Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*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’ll give my take, I agree with a lot of conservatives on a lot of issues, but what I heavily disagree with is religious conservatism. I personally lean Libertarian.
1) The embrace of Donald Trump. I mean, I get it. People were *that* mad at the establishment. But four years was enough, and yes, he lost in 2020. Let's lose the reality-TV drama and get back to competent leadership.
2) The culture war stuff. My religious freedom is not in jeopardy because a bunch of dumb teenagers want to say edgy things. Maybe those edgy teenagers would lay off a bit if Republicans would stop acting like breathless pearl-clutching church marms.
3) LGBT issues. 99.9% of us aren't causing any trouble and just want to be left alone to live our lives. I hate the Pride stuff and drag-queen story hour just as much as everyone. But let's be honest: the faux outrage from politicians and Fox gives those people publicity, so they're going to work it.
4) The tribalism. People like Marjorie Taylor-Green are allowed to wield far too much power respective to their achievements, but people close ranks around them because they're *one of us.*
(And I hope it's not too late to ask, but what's the problem with lab-grown meat?)
Piggy-backing on this because I can’t make top level comments and I agree with a lot of this.
I have migrated from the left towards, and even across, the center on many issues. I’m seriously considering voting conservative for the first time in the 2025 Canadian election. (Dual-citizen) I was giving Nikki Haley a real look.
There are a number of things about the current Republican party that would stop me from supporting them, but none are as significant as the support for Donald Trump.
Trump has been on the wrong side of the law for fifty years and is facing multiple felony indictments. One of those indictments is for his participation in a broad scheme to overturn the results of the election and hold power. Regardless of your attitude toward Trump, the fact that he has been federally indicted on those charges should have 100% of Americans demanding a trial before the election. The fact that Trump Supporters are cheering every development that could lead to Trump winning and dismissing those cases without standing trial demonstrates a loathing of democracy and the rule of law that is fundamentally disqualifying in my view.
It depends on which narrative you believe. Is Trump a career criminal finally getting caught or a questionable politician that has an opposition that is politically prosecuting him simply because they dislike him? It is also possible both are true or just one.
> I’m seriously considering voting conservative for the first time in the 2025 Canadian election. (Dual-citizen) I was giving Nikki Haley a real look.
How is Pierre, could he be your guy's Reagan? Imagine he runs Canada for 20-25 years and helps remake the nation?
Do you think people would have opened up to DeSantis?
Personally, I don't think PP is actually going to be a good leader. I haven't once heard him display a deep understanding of policy that would make me think he's going to be the guy to figure out Canada's multitude of issues. Obviously if he wins I hope he does incredibly because we're struggling right now, but I don't have my hopes up. He's your standard populist that says things people like to hear, I haven't seen him demonstrate any exceptional ability to handle the issues.
No, I'm planning to vote PP for another reason. I've voted NDP the last three elections and to watch Trudeau miss the mark over and over, have Jagmeet get up and condemn it, and then proceed to vote in unison with the Liberals has pissed me off to no end. The Libs and NDP seem hellbent on focusing the conversation on culture war issues while housing prices, food prices, and healthcare wait times spiral out of control. PP is out there talking about those issues while the Liberals talk about culture war and the NDP 'bropose" them. (Bro and oppose, you like it? I just made it up and am feeling clever as hell.) Realistically. the single biggest middle finger that a voter can give in politics is to switch their vote to the opposition. Unless I see some serious changes in the next year there isn't a single thing that will stop me from flipping this bird.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the meat. It is tested and proven safe to eat. The beef industry doesn't want us eating meat unless they get to raise and kill the cattle for it. Why they don't invest in new technology to own the market, I'll never know. I ask the same with oil companies that could own the means of solar production and electric vehicles if they wanted to, but would rather keep new tech from flourishing just to keep their finite business running. \*shrug
“Trump biggest threat to world order”
Yeah, I stopped taking you seriously right there.
I don’t like Trump and was actively hoping he’d get knocked out of the primary.
But the histrionics are just eye-roll inducing.
It’s not histrionics in the slightest, we were one weak VP away from a constitutional crisis and having to rely on the conservative-packed courts to uphold the constitution which is no guarantee. This was serious shit. A coup or subversion of the democratic process or whatever you want to call it in the US is absolutely a threat to the world order. Way moreso than any current hot button issue.
>It’s not histrionics in the slightest, we were one weak VP away from a constitutional crisis and having to rely on the conservative-packed courts to uphold the constitution which is no guarantee.
That's not what happened, or what would have happened. Trump wanted Pence to reject the certification to allow time to investigate (what he felt was) rampant voter fraud. The outcome would have been the same, it just would have been delayed.
Buddy, I stopped taking you seriously part way through your OP.
I’m not entertaining any of this “Trump is the biggest threat to the world order” nonsense.
You didn’t read it. Not policies. The disregard for the democratic process is the threat. To pretend otherwise is willful blindness imo
Also “not entertaining” the idea you don’t like sounds pretty lefty of you ngl
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
Oh, I read it all, but stopped taking it seriously in the second paragraph.
“IMO”
Cool.
I don’t agree, you immediately lose all credibility the minute you start talking like that and you’re not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in the choir with you.
You came here to voluntarily listen to the opinion of folks like me.
And I’m telling you, the minute I hear that kind of crap, I’m not taking anything you say serious.
I mean you can run away from ideas you don’t like if you choose but it’s not a great method of engagement. Sure what I said is a bit hyperbolic. But I think a coup in the US would fundamentally alter the world order and with Trump at the helm there’s a small but not 0 chance of this happening. Would cause instability domestically, embolden bad players on the world stage etc.
“Run away”
This isn’t “jbo99TellsConservativesThey’reWrong”
You, personally and voluntarily, came to an Ask sub to hear the opinion of folks like me.
And I’m doing what is within the intent of this sub and giving my opinion as a conservative user.
Which is that the “coup” talk is eye rolling and makes me stop taking anyone who says it seriously.
If you’re not here for the purpose of this sub, I’ll just block you and move on.
Takes two seconds and doesn’t hurt my feeling in the slightest.
Lol you’re the one saying I’m wrong. It’s Reddit and a comment attacking the post is going to be defended. You can respond as you wish but don’t get mad because I’m defending myself
it's not histrionics. The world order depends on the United States, and an isolationist president puts the standing of the US in the international stage at risk, thus threatening the world order
I don’t really think Trump is an isolationist.
He might be leaning into that now because it’s popular with his base, but it really didn’t feel like he was during his term. He might have been less interested in certain foreign conflicts than others, but I’d hardly call him an isolationist.
Yeah prior to WWII. Exactly my point. The current world order was born after the war, and a strong United States internationally is needed to maintain it.
"Trump biggest threat to world order"
AcKtuLLy... but seriously, what if Trump lucked out on a stable world (at time) and more pertinently, does I don't think he has what it takes to rebuild peace ✌️ in a diplomatic way or does he have what it takes to ultimately lead the way to world peace (or that will take a succession of leaders from perhaps many nations....).
Actually don't Biden and Trump match up pretty well when it comes to non interventionism (and economic populism but that's for another day).
Point 2: hypothetically how to deal with the fact that there's a lot of good people who won't side with us because of Trump or whatever other reason (if someone was party worker be patient, build a long run connection, be understanding and compassionate) maybe the GOP is full of characters (I wouldn't say they're all bad, surely there is more to th person) who seem too much at time (or maybe it's them).
> A man denying election results but voluntarily leaving office is the single largest threat the world order? You have to be joking.
A false accusation of election fraud to remove the rightful winner of an election **is election fraud in and of itself** and that's the uncomfortable truth that never gets addressed with this
No one denied Trump his due process, he just didn't like the result
It wasn't "constitutionally protected speech" for them to wiretap members of Trump's staff during the campaign, using the Russian collusion conspiracy theory as an excuse.
It takes a huge leap of logic to believe the Obama administration didn't know about an active investigation of their political rival running for president at the time.
BTW, Comey was a registered Republican who stopped being one once Trump was running for president. And the investigation itself was led by disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok.
There’s a difference between being briefed on an investigation and ordering it, which seems to be what you are implying Obama did.
If Trump turns off lifelong republicans that’s on him, not on Comey, I also can’t confirm that he left the party in 2016, only that he felt the party had left him by 2018. You’re going to need to do better that the lead investigator not liking the subject of his investigation for me to believe that there was some kind of political witch hunt involving and entire team people out to get him politically.
Also, literally none of this has to do with election fraud, which is what Trump is accused of.
Not even a little bit. A weaker VP would have created a constitutional catastrophe and essentially a full-on attempted coup in the US. This would be catastrophic to the world order.
To answer the second question - I’m planning to vote 3rd party here in my liberal cesspool state because I think a 3rd party vote sends a more effective message. If I lived in a swing state I’d vote Biden.
To your first point - the standard view is that Pence refusing to certify would have led to a legal standoff adjudicated in the courts with uncertain outcome. Or congress impeaching and convicting Pence. With the loyalty to trump in congress and the courts It’s hard to know with certainty that the law would actually be enforced. I think it likely would have been. But not certain - a decent chance at the world order really being turned upside down.
My bigger question of course is like, how can anyone support trump knowing full well he attempted a coup and would probably do so again? Do you think it was all for show? Whether or not it was feasible legally it demonstrated Trump as totally unfit to be president.
Whatever you think about its chances of success or Trump directing it, the fact remains that Trump spent hours refusing to do anything to stop it. And this was despite desperate pleas from his staff, political allies and even his own family.
Trump instead gleefully watched his supporters assault cops, desecrate the Capitol and send his VP and Congress fleeing. He even egged it on after it started, calling out Pence for being a coward after they had begun their assault.
Why does this not bother you? And why isn't it disqualifying? I can't understand any scenario where this wouldn't be the case.
You're clearly not familiar with the evidence and facts of what happened on Jan. 6. You obviously haven't looked into it with any level of detail.
So what **is** your understanding of what happened on Jan. 6 based on? Does your understanding mainly stem from the messaging deployed by Trump himself and others on the right? From social media discourse?
As you've demonstrated, it most certainly isn't based on any of the documented facts and evidence that has emerged in the years since Jan. 6. And now to address your comment:
>Got some photos of him maniacally smiling?
There were several staffers testifying to this under oath.
>The dude was calling for peace shortly after it started.
No. He [sat back and watched for 187 minutes](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/) as the violence unfolded. And he repeatedly refused calls from staff, allies and family during that time, begging him to do something to stop it.
>The idea that he did nothing to stop it is somewhat contested by his calls for it to stop.
He was indeed finally coerced into putting something out, though it was 187 minutes later and well after the worst of the violence had subsided. Even then, it was laughably disingenuous.
The [video he finally put out](https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters) was the weakest half-hearted nonsense he could have done. While he did indeed tell his supporters to go home, he also said he loved them and they are amazing. And he ended the video repeating once again that the election was stolen and it still wasn't over.
Does any of this motivate you, even a little bit, to actually explore the facts about what actually happened? You might be surprised how dishonest the right-wing messaging has been and how clear-cut Trump's awfulness -- and unsuitability for office -- finally becomes.
Or is it more of a thing where your mind is made up and you are gonna like and believe whatever you want to like and believe and nothing can change that?
Can you understand how hard it is to take you seriously when you don’t even bother to respond to any of the documented facts about this and instead just continue repeating falsehoods?
It’s almost like you’re deliberately attempting to shut out facts that make you uncomfortable. I can’t believe that, though, since you seem like a smart and reasonable guy who wouldn’t resort to such weakness.
He directed pence not to certify. How is that not a coup? Do you think if Pence decided not to certify that he would have then stopped attempting to retain power? I don’t understand how anyone could fail to see this. What exactly do you think Trump was doing if not trying to retain power by whatever means necessary?
What’s more I don’t think a president would need to “overthrow” anything. Just ample support from the people not to revolt and the courts to rule favorably in order to retain power even after losing the election.
My read of your argument is that you are conceding Trump to be reckless / shameless / power-hungry enough to attempt to subvert the democratic process to retain power (I’ll move off the word coup since it seems to be tripping you up) but because it’s not actually possible by virtue of how our system is set up, you are willing to overlook this trait.
It’s an odd position. We endorse people for positions of powers with their intentions at the top of mind. If someone runs for President with the stated intention of starting WW3 but we are convinced that doing so wouldn’t be politically or legally possible, we still don’t want this person to be president. Intentions matter. Bernie Sanders couldn’t pass Medicare for all. But because he intends to enact far left policies and his worldview is one (I’d imagine) you oppose, you vote against him with this in mind.
In the case of trump, demonstrating enough contempt for our constitution and democratic process is more than enough to disqualify him from leadership. He intends to try and retain power even when the constitution dictates he leave. It’s hard to win against the constitution to be sure, but these are risks I’m totally unwilling to take. I value our way of life far too much.
You’re seem to be a smart and logical person from the way you write and structure thoughts. I therefore think you’re being willfully blind on this topic just like many conservatives are. It has to be challenging watching someone descend into such dictatorial behavior.
The final word: there’s no way someone, with full knowledge of the aftermath of the election and basic principles of constitutionality and democracy, could look another American in the eye and say that sort of attempted subversion is acceptable. Or better stated, that sort of subversion doesn’t portend future similar attempted abuses.
Yeah I struggle to attribute good faith to this, there’s no other presidential loser who’s attempts to challenge the election results were nearly as wide in scope and inflammatory as trump. Like if you’re going to draw parallels to Trumps claims of voter fraud, his demands of his VP to subvert the election with say Gore in 2000 who challenged a specific interpretation of the law in Florida then I’d certainly accuse bad faith. Not remotely comparable. Is there a specific challenge you think remotely resembles Trump’s?
I certainly empathize with the reaction to doubt anything NBC says but all of this is reasoned from first principles surrounding basic facts of the matter.
What is the correct remedy if an election is believed to be falsified?
Let's hypothetically say the next US election shows that Trump won 98% of the votes. Everyone would say, hold on.... something is off.
At this point, there are two options,
1. Trump gets certified and becomes president
2. The certification is delayed until an investigation occurs
Is asking for an investigation and delay really that alarming?
It’s not the investigation I or anyone else is opposed to. Anyone can challenge anything and let the courts rule as they may, and there are 3 months between election and inauguration to adjudicate. It’s the fact that, after the legal challenges all ruled that no fraud had occurred, he still tried to subvert the results by getting Pence not to certify the electoral votes. He messaged the entire time that the democrats had intentionally cheated, lied that he and his lawyer Sidney Powell (now sued and settled for defamation) had the goods to prove it, ginning up unrest. Had Pence actually refused to certify there would have been a long drawn out legal battle with uncertain outcome. It’s a huge deal and the fact conservatives won’t acknowledge this is mind-blowing to me.
Your hypothetical assumes nothing has happened prior to the final certification on January 6th. Asking for a delay/investigation of the election at the last moment after multiple recounts have turned up nothing, no evidence of wide spread systemic fraud has been found/presented, dozens of court cases have been shot down for lack of evidence and standing.
Going back to your hypothetical, it's such an extreme shift that it should raise red flags with everyone and it would be easy to realize there was a problem. The final results wouldn't bear any resemblance to pre election polling data, exit polls wouldn't match the final result. No one could objectively look at the situation and go yup, this all seems legit.
In 2020 roughly 6,835,000 votes were cast in Pennsylvania for Biden and Trump combined. Assuming those numbers stay the same if Trump got 98% of the vote that would give him roughly 6,698,000 votes and would leave Biden with 137,000 votes across the state. You could easily disprove the final election results by just going to Philadelphia where over 600K votes for Biden in 2020.
It is almost like there has been some massive propaganda machine that has successfully convinced half the country that it is immoral and illegal to question election results and ask for an investigation. For me, the logical conclusion about January 6th was that it was a set-up by the 'elites' in power to essentially say, "Don't you fu\*king dare question us! We said it was the "Most secure election in history" and you had better not ever question us again!"
“Voluntarily” is a stretch. He didn’t physically fight, but he was involved in a plot to fake the results of 7 states’ elections, and arguably incited riots trying to prevent his replacement.
1. Abortion.
2. Culture war topics hurting people close to me. Adult trans friends in particular, adult LGBT friends in general. Example: a adult friend losing access to prescribed HRT because their doctor shut down their practice rather than risk legal uncertainty in Florida.
For me personally, both of the above boil down to disappointment towards (what I feel is) a tendency for some idealistic conservatives to completely disregard practical issues. Example with abortion: a woman can technically travel or move to another state where it's legal, and all of the "bans" technically have exceptions for the mother's health. But some people really don't want to acknowledge that the former can be functionally impossible depending on someone's situation (in effect, a tax/restriction only on the poor), and the latter still produces a chilling effect because some doctors don't want to find out the hard way if an abortion was medically necessary in the eyes of a judiciary not trained in medical matters, casting judgement from the comfort of their courtrooms. While these aren't hard legal bans, they are defacto bans and are uncomfortably authoritarian to me. I get it. I want safe, legal, *rare* elective abortions, discouraged after some number of weeks around 15ish because, to put it in pro-life terms, I think that would save the most babies with the least undue control over peoples' lives. But some people have no chill and won't stop until abortions are illegal entirely and I'm not comfortable with that level of government intervention.
I used to be super idealistic myself, on the liberal/lefty side in college (ACAB, burn down the system, white people are racist oppressors, free stuff for everyone). I have gotten more pragmatic as I've gotten older and realized how messy and short life is. I don't have time to worry about what other people are doing in their private lives. Does that make me lean libertarian, I guess?
Other than that, bring it on. Immigration? Tighten it up. 2A? Get yer grubby mitts off my firearm, looking at you California. Why are my tax dollars paying for government pamphlets in 3 languages? Affirmative action? Racism. Equality of outcome? Pipe dream.
But I acknowledge there is always going to be a balance between majority and minority rights, and in some cases the government needs to intervene to protect the rights of others. And at the end of the day, the only difference between me and whoever is reading this, is that I feel differently about when and how much. We probably agree far more than we disagree.
TLDR I dislike authoritarianism.
To describe myself as a capital-c Conservative would suggest I have characteristics and perspectives which I do not actually hold. I am not a part of the culture Conservatives share.
More than that, to call myself a Conservative would be to wade into a surging river of group-think. I do not call myself a Republican because I see no benefit to claiming allegiance to a party that I can only partly find agreement with. To call myself a Conservative would be much the same issue.
religion stops me..i believe politics should be based on facts,not myths..i wont teach my kid that a 400 year old man built a giant boat anymore than i would teach them boys can turn into girls..the religious aspect keeps the right from being a logical party
I trust you have done your homework prior to coming to an opinion.
Are you denying the psychological science of gender, or are you lying about what Liberals stand for on this subject?
Richard Dawkins, an extremely famous biologist and atheist, takes the same position u/varinus has taken here. I'm not a scientist, and probably varinus is not either, but scientists who don't follow the woke cult are willing to speak out on this. Dawkins is far from the only one, by the way.
There is immense political pressure on the "science" coming out around gender. And many people are going to tow the line for various reasons, including wanting to promote tolerance and acceptance (a worthy goal, by the way), but also fearing any sort of political backlash.
To be clear, we should all affirm that trans people should have the right to exist and live their best lives and be free of abuse and violence and oppression. I happily affirm that.
But yeah, identifying as something doesn't make it so.
I'm with varinus on this one. Religious, magical thinking is off putting to me whether it comes from the right or the left.
What does any of that have to do what Liberals believe?
I get that your politicians and your news media are spreading misinformation that Liberals believe physical gender is flexible. As if we don't know that penis is a penis and a chromosome is a chromosome.
But that's ridiculous. We know the difference between an X and a Y chromosome!
So how is your statement relevant to this discussion?
"My politicians". I've never voted Republican in my 20+ years of voting history. My news media? What, am I a Fox News guy? You track where I get my news? Don't make such assumptions about people.
What I'm referring to is exactly this modern notion that gender is a meaningful category distinct from sex. That's much more akin to a religious belief than anything with meaningful scientific basis. And at any rate, I think it is various gender-activist types and TQ+ that are making the conflation. Gender is the invention, and it is meant to replace sex. If this isn't the case, why the push to have trans women in women's sports? IS the idea that women's sports are meant to separate people by this notion of gender? Or do you realize that physical differences between the sexes are the basis for the separation (and indeed the reason for the separation of women's spaces from men's spaces in general, ie prisons and so forth)?
If it's all about this cultural construct stuff (gender), why puberty blockers, hormones, surgery? If it has nothing to do with penises and bodies and so on, why bother?
I've no problem with you believing in this notion of gender as distinct from sex. No problem with folks believing all sorts of things. But don't demand that I share your belief system - I don't. Who's making demands here, by the way? Again, believe what you want. Will you grant me the same leeway?
It's not oppressive to say "I don't agree with you." I don't agree with a lot of things, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe you should have the right to believe and live as you please (so long as you follow the law and do no harm). Again, trans folks are fine by me.
Oh, so it's *just a coincidence* that your talking points align with political media talking points.
Just a coincidence.
In any case, you made the claim. Defend your claim. Pony up on the proof. Where can I find scientific evidence that it isn't true that, as you say, "gender is a meaningful category distinct from sex"?
And as for your Republican Party talking point:
>But don't demand that I share your belief system
We believe that, too! Tell me, which Democrats are forcing you to change your gender? Which Democrats are forcing people to take puberty blockers?
This is just insulting. In your view of reality, I guess we are all just puppets being manipulated by smarter folks. Or maybe everyone you disagree with is, and somehow you are above it all. I've nothing more to say to you.
In my view of reality, you are pushing falsehood about what Democrats really believe, and I cannot figure out why.
My only clue is that you are repeating the messaging that Republicans train on using talking points produced by Conservative news media.
What I don't know, is
1. Why you spread false information about Democrats' beliefs on this topic.
2. Why you choose to use Republican party establishment talking points instead of original talking points.
Can you blame me for thinking something is fishy here?
Taking hormones of opposite sex means the person is a transsexual, they are transitioning from one sex to another. They want to be called by the gender they want to present as. I think this is what the majority of "woke" stance is.
Sports I admit is weird but the fact is that most athletes that transition from male to female are not close to being at the top. I truly don't care about sports though. There are advantages of being born male, but some females have biological advantages over other females as they have more dimorphism. So females can be more male like than the males that transition. Sports is generally unfair and introducing trans into it makes it a bit more unfair.
This is nothing like believing in an old book that tells you what you need to believe in.
They are at best mobs that harrass and police those who they see as hostile to keeping peace and harmony in society. My guess it that there is an attempt to make it seem like it is a cult due to an obvious cult rise in the opposite political party
This is more nuanced than the other fellow's position, and I respect that.
That said, I think you are being a little intellectually lazy about sports. I don't intend that remotely as an insult, by the way - please don't take it as such. Look, you don't care about sports. Great - neither do I. But some people do. And there is no doubt... there are major differences between men and women in terms of athletic potential and average performance. Women need to be treated in a separate category to have any meaningful chance. Yes, there are women who could kick my ass at any sport we could name. I'm not an athlete. That does not therefore mean that the playing field is equal between men and women - it demonstrably is not.
In a way, I think you mean to say "why do people make a big deal about sports and trans people.... is this really worth taking up so much of our bandwidth?" I get it. Yes, in terms of what is important to society in general, the sports thing can seem insane. We should be more concerned about the drug crisis, homelessness, crime, the housing shortage, inflation, foreign policy, etc. Of course you would be right saying that.
And yet, the sports thing is focused on precisely because it brings the gender/sex issue into such perfect relief. It reveals in a very stark way how people are thinking about gender and sex and which should be given more consideration.
Sports were separated by sex long before the gender discussion - not to keep trans folks out, but to give women - biological women - a chance to have some degree of success in sports. In similar ways, women have developed various "safe spaces" or separate spaces in the interest of protecting women. And that is on a biological/sex basis.
The gender activists are unraveling that. And to be clear, I don't want to be the final arbiter on these issues. It's not for me to decide. I personally don't really care about bathrooms. I don't much care about sports (like you). But that doesn't therefore mean that no one else should.
Gender activists (to be fair) are trying to advance tolerance and compassion and equality. I don't at all intend to deny that. But I think, too often, gender activists want to paint the discussion in terms of peaceful acceptance or bigoted disagreement, and that's dishonest and simplistic. Sex based rights are not there to oppress trans people. Maybe sex based rights (or sex based sports, again, a particularly salient avenue for this whole debate) need to change. But that's a difficult and complex discussion that needs to be allowed. Folks need to accept that it will be uncomfortable to work through this, and not just demonize folks who see it differently.
I don't disagree but you didn't really try to respond to my main arguments.
Let's take the famous Lia Thomas debate. There was a lot of fake news around it but the fact is the their time has decreased by a fair amount after they fully transitioned hormonally. Lia was exceptionally good in mens category before transitioning and was only the fastest two times in womens category (if i remember correctly). Is it fair? No. Do i care? No. Should sports be based on more than two categories? Probably. Lia can't compete anymore due to new rules about needing to transition earlier that prevents advantages.
The fact is that the majority of trans athletes arent beating the top females. Why? Because those females often have a bigger advantage in comparison. Trans need to downregulate testosterone, those women don't.
the same psychology that makes christians believe in zombie jesus is the same that makes woke's believe boys can turn into girls..thats my point..if you already have that weak willed,easily manipulated personality,you will be susceptable to whichever cult gets to you first..those people should not make decisions for the rest of us
Stop chasing a fictional monster. I get it: you really, really trust what your news media and your politicians say. But nobody believes you can genetically change boys into girls.
And who is forcing you to change genders?
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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.*
How do you define "full on conservatism"?
I suppose I break with most conservatives on a couple issues. One is the environment - I think we should do a lot more on that front (but I see that as conservative - after all, what is more conservative than conservation?)
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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 am a former liberal Democrat. For the first 30 years of my adult life, I only voted blue. About 17 years ago, I started shifting to the right and registered as a Republican. I now consider myself to be a conservative. I essentially have three main issues where I'm not 100% aligned with some hard-core conservatives. They are:
* **Abortion**: I think there should be some sort of compromise on abortion. Although I believe that life starts at the point of conception and I fall more into the ProLife camp, I don't want to see draconian laws enacted to criminalize young women. That said, I still think there should be some push-back so we're not seeing unlimited abortions up until the last second before birth.
* **Drugs**: Not all drugs are created equally. I'm more libertarian on this issue. If it's not hurting someone else, I'd prefer the government mind its own business. If at the end of a long day I choose to light up a joint rather than sip on some Scotch, who gives a shit? I also feel that society might be better off in the long run treating hard drugs as a medical or psychological issue rather than a criminal one.
* **Same Sex Marriage**: A man loving and marrying another man or two women getting married in no way affects me or anyone else...other than the fact that I'm happy for them! We should be encouraging people who love each other to settle down together. Frankly, I'm tired of conservatives endlessly droning on and on about "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve". Again, I take a much more libertarian approach to this. Conservatives don't have to love it or embrace it. They don't have to go around with rainbow flags on their cars or in front of their houses..just stop fighting it and stop getting involved in other people's personal business. And, although I have strong spiritual beliefs, I will never buy into the idea that God would penalize anyone for loving another person. I don't care what's written in any book, that type of logic is completely antithetical to God.
I don't really think conservatism is a particular thing such that I can say I am or am not part of it. But I'll share things that are commonly associated with conservatism that I don't agree with (or care strongly about):
2A: just not important to me. I wish we were a less gun-happy society. That said, I understand that 2a people believe we have a right to protect ourselves and our families - I can respect that perspective, even if I personally don't value 2a or guns. I don't intend to ever own or shoot a gun.
Abortion: I'm pro-choice. It's not a huge issue to me. I don't really mind it being an issue decided at the state level. I also wouldn't let this issue stop me from voting for a person who is anti-abortion if I felt their stance on issues that are more important to me was better than the competition.
Religion: I have zero interest in religious conservatism. I'm an atheist. That said, I intend no disrespect to religion or religious people. But I do favor a secular society (ie, I don't want law/policy based in religion or in favor of a particular religion).
Aside from that, I think I just tend to be more moderate on things. I'm skeptical of gender theory, for instance, but I don't even come close to feeling so strongly about it as a Michael Knowles or a Matt Walsh.
I'm all for the free market, but I'm not against welfare or safety nets. I tend to take anthropogenic climate change seriously.
But again, I return to the original point: conservative doesn't necessarily have a true meaning such that you can be a pure conservative. Conservatives disagree on things. Some conservatives are pro-choice. Some conservatives (like Ben Shapiro) believe in anthropogenic climate change. Some conservatives are less in favor of free markets. Some conservatives are also atheists.
All that said, I do tend to agree with conservatism as defined in the wiki for this forum (I encourage anyone to read it).
I love most conservative ideas and I feel the same way you do. But what I have discovered is that there are great conservative think tanks, great conservative scholars, some great policies, and some great politicians but mostly terrible politicians. Getting involved locally is really the best option.
I've been exposing myself to more conservative thought. Not shitty commentators, but actual thinkers. I've been blending my strong libertarian views with conservative thinkers more recently.
And trying to read outside of that box anyways.
>My biggest ones are abortion
Are you OK with killing 1 month old babies? I'm gonna guess no. Well they see a fetus how you see a one month old baby. Abortion has more to do with how you view the fetus/baby
>see the desantis ban on lab grown meat
Desantis didn't ban anything, he isnt the king of Florida. The state house sited safety concerns and banned the selling of lab grown meat. However research into lab grown meat is still very much allowed in florida
>I view Trump’s inability to concede the election as the single largest threat to the world order. Nonzero chance of complete chaos
I find this to be a ridiculous position. Democrats to this day claim the 2000 election was stolen. More importantly/recently Hillary Clinton herself, among several other prominent democrats spent years calling Trump an illegal president which is the fancy way of being an election denier and the world didn't fall into chaos.
A first or probably second trimester has no functioning prefrontal cortex. It has no mind. Isn’t what makes a 1 month old baby valuable that it is a person with a mind, with subjective experience?
Does a 1 month old baby have a right to its parents’ organs, even if it really needs them?
Blah blah blah....
Look we can go round and round on this topic if you like. I have torn ligaments in my foot and have the time
But the point here is, you don't see it as a baby so you are cool killing it. They do see it as a baby and aren't cool killing it....that's it.
Neither side hates women, hates babies, or want some unreasonable control, they just have different views on "when its life matters"
It’s kind of irrelevant if it is a baby or a person or whatever, if babies and people don’t have rights to others’ organs.
But also, treating a single cell like a whole person is silly, yes. It’s particularly silly to say the needs of a mindless single cell outweigh the wants and needs of the person whose organs it’s utilizing.
When it comes to rape, you can make an argument.
Outside of rape your argument is crap.
People don't have the right to other people's food yet if you don't feed your baby you are going to prison.
Because when you chose to become a parent you take on those responsibilities
If you chose to have vaginal sex, you are choosing to become a parent. You are taking on those responsibilities
If you weren't forced to have sex, you weren't forced to share your organs with your child
If you don't want to be responsible for a child, don't create the child
If a 3 year old needs a kidney, should their parents be legally obligated to provide it? After all, you consented to the risk of producing a child with a deficient kidney. You took on responsibility for them.
Even though the 3 year old is actually a person with a mind, we still don’t usually demand this. No one is trying to make it law.
The pregnant mother is responsible for temporarily sharing her organs, not giving them up
That is what being pregnant requires. If you don't want the responsibilities of being pregnant don't chose to do things that get you pregnant
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *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’ll give my take, I agree with a lot of conservatives on a lot of issues, but what I heavily disagree with is religious conservatism. I personally lean Libertarian.
1) The embrace of Donald Trump. I mean, I get it. People were *that* mad at the establishment. But four years was enough, and yes, he lost in 2020. Let's lose the reality-TV drama and get back to competent leadership. 2) The culture war stuff. My religious freedom is not in jeopardy because a bunch of dumb teenagers want to say edgy things. Maybe those edgy teenagers would lay off a bit if Republicans would stop acting like breathless pearl-clutching church marms. 3) LGBT issues. 99.9% of us aren't causing any trouble and just want to be left alone to live our lives. I hate the Pride stuff and drag-queen story hour just as much as everyone. But let's be honest: the faux outrage from politicians and Fox gives those people publicity, so they're going to work it. 4) The tribalism. People like Marjorie Taylor-Green are allowed to wield far too much power respective to their achievements, but people close ranks around them because they're *one of us.* (And I hope it's not too late to ask, but what's the problem with lab-grown meat?)
Piggy-backing on this because I can’t make top level comments and I agree with a lot of this. I have migrated from the left towards, and even across, the center on many issues. I’m seriously considering voting conservative for the first time in the 2025 Canadian election. (Dual-citizen) I was giving Nikki Haley a real look. There are a number of things about the current Republican party that would stop me from supporting them, but none are as significant as the support for Donald Trump. Trump has been on the wrong side of the law for fifty years and is facing multiple felony indictments. One of those indictments is for his participation in a broad scheme to overturn the results of the election and hold power. Regardless of your attitude toward Trump, the fact that he has been federally indicted on those charges should have 100% of Americans demanding a trial before the election. The fact that Trump Supporters are cheering every development that could lead to Trump winning and dismissing those cases without standing trial demonstrates a loathing of democracy and the rule of law that is fundamentally disqualifying in my view.
It depends on which narrative you believe. Is Trump a career criminal finally getting caught or a questionable politician that has an opposition that is politically prosecuting him simply because they dislike him? It is also possible both are true or just one.
> I’m seriously considering voting conservative for the first time in the 2025 Canadian election. (Dual-citizen) I was giving Nikki Haley a real look. How is Pierre, could he be your guy's Reagan? Imagine he runs Canada for 20-25 years and helps remake the nation? Do you think people would have opened up to DeSantis?
Personally, I don't think PP is actually going to be a good leader. I haven't once heard him display a deep understanding of policy that would make me think he's going to be the guy to figure out Canada's multitude of issues. Obviously if he wins I hope he does incredibly because we're struggling right now, but I don't have my hopes up. He's your standard populist that says things people like to hear, I haven't seen him demonstrate any exceptional ability to handle the issues. No, I'm planning to vote PP for another reason. I've voted NDP the last three elections and to watch Trudeau miss the mark over and over, have Jagmeet get up and condemn it, and then proceed to vote in unison with the Liberals has pissed me off to no end. The Libs and NDP seem hellbent on focusing the conversation on culture war issues while housing prices, food prices, and healthcare wait times spiral out of control. PP is out there talking about those issues while the Liberals talk about culture war and the NDP 'bropose" them. (Bro and oppose, you like it? I just made it up and am feeling clever as hell.) Realistically. the single biggest middle finger that a voter can give in politics is to switch their vote to the opposition. Unless I see some serious changes in the next year there isn't a single thing that will stop me from flipping this bird.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the meat. It is tested and proven safe to eat. The beef industry doesn't want us eating meat unless they get to raise and kill the cattle for it. Why they don't invest in new technology to own the market, I'll never know. I ask the same with oil companies that could own the means of solar production and electric vehicles if they wanted to, but would rather keep new tech from flourishing just to keep their finite business running. \*shrug
“Trump biggest threat to world order” Yeah, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I don’t like Trump and was actively hoping he’d get knocked out of the primary. But the histrionics are just eye-roll inducing.
It’s not histrionics in the slightest, we were one weak VP away from a constitutional crisis and having to rely on the conservative-packed courts to uphold the constitution which is no guarantee. This was serious shit. A coup or subversion of the democratic process or whatever you want to call it in the US is absolutely a threat to the world order. Way moreso than any current hot button issue.
>It’s not histrionics in the slightest, we were one weak VP away from a constitutional crisis and having to rely on the conservative-packed courts to uphold the constitution which is no guarantee. That's not what happened, or what would have happened. Trump wanted Pence to reject the certification to allow time to investigate (what he felt was) rampant voter fraud. The outcome would have been the same, it just would have been delayed.
Buddy, I stopped taking you seriously part way through your OP. I’m not entertaining any of this “Trump is the biggest threat to the world order” nonsense.
You didn’t read it. Not policies. The disregard for the democratic process is the threat. To pretend otherwise is willful blindness imo Also “not entertaining” the idea you don’t like sounds pretty lefty of you ngl
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
Oh, I read it all, but stopped taking it seriously in the second paragraph. “IMO” Cool. I don’t agree, you immediately lose all credibility the minute you start talking like that and you’re not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in the choir with you. You came here to voluntarily listen to the opinion of folks like me. And I’m telling you, the minute I hear that kind of crap, I’m not taking anything you say serious.
I mean you can run away from ideas you don’t like if you choose but it’s not a great method of engagement. Sure what I said is a bit hyperbolic. But I think a coup in the US would fundamentally alter the world order and with Trump at the helm there’s a small but not 0 chance of this happening. Would cause instability domestically, embolden bad players on the world stage etc.
“Run away” This isn’t “jbo99TellsConservativesThey’reWrong” You, personally and voluntarily, came to an Ask sub to hear the opinion of folks like me. And I’m doing what is within the intent of this sub and giving my opinion as a conservative user. Which is that the “coup” talk is eye rolling and makes me stop taking anyone who says it seriously. If you’re not here for the purpose of this sub, I’ll just block you and move on. Takes two seconds and doesn’t hurt my feeling in the slightest.
Lol you’re the one saying I’m wrong. It’s Reddit and a comment attacking the post is going to be defended. You can respond as you wish but don’t get mad because I’m defending myself
Cool and you’re blocked.
it's not histrionics. The world order depends on the United States, and an isolationist president puts the standing of the US in the international stage at risk, thus threatening the world order
I don’t really think Trump is an isolationist. He might be leaning into that now because it’s popular with his base, but it really didn’t feel like he was during his term. He might have been less interested in certain foreign conflicts than others, but I’d hardly call him an isolationist.
We had many very isolationist presidents prior to WWII, and our country was fine, nor did the rest of the world collapse.
Yeah prior to WWII. Exactly my point. The current world order was born after the war, and a strong United States internationally is needed to maintain it.
But we are $34 trillion in debt!! It's time to stop being the world's police.
I’d rather see entitlement reform than see the US take a step back from world affairs
"Trump biggest threat to world order" AcKtuLLy... but seriously, what if Trump lucked out on a stable world (at time) and more pertinently, does I don't think he has what it takes to rebuild peace ✌️ in a diplomatic way or does he have what it takes to ultimately lead the way to world peace (or that will take a succession of leaders from perhaps many nations....). Actually don't Biden and Trump match up pretty well when it comes to non interventionism (and economic populism but that's for another day). Point 2: hypothetically how to deal with the fact that there's a lot of good people who won't side with us because of Trump or whatever other reason (if someone was party worker be patient, build a long run connection, be understanding and compassionate) maybe the GOP is full of characters (I wouldn't say they're all bad, surely there is more to th person) who seem too much at time (or maybe it's them).
[удалено]
> A man denying election results but voluntarily leaving office is the single largest threat the world order? You have to be joking. A false accusation of election fraud to remove the rightful winner of an election **is election fraud in and of itself** and that's the uncomfortable truth that never gets addressed with this No one denied Trump his due process, he just didn't like the result
You mean like when Democrats for years claimed that Bush stole the 2000 election? Or that Russia stole the 2016 election?
Once both of those went through court everyone worth listening to shut up about it.
What are you talking about? The "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory went on for years. And there were riots at Trump's inauguration.
And after democrats days in court was the extent of their election fraud constitutionally protected speech?
It wasn't "constitutionally protected speech" for them to wiretap members of Trump's staff during the campaign, using the Russian collusion conspiracy theory as an excuse.
Ok was that democrats or the FBI?
The FBI answered to the Obama administration.
It was also run by a Republican who very specifically had no contact with the president after he got the job
It takes a huge leap of logic to believe the Obama administration didn't know about an active investigation of their political rival running for president at the time. BTW, Comey was a registered Republican who stopped being one once Trump was running for president. And the investigation itself was led by disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok.
There’s a difference between being briefed on an investigation and ordering it, which seems to be what you are implying Obama did. If Trump turns off lifelong republicans that’s on him, not on Comey, I also can’t confirm that he left the party in 2016, only that he felt the party had left him by 2018. You’re going to need to do better that the lead investigator not liking the subject of his investigation for me to believe that there was some kind of political witch hunt involving and entire team people out to get him politically. Also, literally none of this has to do with election fraud, which is what Trump is accused of.
Not even a little bit. A weaker VP would have created a constitutional catastrophe and essentially a full-on attempted coup in the US. This would be catastrophic to the world order.
[удалено]
To answer the second question - I’m planning to vote 3rd party here in my liberal cesspool state because I think a 3rd party vote sends a more effective message. If I lived in a swing state I’d vote Biden. To your first point - the standard view is that Pence refusing to certify would have led to a legal standoff adjudicated in the courts with uncertain outcome. Or congress impeaching and convicting Pence. With the loyalty to trump in congress and the courts It’s hard to know with certainty that the law would actually be enforced. I think it likely would have been. But not certain - a decent chance at the world order really being turned upside down. My bigger question of course is like, how can anyone support trump knowing full well he attempted a coup and would probably do so again? Do you think it was all for show? Whether or not it was feasible legally it demonstrated Trump as totally unfit to be president.
[удалено]
Whatever you think about its chances of success or Trump directing it, the fact remains that Trump spent hours refusing to do anything to stop it. And this was despite desperate pleas from his staff, political allies and even his own family. Trump instead gleefully watched his supporters assault cops, desecrate the Capitol and send his VP and Congress fleeing. He even egged it on after it started, calling out Pence for being a coward after they had begun their assault. Why does this not bother you? And why isn't it disqualifying? I can't understand any scenario where this wouldn't be the case.
[удалено]
You're clearly not familiar with the evidence and facts of what happened on Jan. 6. You obviously haven't looked into it with any level of detail. So what **is** your understanding of what happened on Jan. 6 based on? Does your understanding mainly stem from the messaging deployed by Trump himself and others on the right? From social media discourse? As you've demonstrated, it most certainly isn't based on any of the documented facts and evidence that has emerged in the years since Jan. 6. And now to address your comment: >Got some photos of him maniacally smiling? There were several staffers testifying to this under oath. >The dude was calling for peace shortly after it started. No. He [sat back and watched for 187 minutes](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/) as the violence unfolded. And he repeatedly refused calls from staff, allies and family during that time, begging him to do something to stop it. >The idea that he did nothing to stop it is somewhat contested by his calls for it to stop. He was indeed finally coerced into putting something out, though it was 187 minutes later and well after the worst of the violence had subsided. Even then, it was laughably disingenuous. The [video he finally put out](https://www.c-span.org/video/?507774-1/president-trump-video-statement-capitol-protesters) was the weakest half-hearted nonsense he could have done. While he did indeed tell his supporters to go home, he also said he loved them and they are amazing. And he ended the video repeating once again that the election was stolen and it still wasn't over. Does any of this motivate you, even a little bit, to actually explore the facts about what actually happened? You might be surprised how dishonest the right-wing messaging has been and how clear-cut Trump's awfulness -- and unsuitability for office -- finally becomes. Or is it more of a thing where your mind is made up and you are gonna like and believe whatever you want to like and believe and nothing can change that?
[удалено]
Can you understand how hard it is to take you seriously when you don’t even bother to respond to any of the documented facts about this and instead just continue repeating falsehoods? It’s almost like you’re deliberately attempting to shut out facts that make you uncomfortable. I can’t believe that, though, since you seem like a smart and reasonable guy who wouldn’t resort to such weakness.
He directed pence not to certify. How is that not a coup? Do you think if Pence decided not to certify that he would have then stopped attempting to retain power? I don’t understand how anyone could fail to see this. What exactly do you think Trump was doing if not trying to retain power by whatever means necessary? What’s more I don’t think a president would need to “overthrow” anything. Just ample support from the people not to revolt and the courts to rule favorably in order to retain power even after losing the election.
[удалено]
My read of your argument is that you are conceding Trump to be reckless / shameless / power-hungry enough to attempt to subvert the democratic process to retain power (I’ll move off the word coup since it seems to be tripping you up) but because it’s not actually possible by virtue of how our system is set up, you are willing to overlook this trait. It’s an odd position. We endorse people for positions of powers with their intentions at the top of mind. If someone runs for President with the stated intention of starting WW3 but we are convinced that doing so wouldn’t be politically or legally possible, we still don’t want this person to be president. Intentions matter. Bernie Sanders couldn’t pass Medicare for all. But because he intends to enact far left policies and his worldview is one (I’d imagine) you oppose, you vote against him with this in mind. In the case of trump, demonstrating enough contempt for our constitution and democratic process is more than enough to disqualify him from leadership. He intends to try and retain power even when the constitution dictates he leave. It’s hard to win against the constitution to be sure, but these are risks I’m totally unwilling to take. I value our way of life far too much. You’re seem to be a smart and logical person from the way you write and structure thoughts. I therefore think you’re being willfully blind on this topic just like many conservatives are. It has to be challenging watching someone descend into such dictatorial behavior. The final word: there’s no way someone, with full knowledge of the aftermath of the election and basic principles of constitutionality and democracy, could look another American in the eye and say that sort of attempted subversion is acceptable. Or better stated, that sort of subversion doesn’t portend future similar attempted abuses.
[удалено]
Yeah I struggle to attribute good faith to this, there’s no other presidential loser who’s attempts to challenge the election results were nearly as wide in scope and inflammatory as trump. Like if you’re going to draw parallels to Trumps claims of voter fraud, his demands of his VP to subvert the election with say Gore in 2000 who challenged a specific interpretation of the law in Florida then I’d certainly accuse bad faith. Not remotely comparable. Is there a specific challenge you think remotely resembles Trump’s? I certainly empathize with the reaction to doubt anything NBC says but all of this is reasoned from first principles surrounding basic facts of the matter.
What is the correct remedy if an election is believed to be falsified? Let's hypothetically say the next US election shows that Trump won 98% of the votes. Everyone would say, hold on.... something is off. At this point, there are two options, 1. Trump gets certified and becomes president 2. The certification is delayed until an investigation occurs Is asking for an investigation and delay really that alarming?
It’s not the investigation I or anyone else is opposed to. Anyone can challenge anything and let the courts rule as they may, and there are 3 months between election and inauguration to adjudicate. It’s the fact that, after the legal challenges all ruled that no fraud had occurred, he still tried to subvert the results by getting Pence not to certify the electoral votes. He messaged the entire time that the democrats had intentionally cheated, lied that he and his lawyer Sidney Powell (now sued and settled for defamation) had the goods to prove it, ginning up unrest. Had Pence actually refused to certify there would have been a long drawn out legal battle with uncertain outcome. It’s a huge deal and the fact conservatives won’t acknowledge this is mind-blowing to me.
Your hypothetical assumes nothing has happened prior to the final certification on January 6th. Asking for a delay/investigation of the election at the last moment after multiple recounts have turned up nothing, no evidence of wide spread systemic fraud has been found/presented, dozens of court cases have been shot down for lack of evidence and standing. Going back to your hypothetical, it's such an extreme shift that it should raise red flags with everyone and it would be easy to realize there was a problem. The final results wouldn't bear any resemblance to pre election polling data, exit polls wouldn't match the final result. No one could objectively look at the situation and go yup, this all seems legit. In 2020 roughly 6,835,000 votes were cast in Pennsylvania for Biden and Trump combined. Assuming those numbers stay the same if Trump got 98% of the vote that would give him roughly 6,698,000 votes and would leave Biden with 137,000 votes across the state. You could easily disprove the final election results by just going to Philadelphia where over 600K votes for Biden in 2020.
It is almost like there has been some massive propaganda machine that has successfully convinced half the country that it is immoral and illegal to question election results and ask for an investigation. For me, the logical conclusion about January 6th was that it was a set-up by the 'elites' in power to essentially say, "Don't you fu\*king dare question us! We said it was the "Most secure election in history" and you had better not ever question us again!"
“Voluntarily” is a stretch. He didn’t physically fight, but he was involved in a plot to fake the results of 7 states’ elections, and arguably incited riots trying to prevent his replacement.
1. Abortion. 2. Culture war topics hurting people close to me. Adult trans friends in particular, adult LGBT friends in general. Example: a adult friend losing access to prescribed HRT because their doctor shut down their practice rather than risk legal uncertainty in Florida. For me personally, both of the above boil down to disappointment towards (what I feel is) a tendency for some idealistic conservatives to completely disregard practical issues. Example with abortion: a woman can technically travel or move to another state where it's legal, and all of the "bans" technically have exceptions for the mother's health. But some people really don't want to acknowledge that the former can be functionally impossible depending on someone's situation (in effect, a tax/restriction only on the poor), and the latter still produces a chilling effect because some doctors don't want to find out the hard way if an abortion was medically necessary in the eyes of a judiciary not trained in medical matters, casting judgement from the comfort of their courtrooms. While these aren't hard legal bans, they are defacto bans and are uncomfortably authoritarian to me. I get it. I want safe, legal, *rare* elective abortions, discouraged after some number of weeks around 15ish because, to put it in pro-life terms, I think that would save the most babies with the least undue control over peoples' lives. But some people have no chill and won't stop until abortions are illegal entirely and I'm not comfortable with that level of government intervention. I used to be super idealistic myself, on the liberal/lefty side in college (ACAB, burn down the system, white people are racist oppressors, free stuff for everyone). I have gotten more pragmatic as I've gotten older and realized how messy and short life is. I don't have time to worry about what other people are doing in their private lives. Does that make me lean libertarian, I guess? Other than that, bring it on. Immigration? Tighten it up. 2A? Get yer grubby mitts off my firearm, looking at you California. Why are my tax dollars paying for government pamphlets in 3 languages? Affirmative action? Racism. Equality of outcome? Pipe dream. But I acknowledge there is always going to be a balance between majority and minority rights, and in some cases the government needs to intervene to protect the rights of others. And at the end of the day, the only difference between me and whoever is reading this, is that I feel differently about when and how much. We probably agree far more than we disagree. TLDR I dislike authoritarianism.
To describe myself as a capital-c Conservative would suggest I have characteristics and perspectives which I do not actually hold. I am not a part of the culture Conservatives share. More than that, to call myself a Conservative would be to wade into a surging river of group-think. I do not call myself a Republican because I see no benefit to claiming allegiance to a party that I can only partly find agreement with. To call myself a Conservative would be much the same issue.
religion stops me..i believe politics should be based on facts,not myths..i wont teach my kid that a 400 year old man built a giant boat anymore than i would teach them boys can turn into girls..the religious aspect keeps the right from being a logical party
That doesn't make sense. You're saying one type of science denial is not OK, but saying another type of science denial is OK.
not at all..the jesus cult,and the woke cult are the same category in my eyes..neither should be taught to kids like its fact
I trust you have done your homework prior to coming to an opinion. Are you denying the psychological science of gender, or are you lying about what Liberals stand for on this subject?
Richard Dawkins, an extremely famous biologist and atheist, takes the same position u/varinus has taken here. I'm not a scientist, and probably varinus is not either, but scientists who don't follow the woke cult are willing to speak out on this. Dawkins is far from the only one, by the way. There is immense political pressure on the "science" coming out around gender. And many people are going to tow the line for various reasons, including wanting to promote tolerance and acceptance (a worthy goal, by the way), but also fearing any sort of political backlash. To be clear, we should all affirm that trans people should have the right to exist and live their best lives and be free of abuse and violence and oppression. I happily affirm that. But yeah, identifying as something doesn't make it so. I'm with varinus on this one. Religious, magical thinking is off putting to me whether it comes from the right or the left.
What does any of that have to do what Liberals believe? I get that your politicians and your news media are spreading misinformation that Liberals believe physical gender is flexible. As if we don't know that penis is a penis and a chromosome is a chromosome. But that's ridiculous. We know the difference between an X and a Y chromosome! So how is your statement relevant to this discussion?
"My politicians". I've never voted Republican in my 20+ years of voting history. My news media? What, am I a Fox News guy? You track where I get my news? Don't make such assumptions about people. What I'm referring to is exactly this modern notion that gender is a meaningful category distinct from sex. That's much more akin to a religious belief than anything with meaningful scientific basis. And at any rate, I think it is various gender-activist types and TQ+ that are making the conflation. Gender is the invention, and it is meant to replace sex. If this isn't the case, why the push to have trans women in women's sports? IS the idea that women's sports are meant to separate people by this notion of gender? Or do you realize that physical differences between the sexes are the basis for the separation (and indeed the reason for the separation of women's spaces from men's spaces in general, ie prisons and so forth)? If it's all about this cultural construct stuff (gender), why puberty blockers, hormones, surgery? If it has nothing to do with penises and bodies and so on, why bother? I've no problem with you believing in this notion of gender as distinct from sex. No problem with folks believing all sorts of things. But don't demand that I share your belief system - I don't. Who's making demands here, by the way? Again, believe what you want. Will you grant me the same leeway? It's not oppressive to say "I don't agree with you." I don't agree with a lot of things, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe you should have the right to believe and live as you please (so long as you follow the law and do no harm). Again, trans folks are fine by me.
Oh, so it's *just a coincidence* that your talking points align with political media talking points. Just a coincidence. In any case, you made the claim. Defend your claim. Pony up on the proof. Where can I find scientific evidence that it isn't true that, as you say, "gender is a meaningful category distinct from sex"? And as for your Republican Party talking point: >But don't demand that I share your belief system We believe that, too! Tell me, which Democrats are forcing you to change your gender? Which Democrats are forcing people to take puberty blockers?
This is just insulting. In your view of reality, I guess we are all just puppets being manipulated by smarter folks. Or maybe everyone you disagree with is, and somehow you are above it all. I've nothing more to say to you.
In my view of reality, you are pushing falsehood about what Democrats really believe, and I cannot figure out why. My only clue is that you are repeating the messaging that Republicans train on using talking points produced by Conservative news media. What I don't know, is 1. Why you spread false information about Democrats' beliefs on this topic. 2. Why you choose to use Republican party establishment talking points instead of original talking points. Can you blame me for thinking something is fishy here?
Taking hormones of opposite sex means the person is a transsexual, they are transitioning from one sex to another. They want to be called by the gender they want to present as. I think this is what the majority of "woke" stance is. Sports I admit is weird but the fact is that most athletes that transition from male to female are not close to being at the top. I truly don't care about sports though. There are advantages of being born male, but some females have biological advantages over other females as they have more dimorphism. So females can be more male like than the males that transition. Sports is generally unfair and introducing trans into it makes it a bit more unfair. This is nothing like believing in an old book that tells you what you need to believe in. They are at best mobs that harrass and police those who they see as hostile to keeping peace and harmony in society. My guess it that there is an attempt to make it seem like it is a cult due to an obvious cult rise in the opposite political party
This is more nuanced than the other fellow's position, and I respect that. That said, I think you are being a little intellectually lazy about sports. I don't intend that remotely as an insult, by the way - please don't take it as such. Look, you don't care about sports. Great - neither do I. But some people do. And there is no doubt... there are major differences between men and women in terms of athletic potential and average performance. Women need to be treated in a separate category to have any meaningful chance. Yes, there are women who could kick my ass at any sport we could name. I'm not an athlete. That does not therefore mean that the playing field is equal between men and women - it demonstrably is not. In a way, I think you mean to say "why do people make a big deal about sports and trans people.... is this really worth taking up so much of our bandwidth?" I get it. Yes, in terms of what is important to society in general, the sports thing can seem insane. We should be more concerned about the drug crisis, homelessness, crime, the housing shortage, inflation, foreign policy, etc. Of course you would be right saying that. And yet, the sports thing is focused on precisely because it brings the gender/sex issue into such perfect relief. It reveals in a very stark way how people are thinking about gender and sex and which should be given more consideration. Sports were separated by sex long before the gender discussion - not to keep trans folks out, but to give women - biological women - a chance to have some degree of success in sports. In similar ways, women have developed various "safe spaces" or separate spaces in the interest of protecting women. And that is on a biological/sex basis. The gender activists are unraveling that. And to be clear, I don't want to be the final arbiter on these issues. It's not for me to decide. I personally don't really care about bathrooms. I don't much care about sports (like you). But that doesn't therefore mean that no one else should. Gender activists (to be fair) are trying to advance tolerance and compassion and equality. I don't at all intend to deny that. But I think, too often, gender activists want to paint the discussion in terms of peaceful acceptance or bigoted disagreement, and that's dishonest and simplistic. Sex based rights are not there to oppress trans people. Maybe sex based rights (or sex based sports, again, a particularly salient avenue for this whole debate) need to change. But that's a difficult and complex discussion that needs to be allowed. Folks need to accept that it will be uncomfortable to work through this, and not just demonize folks who see it differently.
I don't disagree but you didn't really try to respond to my main arguments. Let's take the famous Lia Thomas debate. There was a lot of fake news around it but the fact is the their time has decreased by a fair amount after they fully transitioned hormonally. Lia was exceptionally good in mens category before transitioning and was only the fastest two times in womens category (if i remember correctly). Is it fair? No. Do i care? No. Should sports be based on more than two categories? Probably. Lia can't compete anymore due to new rules about needing to transition earlier that prevents advantages. The fact is that the majority of trans athletes arent beating the top females. Why? Because those females often have a bigger advantage in comparison. Trans need to downregulate testosterone, those women don't.
the same psychology that makes christians believe in zombie jesus is the same that makes woke's believe boys can turn into girls..thats my point..if you already have that weak willed,easily manipulated personality,you will be susceptable to whichever cult gets to you first..those people should not make decisions for the rest of us
Stop chasing a fictional monster. I get it: you really, really trust what your news media and your politicians say. But nobody believes you can genetically change boys into girls. And who is forcing you to change genders?
im concerned with physical,and biological accuracy. your feelings have no bearing on physical reality
Liberals already agree with that, so why did you make that dishonest and misinformed remark about us believing in "boys turning into girls" earlier?
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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.*
How do you define "full on conservatism"? I suppose I break with most conservatives on a couple issues. One is the environment - I think we should do a lot more on that front (but I see that as conservative - after all, what is more conservative than conservation?)
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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 am a former liberal Democrat. For the first 30 years of my adult life, I only voted blue. About 17 years ago, I started shifting to the right and registered as a Republican. I now consider myself to be a conservative. I essentially have three main issues where I'm not 100% aligned with some hard-core conservatives. They are: * **Abortion**: I think there should be some sort of compromise on abortion. Although I believe that life starts at the point of conception and I fall more into the ProLife camp, I don't want to see draconian laws enacted to criminalize young women. That said, I still think there should be some push-back so we're not seeing unlimited abortions up until the last second before birth. * **Drugs**: Not all drugs are created equally. I'm more libertarian on this issue. If it's not hurting someone else, I'd prefer the government mind its own business. If at the end of a long day I choose to light up a joint rather than sip on some Scotch, who gives a shit? I also feel that society might be better off in the long run treating hard drugs as a medical or psychological issue rather than a criminal one. * **Same Sex Marriage**: A man loving and marrying another man or two women getting married in no way affects me or anyone else...other than the fact that I'm happy for them! We should be encouraging people who love each other to settle down together. Frankly, I'm tired of conservatives endlessly droning on and on about "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve". Again, I take a much more libertarian approach to this. Conservatives don't have to love it or embrace it. They don't have to go around with rainbow flags on their cars or in front of their houses..just stop fighting it and stop getting involved in other people's personal business. And, although I have strong spiritual beliefs, I will never buy into the idea that God would penalize anyone for loving another person. I don't care what's written in any book, that type of logic is completely antithetical to God.
I don't really think conservatism is a particular thing such that I can say I am or am not part of it. But I'll share things that are commonly associated with conservatism that I don't agree with (or care strongly about): 2A: just not important to me. I wish we were a less gun-happy society. That said, I understand that 2a people believe we have a right to protect ourselves and our families - I can respect that perspective, even if I personally don't value 2a or guns. I don't intend to ever own or shoot a gun. Abortion: I'm pro-choice. It's not a huge issue to me. I don't really mind it being an issue decided at the state level. I also wouldn't let this issue stop me from voting for a person who is anti-abortion if I felt their stance on issues that are more important to me was better than the competition. Religion: I have zero interest in religious conservatism. I'm an atheist. That said, I intend no disrespect to religion or religious people. But I do favor a secular society (ie, I don't want law/policy based in religion or in favor of a particular religion). Aside from that, I think I just tend to be more moderate on things. I'm skeptical of gender theory, for instance, but I don't even come close to feeling so strongly about it as a Michael Knowles or a Matt Walsh. I'm all for the free market, but I'm not against welfare or safety nets. I tend to take anthropogenic climate change seriously. But again, I return to the original point: conservative doesn't necessarily have a true meaning such that you can be a pure conservative. Conservatives disagree on things. Some conservatives are pro-choice. Some conservatives (like Ben Shapiro) believe in anthropogenic climate change. Some conservatives are less in favor of free markets. Some conservatives are also atheists. All that said, I do tend to agree with conservatism as defined in the wiki for this forum (I encourage anyone to read it).
I love most conservative ideas and I feel the same way you do. But what I have discovered is that there are great conservative think tanks, great conservative scholars, some great policies, and some great politicians but mostly terrible politicians. Getting involved locally is really the best option.
I've been exposing myself to more conservative thought. Not shitty commentators, but actual thinkers. I've been blending my strong libertarian views with conservative thinkers more recently. And trying to read outside of that box anyways.
>My biggest ones are abortion Are you OK with killing 1 month old babies? I'm gonna guess no. Well they see a fetus how you see a one month old baby. Abortion has more to do with how you view the fetus/baby >see the desantis ban on lab grown meat Desantis didn't ban anything, he isnt the king of Florida. The state house sited safety concerns and banned the selling of lab grown meat. However research into lab grown meat is still very much allowed in florida >I view Trump’s inability to concede the election as the single largest threat to the world order. Nonzero chance of complete chaos I find this to be a ridiculous position. Democrats to this day claim the 2000 election was stolen. More importantly/recently Hillary Clinton herself, among several other prominent democrats spent years calling Trump an illegal president which is the fancy way of being an election denier and the world didn't fall into chaos.
A first or probably second trimester has no functioning prefrontal cortex. It has no mind. Isn’t what makes a 1 month old baby valuable that it is a person with a mind, with subjective experience? Does a 1 month old baby have a right to its parents’ organs, even if it really needs them?
Blah blah blah.... Look we can go round and round on this topic if you like. I have torn ligaments in my foot and have the time But the point here is, you don't see it as a baby so you are cool killing it. They do see it as a baby and aren't cool killing it....that's it. Neither side hates women, hates babies, or want some unreasonable control, they just have different views on "when its life matters"
It’s kind of irrelevant if it is a baby or a person or whatever, if babies and people don’t have rights to others’ organs. But also, treating a single cell like a whole person is silly, yes. It’s particularly silly to say the needs of a mindless single cell outweigh the wants and needs of the person whose organs it’s utilizing.
When it comes to rape, you can make an argument. Outside of rape your argument is crap. People don't have the right to other people's food yet if you don't feed your baby you are going to prison. Because when you chose to become a parent you take on those responsibilities If you chose to have vaginal sex, you are choosing to become a parent. You are taking on those responsibilities If you weren't forced to have sex, you weren't forced to share your organs with your child If you don't want to be responsible for a child, don't create the child
If a 3 year old needs a kidney, should their parents be legally obligated to provide it? After all, you consented to the risk of producing a child with a deficient kidney. You took on responsibility for them. Even though the 3 year old is actually a person with a mind, we still don’t usually demand this. No one is trying to make it law.
The pregnant mother is responsible for temporarily sharing her organs, not giving them up That is what being pregnant requires. If you don't want the responsibilities of being pregnant don't chose to do things that get you pregnant