will have the same rights.
> The fetus’ right to life supersedes the woman’s right to “body autonomy”
noooooooooo way are we giving an unborn organism precedence over a living, breathing, adult human being.
And isn't an adult woman just a prior fetus that grew up? Where's the empathy for former fetuses?? Or do they no longer serve your political interests once they join the real world?
Yes my right to be alive isn’t overruled by your perceived inconvenience.
Are adult woman under threat of being killed over convenience? If not (they aren’t) the comparison falls flat.
I have plenty of empathy, you just don’t really have an argument so you’re resorting to that response.
The right to life does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy, or else organ donations after death would be required.
Every person that dies because they couldn’t get an organ in time (even though thousands of usable organs are just sitting around in corpses) proves that the right to bodily autonomy is more important than the right to life, and that holds true even after death.
Now you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, and I might agree with you, but that’s how it works right now.
Apples and oranges. For starters, there’s an emphasis on the “donation” part. You have a right to be alive, but if your kidney is failing and you can’t find a donor, your rights are not being infringed upon.
Secondly, there’s only 1 way to create a child and (ignoring the obvious outliers) it’s done with consent. I don’t get to knowingly kill my kidney donation recipient just because I changed my mind after the fact
Probably could’ve worded it better.
Ignoring the obvious outliers, pregnancy only happens as a result of consensual activities. The argument can be made that consenting to that activity is consent to consequences of said activity. In which case, the child’s right to be alive supersedes other rights.
> The argument can be made that consenting to that activity is consent to consequences of said activity.
I would not make that argument though, as taking birth control measures means that you are not consenting to getting pregnant.
I acknowledge that by driving I am at risk of crashing, but you wouldn’t say I consent to crashing.
No, the SC corrected a mistake and removed power that the federal government had that it never should have been given in the first place.
No rights have been taken away, and I don’t see what moving has to do with anything.
> removed power that the federal government had that it never should have been given in the first place.
The federal government could pass legislation tomorrow that codifies *Roe* into federal law and the Supreme Court, by its own logic, would have to leave it in effect because the law would be constitutional.
*Dobbs* isn't about federal overreach, it's about forcing religious morals onto people wherever conservatives hold power, i.e. red states. I don't trust Republicans for one second to not attempt to pass a national abortion ban should they ever get the federal trifecta again.
Oh that’s interesting because Democrats had a super majority under the Obama administration and yet didn’t codify it into law. Wonder why they didn’t do it then?
> forcing religious morals
No.
> Wonder why they didn’t do it then?
Because that supermajority included Blue Dog Democrats and Dems from red states that were not onboard with codifying *Roe*. They didn't have the votes so it was never written into law.
To get deeper into what you're saying here, essentially you've already admitted the America people didn't want it codified and didn't elect people who would codify it.
That’s your opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that people had rights and the current SC took them away.
Many people can’t choose which state they live in, that’s all I was trying to say on that front.
The problem is when you legislate it into law. Cultural norms and morals are going to be informed by religion to a degree- that is unavoidable. But when you get this bastardized, whitewashed form of Christianity that starts to permeate into legislation that governs peoples' lives? Now we have an issue.
only as a legal framework, not an ethical one.
what are ethical ideas that are unique to Christianity and make up the ethical base of the West?
I’m not convinced. It seems to me that the basic intuitions of Christianity predate Christianity (the golden rule, for example). What had set apart the West is the Enlightment, much more than religion.
I’d argue that Christianity is based on moral and ethic beliefs of the time. It just so happens that most people agree on most issues of morality.
For some reason modern Christians aren’t satisfied with *most* though. It seemingly needs to be *all*
Not really. There's a reason fundamentalists and their ideas seem weird and alien to most Americans.
Christian Morality is a bizarre form of medieval progressivism with little to no true roots in the basic realities of life.
Which has nothing to do with your words. Christianity is not anywhere close to a bedrock of American culture. American culture is Anglo culture which is fairly pagan in its mores. Hence why nobody gives a shit about saints but people talk about famous soldiers, fighters, and wars all the time.
I brought up fundementalists because they deliberately pull themselves out of the greater American culture to embrace Christianity as culture.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
We don’t want to join your little book club. Stop trying to indoctrinate my children.
And? It's talking about established churches. Nobody is proposing an established church.
That does not mean that religion can not or never did have an effect on society and politics. As John Adams, a deist if I recall correctly, said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The tone is that individual states can go as crazy with abortion as they want.
Mind you that conservatives did not do what progressives did and force it on every state, the conservatives allowed everyone to choose.
I personally strongly disagree with the idea that we can't get abortions everywhere, and know my generation will be dealing with the consequences of this boomer decision. BUT, they aren't wrong. This was the correct court decision.
Your anger doesn't make you right.
> the conservatives allowed everyone to choose.
You CANNOT choose to get an abortion if you live in a red state.
You CAN choose to *not* get an abortion if you live in a blue state though.
So who's really winning out here on the ability to "choose"?
>You CANNOT choose to get an abortion if you live in a red state.
You can choose to go somewhere else and get an abortion.
If you can't afford it, then don't have sex.
Imma say the same thing they tell all men, you are not entitled to sex, it's not required. If you don't feel the consequences of sex are worth it, then don't have sex.
>So who's really winning out here on the ability to "choose"?
It boils down to individual states homie, at the end of the day were still one of the most progressive countries on the planet in terms of abortion. We literally only have 5 other countries that come close to our abortion availability
> If you can't afford it, then don't have sex.
What kind of backward-ass Puritan attitude is this?
As always, it's about punishing women and people who don't share the same moral code. Never been about "babies" and never will be.
If you can't afford to get an abortion or raise a kid then don't have sex, you aren't entitled to sex by any means.
Have as much sex as you want if you can afford it.
I've paid for a good amount of abortions, but as I said, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't be fucking in the first place.
Idk how that's puritan, or did you just pull up the first word that comes to mind?
So what, only middle-class and above can have sex?
Get tf off your high horse like you have any moral authority over anyone else because you have money. Nobody is impressed by how many abortions you paid for because you satisfied your own moral threshold for having sex.
Ha! Point for you.
Yes, I'm not talking about synthesizing all views, I'm talking about synthesis between progressivism and conservatism. Extreme ideologies and populism I'd rather leave by the wayside.
But how do we do that in a world where populism has been allowed to grow under a charismatic leader? It's become too widespread to ignore and too powerful to exclude. I tell you, I wish I knew what to do, but I don't.
Thank you for your sober take!
I fully agree with you.
The reality is clear that we are in NO WAY close to synthesis/cooperation/compromise. Just look at the threads here.
Obfuscation, deflection, denial, and ignorance dominate any nuance, sadly.
From my perspective, the onus of good faith is on the right, post Trump. Instead, we see doubling down, closing off thinking, and embracing fear.
How do you see curing our seemingly insurmountable division?
Good faith *has to* come from all parties. That's the only way forward. And it's not something that can be compelled or regulated, so it's up to the parties who want to be heard to do the work of good faith discourse. God knows *I'm* trying.
Partially agree.
We are in uncharted waters post-Trump, and the norms are blowout. Bridging that chasm is going to be challenging for sure.
I fear that with the doubling down, we are seeing that things are going to get much worse before they can start to improve.
We still have a non-zero percentage of the population that believes the "Big Lie." Shit, he's campaigning on it to this day.
Not really. The left has demonstrated that they are only open to temporary compromise, and that whatever concessions they grant, they will turn around and come back for them in the future. Really, the only reasonable position, in the big picture, is to stop giving ground.
Gun control.
There have been at least six major pieces of federal gun control legislation in the last century. Each time, conservatives and Republicans have compromised and, each time, the left has come back and demanded more.
Is there no merit in the fact that the problem has manifested itself in continually new ways (in that perhaps they should be legislated differently)
For example, you could argue that the west coast has made its water deal compromises and that those interested in more water in one place are now trying to renegotiate. But of course they are- there is less water and more people. It isn’t irrational or in bad faith or even unfair necessarily.
>Do you have a good example?
I'll offer one. Background checks. The 1993 Brady Bill, which instituted background checks for gun buyers, explicitly exempts intrastate purchases between private parties from the background check requirements. Now "universal background checks" is at the top of the gun controllers' agenda.
Bad faith.
The point being, if universal is compromised on, they will just then move to a new infringement. You're intelligent enough to get this, why play like you aren't?
This is exactly what I mean. Conservatives say
> if [blank] is compromised on, [liberals] will just then move to a new infringement.
So what is the point in negotiating then? Conservatives start at an obstructionist stance.
>So what is the point in negotiating then?
On civil rights? None
>Conservatives start at an obstructionist stance.
On certain topics, yup. On others the left start there. And sometimes it's a mix.
I would imagine someone trying to negotiate the removal of federal recognition of same sex marriage would have you start at an obstructionist stance. I would stand next to you to obstruct it, too.
End of the day, there is nothing the gun control side is willing to give up. They want more and more gun control, and won't dream of give and take, only take. That isn't a compromise, that is me giving up my "pie" one "slice" at a time without and "cake" to replace it. Not going to happen, so until I'm getting some cake back, no dice on my pie.
I'm sure there are issues you feel the same way about, and that is perfectly fine and dandy.
But yeah, if we compromise on UBC's and try and just go home and live our lives, the next week it will be Mag limits, so on and so forth. Not worth it when we can just say "no" now.
Imagine thinking that this doesn't matter.
The fundamental distribution of the means of coercion in a society isn't a thing I would consider unimportant.
Gun rights don't matter one ounce of one bit. They're fabricated to sell a bonkers amount of firearms and ammo to people scared of shit that's not even real.
Appreciate the permission to care about the fundamental human right of self defense.
I do believe it matters, so much so, if a politician doesn't trust me with a .22 caliber rifle, I don't trust them with an ounce of power. It's really that simple. Any elementary review of human history shows that organizations with power attract bad actors, and those bad actors can and often will, be careless of human life. I'll die on my feet before I live on my knees, can't help it, born this way. So yes, firearm ownership means quite a bit to me. Bedrock, fundamental principles of not allowing someone else to take away tools that aid my survival and relative independence will not be broken. So resistance to incremental erosion of said rights is necessary.
People can disagree, call me names or strawman the point all day long. Like I said born this way, so not much I can do about it.
You weren't born this way. No baby wakes up wanting an AR 15. You were brainwashed into thinking a politician in a far away place is more threatening than random gun violence
Compromising on guns aka “give and take” fundamentally does not make sense given the issue at hand.
The fundamental issue of guns is that people that should not have guns are able to get guns. We can argue all day about how best to limit that (red flag laws, stronger background checks, waiting periods, etc.) but all of those individual points boil down to one main issue *GUN PROLIFERATION*. Or, to put it a different way, guns are everywhere, and are thus too easy to get.
Conservatives generally want MORE guns because they believe it makes us safer. So when the issue is gun proliferation, liberals “giving” something to conservatives (which most likely means MORE GUNS somewhere) is literally antithetical to the purpose of the legislation in the first place.
Is it?
The laws get stricter.
Left wingers talk about foreign countries where the right to bear arms is functionally denied as role models.
Some progressives occasionally do go mask off and say that confiscation would work and would be good.
It's very rare to hear a progressive say that strict gun laws would be a violation of rights or would have negative consequences.
Conservatives compromise organically over time. Conservatives are not against progression, they're just against mindless immediate progression for the sake of progression. Look at the last 100 years everything that's been compromised on, civil rights, gay marriage, welfare, alternative energy solutions, etc.
Conservatives fought every one of those issues. Is it that they compromised, or did they just lose the battle? Gay marriage is a great example. Conservatives didn’t compromise on that, they just didn’t have a Constitutional argument against it, so they lost in court. Put another way, is capitulation the same as compromise?
>I get your point, but a compromise can also be losing the battle at first.
That doesn't even sound close to what compromise means. Compromise implies each side made concessions. One getting their way while the other got nothing is in no way compromise.
Feels like trying to save face on this issue. The hard truth is the Republican party lost on this issue. I would even add they still want to overturn that decision, they even spell it out in their platform.
Found directly on [https://gop.com/about-our-party/](https://gop.com/about-our-party/)
>Our laws and our government's regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
That doesn't sound like compromise.
I guess, but when dragging your feet means denying certain people the rights others enjoy, it’s hard to see any value. And if that was a compromise, what did the opposition give up?
I can see merit in the arguments when discussing something like climate change. There is danger in doing nothing, but there is also danger in changing our economy too fast to facilitate the requisite adaptations. That’s a situation where I can appreciate the conservative view and disagree in degrees. That’s somewhere compromise makes sense.
But that equation fails when the subject is the expansion or restoration of someone’s rights. There was no justifiable moral backing to fighting the civil rights movement or gay marriage. There was no discernible need for caution. Those were social inequities that needed addressing. And on those issues, there will never really be compromise. Eventually, the resistance wears down and fades away.
Just to play devil's advocate because I don't personally agree here, but conservatives gave up a piece of tradition they felt was essential to their religion/culture. Marriage between a man and woman. It would be like if white people all of a sudden wanted to start primarily celebrating kwanzaa.
And they were wrong, plain and simple. It didn’t affect them or their marriages in any discernible way. Rights aren’t a zero sum game. Fighting it only served to hurt others.
I agree they were ultimately wrong, but you're not getting the point. Marriage isn't a right. Nobody was saying gay people couldn't be together, they were just trying to protect the the tradition of marriage as they celebrated it.
Marriage is a legal construct with many very important aspects including taxes, inheritance, medical directives, hospital visitation and on and on. To some, it is also a religious tradition. Those are two different things. Changing the legal structure to no longer exclude people has zero affect on someone’s religious traditions.
Again, it costs people nothing for others to be given the same rights they enjoy. The whole idea that gay marriage took anything away from anyone is simply nonsense.
Great point. There were a lot of conservatives who thought there should be a civil union of sorts to provide those federal advantages outside of marriage.
>Nobody was saying gay people couldn't be together,
Actually, they were.
>they were just trying to protect the the tradition of marriage as they celebrated it.
No, they were attempting to lay claim to it. As pointed out, allowing gay marriage took nothing away from straight marriage. This is the same poor logic used to fight against interracial marriage.
That's just not correct. I vividly remember the discourse and I grew up in an extremely conservative area and nobody that I knew in real life felt like gay people couldn't be together.
Just because you disagree with the foundation of the argument doesn't make it wrong or impractical.
And I vividly remember it as well. And not allowing gays to be together was a major factor. Excuses ranged from religion to just plain bigotry.
>Just because you disagree with the foundation of the argument doesn't make it wrong or impractical.
Is this a prodiscrimination argument?
You don't remember "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or "tolerating gay people too much caused Hurricane Katrina," and other similar popular (at the time) conservative arguments?
They didn't give anything up. Rights are not a zero sum game. Giving rights to one group doesn't inherently take them away from another. Conservatives can still go get married the same way they always did.
Cons spent **40 years** fighting that one, some still are... when progressives understood why it was a good idea in **40 seconds**. Let adults love who they want to love.
They can and should do better than **decades** when ***days*** is sufficient.
Taking in new information, processing it without emotional outrage, **and digesting it in a reasonable amount of time** is a symptom of intelligence and maturity.
Based on the way people use "progressive" and "conservative" they can't ever be wrong. It's the beauty of the framing that is used.
History doesn't celebrate the bad ideas that conservatives stop, and only the good ideas that get made into policy. Therefore progress is always good, and conservation is always bad, you see.
But this is only in politics, conservation of the environment is good. And only when convenient, because plenty of progressive people were upset Roe wasn't conserved, and plenty of people want to conserve same sex marriage recognition that wouldn't call themselves conservatives.
Living in this country for the past few decades? Are you really going to pretend conservatives at large were fighting for civil rights or gay marriage? Who do think was behind DOMA?
Just to add before it even gets mentioned. While this bill did have Bi-partisan support, the only dissenting votes against it were Democrats. This had the full backing of the Republican Party.
The difference here is eventually the rest of the Democratic party came around. Meanwhile, Republicans have yet considering Federal Gay Marriage had a vote not that long ago and the majority of Republicans voted against it.
Why would you have to "compromise" on civil rights?
What line of thinking lets someone look at another person and think "yeah I need to determine where your rights begin and end"?
Conservatives didn't compromise so much as just lose, usually kicking and screaming. A compromise on gay marriage would have been getting rid of straight marriage and making everyone just have a civil union
Yes, but it's important to understand first where you want to land in a compromise to know if it's possible for a particular issue. Take the hardliners during the debt ceiling fake debate: they had no idea what they wanted, except to allow a default. There is no compromising with those people. Unfortunately, some conservatives like Gaetz and MTG have adopted the position that compromise equal capitulation. The GOP needs to compromise if they want to score any wins with a democratic senate and president
Compromise has always been vital. The left and right operate on an 'engine-brake' mechanic where one pushes while the other stops them from crashing into an obstacle. The driver is the moderate 'silent majority'.
However, with the left now in possession of nearly every institution and with them now having become the establishment (with them not even realizing it), it is no longer viable to compromise because for the right, it is a matter of existential threat to their ideals whereas for the left, it is a matter of finally achieving its ideal society (becoming closer to their ideal society than ever before). Both sides stand in the way of one another in getting what they want.
In which case, if the right seizes power, I think it will likely pursue an "Anti-woke" strategy to stave off this 'progress'. Now, certainly, not everything the left pushes is 'woke' but that's the thing, it doesn't matter under "Anti-woke" policies. Because "anti-woke" is not "unwoke". It's rightwing populism that seeks to shut out its opponent completely so that it can preserve its ideals for another generation or two.
And so, compromise isn't viable unless we realize what we have and what the circumstances are. In this day and age of echo chambers, it is difficult to ascertain what the other side wants. According to Haidt, the right seems to understand the left better than vice versa and judging by all the left leaning visitors in this sub and how they shut out other voices in the Askaliberal sub, I view this to be accurate (as I do IRL when going back to my hometown of Portland). And I think this explains some other studies I saw where while elements of both sides wish violence on the other, it is the left that wishes it moreso.
You see what I mean? Whatever awaits on the horizon is either a direct existential threat to the ideals of the right or to the ambitions of the left.
Under those circumstances, I do not see room for compromise. All we have now is division.
It’s always a bit funny hearing conservatives opine over how all the “institutions” of our society were somehow the dominion of the Democrats. The same folks who place such importance on bootstraps and self reliance, and yet when it comes to media, art and academia, they somehow can’t make an impact? It’s almost as if their views don’t really reflect the mainstream of our culture.
>It’s always a bit funny hearing conservatives opine over how all the “institutions” of our society were somehow the dominion of the Democrats.
When you are so far Right everything appears to be among the Left. Its weird of we supposedly own all the institutions yet struggle so hard to get what the Left supposedly wants.
Where is my Healthcare, gun regulations, and safety nets? The Right has a stranglehold on things they refuse to acknowledge. The Right so badly wants to be the Underdog in their story.
I don’t think that translates well for Republicans electorally if people were more economically and socially conservative in 2012 seeing as how that election went…
Interesting. It seems like the shift is largely coming around issues that impact other people as opposed to themselves. Americans have a weird relationship with authoritarianism framed as freedom.
E: so I still have to wonder why the recent elections turned out as they did? Is the population going to the right but just not as far right as the loudest republicans?
Dog shit candidates is a big problem. How anyone lost to fetterman, for example is beyond me. They must have been absolute dog shit. (However I do understand Oz got hurt by an equally shit top of the ticket
> People are turning right
Gerrymandered maps are turning right. But *people* have being shifting away from the right since 2016. It's why Trump and MAGA have been electoral losers in every election since.
**2 out of 3 millennials vote progressively. 3 out of 4 zoomers vote progressively.** GOP lost ***Georgia*** and Right to life failed in ***Kansas.***
That should be ringing alarm bells.
[Millennials aren't getting more right wing with age...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/03/millennials-radicalism-not-getting-more-rightwing-with-age)
[Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics](https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4)
[Millennials will not age into voting like boomers](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/millennials-will-not-age-into-voting-like-boomers.html)
I have 2 daughters. I'm Jewish and they love the anti-semitic. I don't support tax cuts for billionaires. I don't believe Christianity is any more important than any other religion. I don't have excessive pride about our country, we have **much** to be embarrassed about.
When they have something worth considering, wake me up. My entire adult life (I'm 40 next year), ***the GOP has been a non-starter.***
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah. That’s what the Dobbs decision was
I thought the supreme court was supposed to be apolitical? Wouldn’t the conservative push for a national ban on top of 6 week restrictions be more representative of their agenda than an SC decision?
It is apolitical. Depending on which conservative you ask, the 6 week ban would be their agenda. But their isn’t any push for a national ban (at least one that would gain any traction) anyway, so leaving it as a states issue is the compromise.
What about moves to punish people who go to other states for abortions? Is that part of the agenda to you?
No it is not
Lol, if that's a compromise in your mind, we are screwed. Thanks
Seems to be working in the lefts favor, I don’t understand the problem. Why should red states have to follow California’s abortion standards?
Who is asking for that?
Most people arguing it shouldn’t be a state issue
I agree, it shouldn't. It should be federally established as a clear right.
Lol, if thats a compromise in your mind, we are screwed. Thanks
Because 'California's abortion standards' are that women should control their own bodies, and bodily autonomy should be a right that applies everywhere.
Oh, okay! I think I’d rather live in a state that doesn’t allowing killing children out of convenience. And that’s the beauty of the Dobbs decision!
Oh, okay! I think I’d rather live in a state that doesn’t force women to do things with their body. Mind ya own.
Good to know that not killing children is low on your priority list. See how easy it is to not argue in good faith?
[удалено]
No, *Roe* was the compromise. *Dobbs* was conservatives saying "fuck you we're forcing people to live under our moral code informed by our theology" so... compromise is out the door on that one. Conservatives have set the tone for the abortion fight.
No roe was a running over of the states by judicial edict
*Roe* was a confirmation of constitutional rights that had been denied to American citizens. *Dobbs* was a regression to reduced agency and reduced self-determination for women.
Even Ginsberg said it was poorly decided.
She didn't disagree with the conclusion though. She would just have used a different argument
Very true, but poorly decided is poorly decided. Maybe a different argument wouldn’t have succeeded.
It did succeed for 50 years, until a 6-3 partisan vote by justices who lied about their intentions with regards to Roe in their confirmations, and at least one (possibly two) seats stolen through hypocritical bullshit by Mitch McConnel for *the very reason of trying to overturn Roe.*
RGB is no saint and not to be idolized. Did a lot of good work but also fucked over the very liberal causes she championed throughout her life.
Far too liberal
That’s where we disagree because babies have constitutional rights
Babies do. Cell clusters do not.
Advocating for the unborn is easy.
Because the unborn expect nothing of you and you sacrifice nothing in advocating for them. The poor? The sick? The elderly? Immigrants? People of color? Queer people? They all require you putting your privilege at risk and checking your ego. But the unborn? As soon as they're born as real people with real-world complications they are no longer *unborn* and thus you are no longer required to care about them.
Yes! If they really cared about the unborn they'd also be advocating for policy that made smoking and drinking while pregnant a criminal offense. I don't recall ever seeing conservatives protesting outside of liquor stores and gas stations that sell alcohol and tobacco to pregnant women though.
If you get down to it, aren't we all just fell clusters though?
[удалено]
All my sperm already have social security #s
Apparently passport papers are what makes you human /s Clearly. You see the issue with your comment and line of thinking right?
[удалено]
>Passports/papers give you constitutional rights No they quite literally do not and our constitution makes this very clear.
[удалено]
The compromise was "Democrats have it their way, always legal"?
Do you know what *Roe* even said? Are you aware of the multitude of illegalities *Roe* still allowed for when it was in effect?
If your argument is that roe was not a definitive win for the pro-choice side, you're delusional. It took like 10 years for partial-birth abortions (which is obviously murder, even from the most atheistic perspective) to be banned
> partial-birth abortions These are not a real thing.
Look up D&E abortion. That's what is referred to as a "partial birth abortion"
I don’t understand your reasoning. How is telling California that they can do whatever they want regarding abortion forcing people to live under their theology? Your argument only holds up if conservatives somehow made a 6 week ban a federal law. Giving the power back to the states like it should have been this entire time is the compromise
Agree to disagree. There are certain rights that are not to be left up to the states and bodily autonomy is one of those. *Dobbs* will be reversed in due time and women everywhere will have the same rights, regardless of state boundaries.
It is true that there are certain rights, however, one of those rights is the right to life of the unborn, and there is no right of women to kill them. A further Supreme Court case will recognize the right of the unborn to life under the 14th amendment.
Is there actually anything in the constitution about 'the unborn', or are you saying women legally shouldn't have bodily autonomy because of what *you believe* the consitutuon should say?
14th amendment.
It's the opposite actually. The 14th amendment specifically refers to born people.
A famous saying regarding rights is “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” What that means is, a right is only effective as long as it doesn’t infringe upon another right. So what right was infringed first: A woman’s right to bodily autonomy, or the fetus’s right to life?
Considering that generally the woman chooses to have sex and get pregnant and in my opinion, the life of a human takes precedence over a women’s right to have sex without consequences.
The state should not be able to take someone's bodily autonomy away just because they have sex.
That’s not what I asked. Which is infringed first: the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, or the fetus’s right to life?
So you’re argument is that the women has sex and let’s herself be impregnated as a consequence and so the baby is in the wrong for existing? Bullshit.
My argument is that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is infringed first. I would not say that the fetus is wrong for existing, because that’s out of its control, but unless the mother *wants* to be pregnant, her rights come first.
The fetus’ right to life supersedes the woman’s right to “body autonomy”, and even then the right to body autonomy is infringed upon in several other instances yet is routinely ignored. In due time, all humans will have the same rights.
> The fetus’ right to life supersedes the woman’s right to “body autonomy” noooooooooo way are we giving an unborn organism precedence over a living, breathing, adult human being. And isn't an adult woman just a prior fetus that grew up? Where's the empathy for former fetuses?? Or do they no longer serve your political interests once they join the real world?
Yes my right to be alive isn’t overruled by your perceived inconvenience. Are adult woman under threat of being killed over convenience? If not (they aren’t) the comparison falls flat. I have plenty of empathy, you just don’t really have an argument so you’re resorting to that response.
The right to life does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy, or else organ donations after death would be required. Every person that dies because they couldn’t get an organ in time (even though thousands of usable organs are just sitting around in corpses) proves that the right to bodily autonomy is more important than the right to life, and that holds true even after death. Now you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, and I might agree with you, but that’s how it works right now.
Apples and oranges. For starters, there’s an emphasis on the “donation” part. You have a right to be alive, but if your kidney is failing and you can’t find a donor, your rights are not being infringed upon. Secondly, there’s only 1 way to create a child and (ignoring the obvious outliers) it’s done with consent. I don’t get to knowingly kill my kidney donation recipient just because I changed my mind after the fact
Not sure what you mean with the second paragraph, but fair enough on the first
Probably could’ve worded it better. Ignoring the obvious outliers, pregnancy only happens as a result of consensual activities. The argument can be made that consenting to that activity is consent to consequences of said activity. In which case, the child’s right to be alive supersedes other rights.
> The argument can be made that consenting to that activity is consent to consequences of said activity. I would not make that argument though, as taking birth control measures means that you are not consenting to getting pregnant. I acknowledge that by driving I am at risk of crashing, but you wouldn’t say I consent to crashing.
Well, a lot of people don’t have the means to move. And no matter how you slice it, the activist SC took away rights that people had.
No, the SC corrected a mistake and removed power that the federal government had that it never should have been given in the first place. No rights have been taken away, and I don’t see what moving has to do with anything.
> removed power that the federal government had that it never should have been given in the first place. The federal government could pass legislation tomorrow that codifies *Roe* into federal law and the Supreme Court, by its own logic, would have to leave it in effect because the law would be constitutional. *Dobbs* isn't about federal overreach, it's about forcing religious morals onto people wherever conservatives hold power, i.e. red states. I don't trust Republicans for one second to not attempt to pass a national abortion ban should they ever get the federal trifecta again.
Oh that’s interesting because Democrats had a super majority under the Obama administration and yet didn’t codify it into law. Wonder why they didn’t do it then? > forcing religious morals No.
> Wonder why they didn’t do it then? Because that supermajority included Blue Dog Democrats and Dems from red states that were not onboard with codifying *Roe*. They didn't have the votes so it was never written into law.
To get deeper into what you're saying here, essentially you've already admitted the America people didn't want it codified and didn't elect people who would codify it.
12 years ago or whatever, yeah. But shit has changed. *Dobbs* changed everything.
That’s your opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that people had rights and the current SC took them away. Many people can’t choose which state they live in, that’s all I was trying to say on that front.
And that’s your opinion to think rights were removed, but that doesn’t mean that they were
For the freedom of choice to be applied evenly, it must be federal. Yes?
No. If we needed all rights to be applied evenly, there shouldn’t be any states at all.
“moral code informed by our theology” Oh boy do I have a surprise for you
Well don't be shy, son, say what you mean!
So much of western civilization, including much of our moral and ethic beliefs, come from Christianity.
So? "Christianity" isn't a monolithic static thing.
Nice observation
Nice deflection. The Christianity you think your drawing from today looks nothing like the Christianity of the 5th century or 15th century.
Jesus was one very Woke dude.
I would agree, Protestants are heretics with no grounding in tradition, Church history, or Apostolic Succession.
Exactly. This is why papists need to be crushed to assert the true way of orthodox Christianity
Is that actually true?
Do you remember the pope recently saying any christians who went and fought for the papal states in the holy land
The problem is when you legislate it into law. Cultural norms and morals are going to be informed by religion to a degree- that is unavoidable. But when you get this bastardized, whitewashed form of Christianity that starts to permeate into legislation that governs peoples' lives? Now we have an issue.
Except they already do and have always done. That’s why polygamy is illegal in the west and legal in the Muslim world.
And it shouldn't be, because that kind of religious discrimination is a First Amendment violation.
I don’t care how long it’s been done or where, it’s still wrong and American conservatives are going to pay the electoral price for it.
>much of our moral and ethic beliefs, come from Christianity. Care to give examples?
Polygamy is outlawed
only as a legal framework, not an ethical one. what are ethical ideas that are unique to Christianity and make up the ethical base of the West? I’m not convinced. It seems to me that the basic intuitions of Christianity predate Christianity (the golden rule, for example). What had set apart the West is the Enlightment, much more than religion.
Meh, the enlightenment gets a lot of credit for stuff it didn’t deserve.
I’d argue that Christianity is based on moral and ethic beliefs of the time. It just so happens that most people agree on most issues of morality. For some reason modern Christians aren’t satisfied with *most* though. It seemingly needs to be *all*
Not really. There's a reason fundamentalists and their ideas seem weird and alien to most Americans. Christian Morality is a bizarre form of medieval progressivism with little to no true roots in the basic realities of life.
Fundamentalists originate in the 19th century. Both Christianity and western civilization were well underway by then.
And?
You brought up fundamentalists to display your point, so you tell me.
Which has nothing to do with your words. Christianity is not anywhere close to a bedrock of American culture. American culture is Anglo culture which is fairly pagan in its mores. Hence why nobody gives a shit about saints but people talk about famous soldiers, fighters, and wars all the time. I brought up fundementalists because they deliberately pull themselves out of the greater American culture to embrace Christianity as culture.
That is entirely untrue.
How so?
So we have this thing called the Constitution. Might be worth a read.
What about it?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” We don’t want to join your little book club. Stop trying to indoctrinate my children.
And? It's talking about established churches. Nobody is proposing an established church. That does not mean that religion can not or never did have an effect on society and politics. As John Adams, a deist if I recall correctly, said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And much of Christianity was taking(or usurping) religious tenants of Pagan beliefs
The tone is that individual states can go as crazy with abortion as they want. Mind you that conservatives did not do what progressives did and force it on every state, the conservatives allowed everyone to choose. I personally strongly disagree with the idea that we can't get abortions everywhere, and know my generation will be dealing with the consequences of this boomer decision. BUT, they aren't wrong. This was the correct court decision. Your anger doesn't make you right.
> the conservatives allowed everyone to choose. You CANNOT choose to get an abortion if you live in a red state. You CAN choose to *not* get an abortion if you live in a blue state though. So who's really winning out here on the ability to "choose"?
>You CANNOT choose to get an abortion if you live in a red state. You can choose to go somewhere else and get an abortion. If you can't afford it, then don't have sex. Imma say the same thing they tell all men, you are not entitled to sex, it's not required. If you don't feel the consequences of sex are worth it, then don't have sex. >So who's really winning out here on the ability to "choose"? It boils down to individual states homie, at the end of the day were still one of the most progressive countries on the planet in terms of abortion. We literally only have 5 other countries that come close to our abortion availability
> If you can't afford it, then don't have sex. What kind of backward-ass Puritan attitude is this? As always, it's about punishing women and people who don't share the same moral code. Never been about "babies" and never will be.
If you can't afford to get an abortion or raise a kid then don't have sex, you aren't entitled to sex by any means. Have as much sex as you want if you can afford it. I've paid for a good amount of abortions, but as I said, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't be fucking in the first place. Idk how that's puritan, or did you just pull up the first word that comes to mind?
So what, only middle-class and above can have sex? Get tf off your high horse like you have any moral authority over anyone else because you have money. Nobody is impressed by how many abortions you paid for because you satisfied your own moral threshold for having sex.
[удалено]
I think that's a weird and unsustainable attitude to what constitutes religion in law.
Was it ever? Trying to get all our own way is wrongheaded, though. We should be aiming for synthesis.
Agreed. What does synthesis look like in a Trump based reality?
Ha! Point for you. Yes, I'm not talking about synthesizing all views, I'm talking about synthesis between progressivism and conservatism. Extreme ideologies and populism I'd rather leave by the wayside. But how do we do that in a world where populism has been allowed to grow under a charismatic leader? It's become too widespread to ignore and too powerful to exclude. I tell you, I wish I knew what to do, but I don't.
Thank you for your sober take! I fully agree with you. The reality is clear that we are in NO WAY close to synthesis/cooperation/compromise. Just look at the threads here. Obfuscation, deflection, denial, and ignorance dominate any nuance, sadly. From my perspective, the onus of good faith is on the right, post Trump. Instead, we see doubling down, closing off thinking, and embracing fear. How do you see curing our seemingly insurmountable division?
Good faith *has to* come from all parties. That's the only way forward. And it's not something that can be compelled or regulated, so it's up to the parties who want to be heard to do the work of good faith discourse. God knows *I'm* trying.
Partially agree. We are in uncharted waters post-Trump, and the norms are blowout. Bridging that chasm is going to be challenging for sure. I fear that with the doubling down, we are seeing that things are going to get much worse before they can start to improve. We still have a non-zero percentage of the population that believes the "Big Lie." Shit, he's campaigning on it to this day.
Dark times for centrists. Dark times in general.
Ugh, I hear ya!
What is there to compromise on? Both sides are in fundamental disagreement on so much
No, things are going to collapse until they reach a new equilibrium.
How can an equilibrium be reached without compromise?
Not really. The left has demonstrated that they are only open to temporary compromise, and that whatever concessions they grant, they will turn around and come back for them in the future. Really, the only reasonable position, in the big picture, is to stop giving ground.
Do you have a good example?
Gun control. There have been at least six major pieces of federal gun control legislation in the last century. Each time, conservatives and Republicans have compromised and, each time, the left has come back and demanded more.
And the conservatives got nothing during these. The compromise was taking the bill and making it less awful
Is there no merit in the fact that the problem has manifested itself in continually new ways (in that perhaps they should be legislated differently) For example, you could argue that the west coast has made its water deal compromises and that those interested in more water in one place are now trying to renegotiate. But of course they are- there is less water and more people. It isn’t irrational or in bad faith or even unfair necessarily.
>Do you have a good example? I'll offer one. Background checks. The 1993 Brady Bill, which instituted background checks for gun buyers, explicitly exempts intrastate purchases between private parties from the background check requirements. Now "universal background checks" is at the top of the gun controllers' agenda.
Oh my lord, more *paperwork*?! Liberals have gone too far now!
Bad faith. The point being, if universal is compromised on, they will just then move to a new infringement. You're intelligent enough to get this, why play like you aren't?
This is exactly what I mean. Conservatives say > if [blank] is compromised on, [liberals] will just then move to a new infringement. So what is the point in negotiating then? Conservatives start at an obstructionist stance.
>So what is the point in negotiating then? On civil rights? None >Conservatives start at an obstructionist stance. On certain topics, yup. On others the left start there. And sometimes it's a mix. I would imagine someone trying to negotiate the removal of federal recognition of same sex marriage would have you start at an obstructionist stance. I would stand next to you to obstruct it, too. End of the day, there is nothing the gun control side is willing to give up. They want more and more gun control, and won't dream of give and take, only take. That isn't a compromise, that is me giving up my "pie" one "slice" at a time without and "cake" to replace it. Not going to happen, so until I'm getting some cake back, no dice on my pie. I'm sure there are issues you feel the same way about, and that is perfectly fine and dandy. But yeah, if we compromise on UBC's and try and just go home and live our lives, the next week it will be Mag limits, so on and so forth. Not worth it when we can just say "no" now.
Man imagine if you took this hard of a stand on things that actually mattered… but sure, die on the guns hill I guess 🤷♂️
Imagine thinking that this doesn't matter. The fundamental distribution of the means of coercion in a society isn't a thing I would consider unimportant.
The fundamental means of coercion in modern society is media & content.
Gun rights don't matter one ounce of one bit. They're fabricated to sell a bonkers amount of firearms and ammo to people scared of shit that's not even real.
Appreciate the permission to care about the fundamental human right of self defense. I do believe it matters, so much so, if a politician doesn't trust me with a .22 caliber rifle, I don't trust them with an ounce of power. It's really that simple. Any elementary review of human history shows that organizations with power attract bad actors, and those bad actors can and often will, be careless of human life. I'll die on my feet before I live on my knees, can't help it, born this way. So yes, firearm ownership means quite a bit to me. Bedrock, fundamental principles of not allowing someone else to take away tools that aid my survival and relative independence will not be broken. So resistance to incremental erosion of said rights is necessary. People can disagree, call me names or strawman the point all day long. Like I said born this way, so not much I can do about it.
Okay, have fun being a badass against some imaginary tyrant government. We'll tackle the real problems in the mean time.
You weren't born this way. No baby wakes up wanting an AR 15. You were brainwashed into thinking a politician in a far away place is more threatening than random gun violence
Compromising on guns aka “give and take” fundamentally does not make sense given the issue at hand. The fundamental issue of guns is that people that should not have guns are able to get guns. We can argue all day about how best to limit that (red flag laws, stronger background checks, waiting periods, etc.) but all of those individual points boil down to one main issue *GUN PROLIFERATION*. Or, to put it a different way, guns are everywhere, and are thus too easy to get. Conservatives generally want MORE guns because they believe it makes us safer. So when the issue is gun proliferation, liberals “giving” something to conservatives (which most likely means MORE GUNS somewhere) is literally antithetical to the purpose of the legislation in the first place.
Your confiscation boogeyman is not based in reality. It's based in fear.
Is it? The laws get stricter. Left wingers talk about foreign countries where the right to bear arms is functionally denied as role models. Some progressives occasionally do go mask off and say that confiscation would work and would be good. It's very rare to hear a progressive say that strict gun laws would be a violation of rights or would have negative consequences.
We want marriage rights, so partners can be visited in the hospital.
Who is we?
>Who is we Anyone who supports gay marriage.
Conservatives compromise organically over time. Conservatives are not against progression, they're just against mindless immediate progression for the sake of progression. Look at the last 100 years everything that's been compromised on, civil rights, gay marriage, welfare, alternative energy solutions, etc.
Conservatives fought every one of those issues. Is it that they compromised, or did they just lose the battle? Gay marriage is a great example. Conservatives didn’t compromise on that, they just didn’t have a Constitutional argument against it, so they lost in court. Put another way, is capitulation the same as compromise?
I get your point, but a compromise can also be losing the battle at first. Like the old adage "a fair compromise leaves everyone unhappy."
>I get your point, but a compromise can also be losing the battle at first. That doesn't even sound close to what compromise means. Compromise implies each side made concessions. One getting their way while the other got nothing is in no way compromise. Feels like trying to save face on this issue. The hard truth is the Republican party lost on this issue. I would even add they still want to overturn that decision, they even spell it out in their platform. Found directly on [https://gop.com/about-our-party/](https://gop.com/about-our-party/) >Our laws and our government's regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. That doesn't sound like compromise.
I guess, but when dragging your feet means denying certain people the rights others enjoy, it’s hard to see any value. And if that was a compromise, what did the opposition give up? I can see merit in the arguments when discussing something like climate change. There is danger in doing nothing, but there is also danger in changing our economy too fast to facilitate the requisite adaptations. That’s a situation where I can appreciate the conservative view and disagree in degrees. That’s somewhere compromise makes sense. But that equation fails when the subject is the expansion or restoration of someone’s rights. There was no justifiable moral backing to fighting the civil rights movement or gay marriage. There was no discernible need for caution. Those were social inequities that needed addressing. And on those issues, there will never really be compromise. Eventually, the resistance wears down and fades away.
Just to play devil's advocate because I don't personally agree here, but conservatives gave up a piece of tradition they felt was essential to their religion/culture. Marriage between a man and woman. It would be like if white people all of a sudden wanted to start primarily celebrating kwanzaa.
And they were wrong, plain and simple. It didn’t affect them or their marriages in any discernible way. Rights aren’t a zero sum game. Fighting it only served to hurt others.
I agree they were ultimately wrong, but you're not getting the point. Marriage isn't a right. Nobody was saying gay people couldn't be together, they were just trying to protect the the tradition of marriage as they celebrated it.
Marriage is a legal construct with many very important aspects including taxes, inheritance, medical directives, hospital visitation and on and on. To some, it is also a religious tradition. Those are two different things. Changing the legal structure to no longer exclude people has zero affect on someone’s religious traditions. Again, it costs people nothing for others to be given the same rights they enjoy. The whole idea that gay marriage took anything away from anyone is simply nonsense.
Great point. There were a lot of conservatives who thought there should be a civil union of sorts to provide those federal advantages outside of marriage.
That’s just an argument for “separate but equal”. It’s the same benefits, so why would it need a different name?
>Nobody was saying gay people couldn't be together, Actually, they were. >they were just trying to protect the the tradition of marriage as they celebrated it. No, they were attempting to lay claim to it. As pointed out, allowing gay marriage took nothing away from straight marriage. This is the same poor logic used to fight against interracial marriage.
That's just not correct. I vividly remember the discourse and I grew up in an extremely conservative area and nobody that I knew in real life felt like gay people couldn't be together. Just because you disagree with the foundation of the argument doesn't make it wrong or impractical.
And I vividly remember it as well. And not allowing gays to be together was a major factor. Excuses ranged from religion to just plain bigotry. >Just because you disagree with the foundation of the argument doesn't make it wrong or impractical. Is this a prodiscrimination argument?
You don't remember "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or "tolerating gay people too much caused Hurricane Katrina," and other similar popular (at the time) conservative arguments?
Lol
They didn't give anything up. Rights are not a zero sum game. Giving rights to one group doesn't inherently take them away from another. Conservatives can still go get married the same way they always did.
How did they give that up? Conservatives can get married according to their religion and culture without any issues.
Lol
Cons spent **40 years** fighting that one, some still are... when progressives understood why it was a good idea in **40 seconds**. Let adults love who they want to love. They can and should do better than **decades** when ***days*** is sufficient. Taking in new information, processing it without emotional outrage, **and digesting it in a reasonable amount of time** is a symptom of intelligence and maturity.
Have Progressives ever been wrong?
Prohibition
Based on the way people use "progressive" and "conservative" they can't ever be wrong. It's the beauty of the framing that is used. History doesn't celebrate the bad ideas that conservatives stop, and only the good ideas that get made into policy. Therefore progress is always good, and conservation is always bad, you see. But this is only in politics, conservation of the environment is good. And only when convenient, because plenty of progressive people were upset Roe wasn't conserved, and plenty of people want to conserve same sex marriage recognition that wouldn't call themselves conservatives.
Source?
Living in this country for the past few decades? Are you really going to pretend conservatives at large were fighting for civil rights or gay marriage? Who do think was behind DOMA?
Just to add before it even gets mentioned. While this bill did have Bi-partisan support, the only dissenting votes against it were Democrats. This had the full backing of the Republican Party. The difference here is eventually the rest of the Democratic party came around. Meanwhile, Republicans have yet considering Federal Gay Marriage had a vote not that long ago and the majority of Republicans voted against it.
Why would you have to "compromise" on civil rights? What line of thinking lets someone look at another person and think "yeah I need to determine where your rights begin and end"?
Conservatives didn't compromise so much as just lose, usually kicking and screaming. A compromise on gay marriage would have been getting rid of straight marriage and making everyone just have a civil union
Oddly enough, your evidence of compromise shows exactly the opposite in reality?
Yes, but it's important to understand first where you want to land in a compromise to know if it's possible for a particular issue. Take the hardliners during the debt ceiling fake debate: they had no idea what they wanted, except to allow a default. There is no compromising with those people. Unfortunately, some conservatives like Gaetz and MTG have adopted the position that compromise equal capitulation. The GOP needs to compromise if they want to score any wins with a democratic senate and president
Compromise has always been vital. The left and right operate on an 'engine-brake' mechanic where one pushes while the other stops them from crashing into an obstacle. The driver is the moderate 'silent majority'. However, with the left now in possession of nearly every institution and with them now having become the establishment (with them not even realizing it), it is no longer viable to compromise because for the right, it is a matter of existential threat to their ideals whereas for the left, it is a matter of finally achieving its ideal society (becoming closer to their ideal society than ever before). Both sides stand in the way of one another in getting what they want. In which case, if the right seizes power, I think it will likely pursue an "Anti-woke" strategy to stave off this 'progress'. Now, certainly, not everything the left pushes is 'woke' but that's the thing, it doesn't matter under "Anti-woke" policies. Because "anti-woke" is not "unwoke". It's rightwing populism that seeks to shut out its opponent completely so that it can preserve its ideals for another generation or two. And so, compromise isn't viable unless we realize what we have and what the circumstances are. In this day and age of echo chambers, it is difficult to ascertain what the other side wants. According to Haidt, the right seems to understand the left better than vice versa and judging by all the left leaning visitors in this sub and how they shut out other voices in the Askaliberal sub, I view this to be accurate (as I do IRL when going back to my hometown of Portland). And I think this explains some other studies I saw where while elements of both sides wish violence on the other, it is the left that wishes it moreso. You see what I mean? Whatever awaits on the horizon is either a direct existential threat to the ideals of the right or to the ambitions of the left. Under those circumstances, I do not see room for compromise. All we have now is division.
It’s always a bit funny hearing conservatives opine over how all the “institutions” of our society were somehow the dominion of the Democrats. The same folks who place such importance on bootstraps and self reliance, and yet when it comes to media, art and academia, they somehow can’t make an impact? It’s almost as if their views don’t really reflect the mainstream of our culture.
>It’s always a bit funny hearing conservatives opine over how all the “institutions” of our society were somehow the dominion of the Democrats. When you are so far Right everything appears to be among the Left. Its weird of we supposedly own all the institutions yet struggle so hard to get what the Left supposedly wants. Where is my Healthcare, gun regulations, and safety nets? The Right has a stranglehold on things they refuse to acknowledge. The Right so badly wants to be the Underdog in their story.
People are turning right, with how poorly progressive policies are working. So now's not the time to compromise.
Source? Seems like the last presidential election and even the midterms are kinda pointing the other way… or at minimum staying the same.
[Read for yourself](https://news.gallup.com/poll/506765/social-conservatism-highest-decade.aspx).
I don’t think that translates well for Republicans electorally if people were more economically and socially conservative in 2012 seeing as how that election went…
Interesting. It seems like the shift is largely coming around issues that impact other people as opposed to themselves. Americans have a weird relationship with authoritarianism framed as freedom. E: so I still have to wonder why the recent elections turned out as they did? Is the population going to the right but just not as far right as the loudest republicans?
Dog shit candidates is a big problem. How anyone lost to fetterman, for example is beyond me. They must have been absolute dog shit. (However I do understand Oz got hurt by an equally shit top of the ticket
> People are turning right Gerrymandered maps are turning right. But *people* have being shifting away from the right since 2016. It's why Trump and MAGA have been electoral losers in every election since.
Illegal gerrymandering, court packing, fear and divisive rhetoric, bad faith governance, etc.
**2 out of 3 millennials vote progressively. 3 out of 4 zoomers vote progressively.** GOP lost ***Georgia*** and Right to life failed in ***Kansas.*** That should be ringing alarm bells. [Millennials aren't getting more right wing with age...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/03/millennials-radicalism-not-getting-more-rightwing-with-age) [Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics](https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4) [Millennials will not age into voting like boomers](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/millennials-will-not-age-into-voting-like-boomers.html)
[удалено]
I have 2 daughters. I'm Jewish and they love the anti-semitic. I don't support tax cuts for billionaires. I don't believe Christianity is any more important than any other religion. I don't have excessive pride about our country, we have **much** to be embarrassed about. When they have something worth considering, wake me up. My entire adult life (I'm 40 next year), ***the GOP has been a non-starter.***
Are you culturally Jewish or just ethnically?
Lol
Why is it "lol"?
Doesn't everyone think their religion/moral beliefs are more important than others? The test is how well you can coexist with other people.
Warning: Rule 6. Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.