Decent Opposition

[Rival]

You an be socially conservative without trying to violate establishment clause and place religious restrictions on civil law. I will not respect those that do.

So what if I said, 'You can be on the left and support ssm just don't place your moral views actually in legislation'.

This isn't any different.

 

[F1fan]

Some things get branded as fascist because they are fascistic. There is a world of difference between, for example, a Bush regime and a Trump regime, or between a party that rallies around Liz Chaney and a party that rallies around Marjorie Taylor Greene.

And that reflects on the voting base. For republicans there is data that suggests about 2/3 are MAGAs and the other thrid are more rational and ethical. Cheney's primary results reflect this, along with olling that suggests about 2/3 of conservatives believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

So the conservative voting base is quite irrational, and heavily influenced by misinformation. The ethical repunblicans like Cheney are defininately more quiet and don;t want backlash, so they don't lead. The bombastic MAGAs are more vocal, and as a consequence their misinformation is more prevalent and more influenctial. It is a "nature running its course" phenomenon. I suspect many are waiting for the midterms to see if any MAGA candidates win or lose. If more lose, then that will indicate less support for MAGA and the more ethical republicans can feel more conffidence in pushing back on MAGA.

I don't think political disagreement over policies is the serious problem todasy, it is MAGA. And that comes down to the 2/3 conservative base. Does MAGA burn out like the tea party? I don't see how it can until Trump is indicted or dies, and conservative media stops profitting from disinformation. The concern of violence from the MAGAs if their candidates lose is also a serious threat. It might be that Jan 6 wasn't enough of a disaster for the MAGAs to learn their views are wrong, and there needs to be a more serious violent incident to shake them lose from their beliefs. Reason and facts don't seem to work.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So I'm seeing a lot of 'You can be conservative just don't be socially conservative'

Which is, imo, saying 'you can be conservative as long as you're not actually conservative'/ 'You can be conservative as long as you support the left's moral positions'?

This is kind of making my point.

'You get to be the opposition as long as you agree with me.'

One doesn't need to impose their social conservatism on others via state law in order to be socially conservative. It should come as no surprise that those who do face vehement opposition from people whose lives are severely impacted by such restrictions on their freedoms.

How I and many other people feel about this is perhaps similar to how you and many other conservatives would feel if the state tried to impose Shari'a on you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So what if I said, 'You can be on the left and support ssm just don't place your moral views actually in legislation'.

This isn't any different.

I agree with that to some extent. In that forcing anti-religious law onto churches, trying to limit religious practice within churches.

But civil law was literally meant to be secular in this country, because it affords better freedoms to wider groups of people than establishing one religious law, which is why the countrymen left to establish this country in the first place.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So what if I said, 'You can be on the left and support ssm just don't place your moral views actually in legislation'.

This isn't any different.

A major difference I see is that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't take away your own freedom to marry. This is not the case for gay people when same-sex marriage is banned.

 

[Rival]

One doesn't need to impose their social conservatism on others via state law in order to be socially conservative. It should come as no surprise that those who do face vehement opposition from people whose lives are severely impacted by such restrictions on their freedoms.

How I and many other people feel about this is perhaps similar to how you and many other conservatives would feel if the state tried to impose Shari'a on you.

But you make there be no way to actually be a social conservative in politics and actually act in accordance with your views to do what you think would improve the country. You've effectively just banned social conservatism.

 

[Rival]

I agree with that to some extent. In that forcing anti-religious law onto churches, trying to limit religious practice within churches.

But civil law was literally meant to be secular in this country, because it affords better freedoms to wider groups of people than establishing one religious law, which is why the countrymen left to establish this country in the first place.

Not all social conservatism is religious, so to make out that it is is a mistake.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You an be socially conservative without trying to violate establishment clause and place religious restrictions on civil law. I will not respect those that do.

Neither would I respect any attacks on people's right to choose or restrict individual economic and personal freedoms.

I think its prudent to single those individuals responsible, rather than party lines depending on the consensus of those intrusions into said freedoms.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not all social conservatism is religious, so to make out that it is is a mistake.

No, it isn't. But I'm talking about specifically a religious imperative that infringes on the rights of gay people for no rational reason.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But you make there be no way to actually be a social conservative in politics and actually act in accordance with your views to do what you think would improve the country. You've effectively just banned social conservatism.

I believe religious influence on state law should be banned from government, yes. Separation of religion and state is, in my opinion, the only way to guarantee freedom in society.

The fact that some beliefs are incompatible with certain groups' freedoms seems to me an inherent fault in those beliefs, not a problem where the onus to solve it falls on those whose freedoms are curtailed by said beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

But what actual policies would everyone expect the opposition to support?

There is a huge list. Your question here is sort of black and white. While republicans won't support any given policy that democrats have, they surely understand that the policy benefits some people and that benefit needs support. For example abortion. This is perhaps the most divisive issue, and we see republicans winning their goal of banning abortion, but losing in the polls. The republicans went too far to appeal to their base, but are losing the moderates as a result. It's careless. Instead they should have worked through a compromise. Women all over the USA are being harmed by the laws the red states have passed. Voting rights is another issue that republicans are not compromising on. Immigration reform, as well. There are bills that democrats have written to improve the immigration mess we have, but republicans are not responding. It could be they have more to gain from the immigration mess being a mess so they can point to immigration as a problem when democrats are in power. It's careless.

So as pointed out, the republicans need to sort out their own intentions and purpose in serving the USA, and not just play politics to get back into power.

 

[Rival]

@Debater Slayer it's tiresome being non-American and trying to discuss politics on here isn't it...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What would you say is the difference? Perhaps more significantly, was Bush's regime any more or less destructive toward human life than Trump's?

Given what was going on in the world, the Bush regime was far more destructive towards human life. It was also far less destructive of social and democratic norms.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Given what was going on in the world, the Bush regime was far more destructive towards human life. It was also far less destructive of social and democratic norms.

I consider the destruction toward human life to be a much more potent evil, but that is a separate albeit related discussion.

Take care, friend.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not all social conservatism is religious, so to make out that it is is a mistake.

Yes, but some versions are in effect this: I have freedom and you can't limit mine, but I can limit yours.
I can agree on that if there is an actual good reason, but if it is, I like how I use my personal freedom, but I don't like how you use yours, therefore you can't have that, then I won't accept it.
Then you need to meet this standard: We are all equal under similar circumstances.

How does this work? I don't like your religion, so you are not allowed to do that, but I like mine. so I am allowed. Doesn't work under that rule.
You are allowed to choose your own life partner under the same laws as I, even if we do different as for same or different sexes. Works under that rule.

Social conservatism: Same as me.
Not social conservatism: Similar as me.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer it's tiresome being non-American and trying to discuss politics on here isn't it...

It can be. Frankly, the American-centric, self-absorbed nature of American politics would be much less pernicious if it didn't also exert influence over the foreign policy of the US.

American exceptionalism may be on life support, but it is still alive.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not all social conservatism is religious, so to make out that it is is a mistake.

Let's be clear there's a lot of social conservatism that I can work with. Lots of conservative takes on immigration reform I might disagree with but don't find repugnant. But start breathing the words 'replacement theory' and I put that person on block. I have no stomach for appeals to for me to be tolerant of bigotry because tolerance in general is a necessary part of political function.

If someone wants to have a dialogie with me on why I should accept gay marriage civil bans their reasoning better be something better than an appeal to authority or yeah, I'm going to outright reject it as relevent or worthy of consideration, because it's limiting the rights of gay people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I consider the destruction toward human life to be a much more potent evil, but that is a separate albeit related discussion.

Take care, friend.

Consider a "War on Terror" pursued by an unrestrained Trump regime.

 

[Altfish]

There's pretty much a black and white attitude in politics these days, with each side branding the other 'Fascists' or 'ideology driven idiots' or whatever other defamatory words are used. It's led me to ask, What would you see as decent opposition? If you're on the right or the left, what would you accept as being not in some way totally intrinsically evil political opposition? It seems no matter what these days if you're on x side you're a Fascist or a neo-Soviet or whatever else with absolutely no room whatsoever to just be part of a political platform that has different views.

I mean, I'm on the right, but I accept as a given that the left supports things I don't, such as higher taxes, globalisation (generally), high migration, gay marriage, unionising and so on. I don't think this makes them intrinsically evil; I do think if these policies are implemented it will not be good for my country, but will it be literally the end of the UK? Probably not. I can listen to some on the left and understand their arguments, their economic ones in particular, and take some on board - as many European Conservatives have done in the past.

So what would you see as legitimate, good opposition? Be reasonable, don't just say 'They agree with me on everything except xyz', because that just defeats the point.

The problem is, Trump has proven that division wins elections, the same in recent UK elections.

 

[Secret Chief]

There's pretty much a black and white attitude in politics these days, with each side branding the other 'Fascists' or 'ideology driven idiots' or whatever other defamatory words are used. It's led me to ask, What would you see as decent opposition? If you're on the right or the left, what would you accept as being not in some way totally intrinsically evil political opposition? It seems no matter what these days if you're on x side you're a Fascist or a neo-Soviet or whatever else with absolutely no room whatsoever to just be part of a political platform that has different views.

I mean, I'm on the right, but I accept as a given that the left supports things I don't, such as higher taxes, globalisation (generally), high migration, gay marriage, unionising and so on. I don't think this makes them intrinsically evil; I do think if these policies are implemented it will not be good for my country, but will it be literally the end of the UK? Probably not. I can listen to some on the left and understand their arguments, their economic ones in particular, and take some on board - as many European Conservatives have done in the past.

So what would you see as legitimate, good opposition? Be reasonable, don't just say 'They agree with me on everything except xyz', because that just defeats the point.

I'm unsure how we can come up with "decent opposition." I am opposed to rightwing ideology. I am opposed to the general thrust of rightwing government. What has "decent" got to do with it?