do the right wing guys think it’s like a draco malfoy thing where they’re a good guy underneath?
like when it’s like a lady and a cop and the lady seems like a normal sorta boring suburban lady
do you know what i mean. this is one of the things where if you try to ask an AI bot it yells at you
deleted by creator
I asked because I believe marriage and children can add pressures to a relationship, and may test right wing beliefs.
For example: What if your wife changed her mind about being a SAHM and wanted to continue working after having a child? How would you both handle household chores and parenting duties?
More examples: If your wife became pregnant but it was an ectopic pregnancy, would you support her having an abortion? Would you support an abortion if the baby was diagnosed with anencephaly while still in the womb?
Would you use IVF if you had trouble conceiving? Would you use birth control to plan the size of your family?
It’s easy to see eye to eye about hypothetical situations but maybe less easy when it’s real life.
deleted by creator
I gotta be honest dude, what makes you consider yourself right wing?
Your GF is in STEM, you’d support her continuing her career if she wanted, you split chores fairly… none of that is things I would consider “traditional” or “conservative”.
Policy wise, you’re mostly vague. Economically you don’t seem to have any actual opinion beyond “things aren’t working as they are”. You’re pro-choice(Yes, even if you would only choose to abort in a dire situation, that’s still a pro-choice position), which is not a right wing position.
Like, what actually makes you right wing? Based on what you’ve said so far, I don’t get it. Are you secretly racist as fuck or something?
deleted by creator
Would you mind answering his question though? I really would also love to hear your thoughts.
deleted by creator
Thanks for sharing
Fascinating, my views are split pretty evenly on these between agree/disagree/neutral, and I’m a pretty solid Democrat. Neat. Thanks for sharing btw!
Non-vague statements that I can actually debate with, thank you.
Can you explain what the actual benefits of this would be? The vast majority of our politicians wealth does not come from their salary, it comes from business deals, lobbying(aka legalized bribery) and, well, actual literal bribery in far too many cases. From my point of view, all removing salaries from these positions would do is guarantee that only those that are already independently wealthy could afford to take on these positions, any working class people would be too busy working a normal job just to survive.
No arguments here, I agree.
What do you actually mean by both parties? The leadership? Every elected official? Every registered member? I don’t have to register with a party to vote in my state, but if I did I would be a registered Democrat; should I be imprisoned for that? Where do you draw the line at? Certainly, there are individuals in both parties that absolutely need to be in prison, but due process still needs to be followed.
This is kind of vague, but I’m assuming you are in support of nuclear energy. In which case, great news, I am too! It’s a fair point, even if you didn’t mention it directly, that in the past democrats were largely anti-nuclear, but that rhetoric is mostly dying away in the newer generation of progressive dems. With the relative lack of new blood in congress it will take awhile to truly effect policy making, but it is coming.
Agreed. Whether you think Biden is following through with his words or not(I have very mixed feelings about him), I think he put it best on where we should be with China: “Competition, not conflict”. We should be building up the US’s industries so they no longer need to rely so heavily on China. That costs a lot of money in the short term though, even if the benefits are worth it long term. Republican policy on spending money for any reason is very well known(they hate it), and as far as China goes they seem more interested in causing outright conflict with them rather than building the means to out-compete with them.
Infringements of what? The 2nd amendment? Here is the entirety of the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There are TONS of gun laws you can have while still following this to the letter. A magazine size limit law, or a bump stock law, for example. Neither of those would infringe on the 2nd amendment, those are not “arms”, even if they are accessories to them, and thus they absolutely can be regulated. To be clear, I don’t agree with those particular examples of gun legislation, but they don’t infringe on the 2nd in any way.
So only deal with the problem after they’ve presumably shot someone, if not multiple people. Swell. An entire police department supposedly trained to deal with active shooters couldn’t stop an 18 year old shitstain from murdering 21 people(Uvalde), but we’re supposed to expect random joe schmoes with a gun(With no training needed, at that! Firearm safety classes being required would be a gun law, no?) to always save the day? Come off it, man. I like guns too, I’m against outright bans for no reason as are many other leftists(look up the Socialist Rifle Association, if you’re interested), but I don’t think even most republicans would agree with no gun laws at ALL.
I wholeheartedly agree. A good universal healthcare system would essentially accomplish this, as there would be very little reason to get private insurance anymore. It’s not the right wing trying to accomplish this though, if anything they’re trying to bolster the private insurance industry for their own greed. Not all democrats are innocent on this point either, but unlike republicans, they’re not ALL guilty of it.
I fundamentally don’t agree with this, politics aside I think we have a moral duty to look out for those in need, but I won’t get into that. How do you realistically expect people to be ABLE to save for their own retirement with how much wages have stagnated versus inflation? Wages are mostly staying the same(Hell, Walmart recently lowered wages) while the cost of everything keeps going up and up. Republicans are the ones continuously fighting against living wages; they are the ones making it for most a herculean task to afford to just survive, let alone save for retirement.
By “the Fed”, do you mean the Federal Reserve? If so, I won’t agree or disagree with you on this point, I’d need to research the topic first. If you didn’t mean the Federal Reserve, please elaborate on what you meant.
What do you consider “glorifying”? I’m not going to put a boy on a pedestal and shower him with praise for wearing a skirt, but I see no reason to mock him for it or think less of him for it, either. It’s a piece of clothing, why should anyone care?
What would you consider as an example of a “detrimental rabbit hole” that this could lead kids to? Why do you think that(whatever “that” is to you) is detrimental?
I agree with you. Republicans, however, do not. They love nothing more than giving corporations and their rich investors every break under the sun, while raising taxes on the working class.
Agreed. I’d go as far to say that elected officials should be held to a higher standard, and face a harsher punishment for breaking a law than a normal citizen would.
Agreed. Frankly, both sides have been absolutely abysmal on this matter for the most part.
That’s just plain silly, no offense. There are so many different governmental agencies and pretty much all of them do multiple different important tasks. To completely shut them down over one illegal aspect is just wasting time and money. It is much, much quicker and cheaper to reform an agency and stop the illegal practices than it is to shut it down and then, what, start up a brand new agency to cover the other, non-illegal tasks the former agency did that still will likely need to be done?
I notice he still hasn’t responded for some reason. 🤔
I’m literally trying to have a productive conversation with you, dude. Nothing you’ve presented so far paints you as a conservative, so I want to know what your actual reasons for being one are. From there we could actually discuss things and maybe we could influence each others perspectives on matters, but we can’t do that if you get defensive the minute you’re asked questions.
deleted by creator
That is absolutely not the Pro-choice position. Pro-choice literally means desire is the only criteria that needs to be met (the pro-life position is that desire is necessary but not sufficient). If it actually was as you described, then no one would have had a problem with any of the post-Dobbs laws.
You seem to have this bizarre interpretation of what a conservative means. It’s not the 1950s anymore, literally nobody lives like that and hasn’t since your grandmother.
An ectopic pregnancy would risk her life and her future fertility. Babies with anencephaly do not survive for long after birth, being stillborn (around 75% of them) or dying within hours or days; this pregnancy wouldn’t risk the mother’s life, though, but would be traumatic.
States with very strict abortion laws or where abortion is illegal would prevent your wife from having an abortion in the your and my scenarios. She might be forced to delay the abortion until she ruptured in the ectopic scenario, or be forced to give birth to a dead baby or.one who died in a few hours. There are other dangerous scenarios when an abortion would be the humane option. This is something to keep in mind when voting or supporting candidates. ETA: I didn’t mean this to sound like a lecture. I was just pointing this all out because you actually don’t sound ring wing based on how you described your beliefs.
This is false, every law has medical exceptions. Journalists wildly reported that doctors would be too hesitant to perform medically indicated abortions, but this is simply malpractice not any requirement by the law.
Has she already agreed to this?
deleted by creator