I agree, I think its unfortunate that there is no home for a socially liberal fiscal conservative in our politics. Especially on those two specific issues. If I disagree with somebody on those issues, I don’t get why that puts us on opposite sides for entitlement reform (an example in this case of a fiscal position).
I believe Sloth and my misunderstanding is what we deem socially liberal vs. socially conservative, which is why I’m trying to clarify, but generally still confused on how some people believe those issues are tied together.
I believe that there are individuals that may be as you describe. I don’t not believe that is how society is or will be in general. I offer the present as evidence. Moving progressively liberal socially AND fiscally.
Since your mention LGBT twice, it seems important to you. So…If by LGBT friendly you mean, have to pretend homosexual marriages are so critical to society as to warrant state recognition, no. While pretending the heterosexual marriage doesn’t fulfill the critical role of organizing the reproductive act so as encourage the maximization of biologically intact extended households. No. Before you argue, imagine if homosexuality vanished tomorrow. Curious news story for awhile. Now imagine if heterosexuality, the orientation towards the reproductive act, vanished. Disaster. And, if you mean insisting I pretend that men are shes and females are hes and that the guy over there is some new non-gendered pronoun that he gets to impress upon us at his discretion…No, I’m not LGBT friendly at all. But our LGBT friendly nation won’t ever have the balls to tell people “well, you folks are just going to have choose between groceries and prescriptions, if you can even afford either, in your old age” as an example…If it can’t even tell men wanting to use the lady’s room “no” anymore. If it feels the need to instruct its children that it must bow to the boy demanding to be called a her. No, it’ll never sell the message “be an individual. If you can afford it. On your own dime. If you even have enough dimes. No matter the consequences. Through hunger, exposure, and illness.”
Now if it simply mean non-bullying, value as human beings, but not acting like complete fools…Sure
It was gender neutral otherwise it would be “bitch” because there’s only one female here, you. But I don’t think your a bitch, I think you an extremely thoughtful person. Basically, my best Ru Paul impersonation, which could never be any good.
I view that as fiscally liberal. That’s my point. Fiscal liberalism maximizes individualism. They go hand in hand, fiscal and social liberalism. Libertarianism is in denial.
That’ll get all those elderly (which we increasingly are)–without an extended family to carry them (increasingly more and more) through–voting for libertarianism. That’ll get that one, maybe two, children (if any) voting for libertarianism. I (granny and myself) might not be able to keep our own roof over our heads, or get my meds and doctor visits under “fiscal conservatism” but at least they’ll offer me (us) a cot in a refurbished gymnasium.
This is what it is… When Cruz made the statement, he was thinking voting demographics and the many powerful PACs that call NY city their home. People heard it as something else as personal.
Basically, it was a way to ‘out stupid’ trump. He extricated an entire voting demographic out of his campaign in one fell swoop. It was a way to take his fragile campaign and run it aground.
People think NY, they think 9/11, Firemen covered in dust, Policemen hauling people out of debris, people hugging and helping each other covered in a foot of dust. They don’t think of 99 percenters and abortion clinics. People heard the former, though Cruz meant the latter. It was a hole he could never dig out of.
Agreed, but that is the position that was intended. There is no platform that allows the USA to move in a socially liberal and fiscally conservative position, so due to our politics they are being tied together. What I’m asking, is how you believe that is necessary? Or how are they tied?
Just seemed like an obvious example
Again, what does this have to do with entitlements?
Being for same-sex marriage is not the same as what you are describing…
I mean, am I the only one noticing that Trump ran on there being nothing wrong with entitlements? In the Republican Party he did this. The GoP…
And people want to so believe it, they’ll blame whatever trouble they imagine entitlement do have on “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Committed by brown people. Some who don’t even speak our language! That’s how powerful the fantasy of entitlements are. That’s how much motivation they provide. “No, no! It’s all lies! They’re fine…If we’d just stave off these foreigners abusing them!”
That’s how powerful the promise of entitlements are. Even in the GoP.
I sense you are confusing social with religious conservatism. In a nutshell, social conservatism represents a small core of strong values based on doing no harm and do for yourself. The government’s place is to provide a fair infrastructure where that is true for everybody. And if everybody acts right and does not violate that small set of core values, you never have to interact with the government save to pay your taxes.
Social liberalism is a controlling social theory by default. It assumes people cannot do for themselves and interjects itself into every facet of life to make sure life is fair. Both have the same goal, both want to most amount of people possible to be happy. One thinks people need the freedom to find their own path, the other wants to create the best possible path and make sure noone interferes.
These are social theory, not social fact. Life is not fair, people are ugly and mean to each other, people discriminate, etc. But social conservatism expects one to do for themselves first, the other expects things to be done for one and then see if one can succeed.
I prefer social conservatism because in the real world, where it is implemented as much as possible, shows the greatest success over all. Social liberalism has a long history of failure.
He could have made a reference to the UES or Wall Street, and it would have struck a much better chord. He should have known better. There are certainly people who think all of NYC is the devil’s playground, but there are also those who think the South is just a bunch of toothless hicks. I’d expect more from a candidate. No one enjoys seeing his home insulted.
He just needed not to say anything of the sort. NY City has 10 million people in it. You don’t want to piss off 10 million people, there is no recovery from that. I knew what he meant, but this is politics, everything is personal.
I believe the GOP is driving people away because of their social stances that would be open to fiscal conservatism, but are turned off by the social positions. Therefore, the only people to fit into the hypothetical “anti-entitlement party” also have to be socially conservative. I think if you take the social positions out of the conversation, there are more anti-entitlement people than when you apply the social view litmus test.
Even the “small government” tea party folks DO NOT want their entitlements touched. This has been demonstrated in surveys of self-identifying tea party types, and shared here before on this forum. Fiscal conservatism is an extremist position now. It’s the ‘let the old lady eat dog food out of the can’ position. Oh, and she had to skip buying her prescriptions in order to afford the canned dog food.
Oh, the anti-entitlement and socially liberal position would be the no-hoper Libertarian party. And please, I realize Johnson might do a bit better than usual, but that’s more of sign of anti-Trump/Clinton sentiment (while knowing Johnson has no chance of winning, much less be anywhere near entitlements).
Should we just accept that we’re soon going to look a lot like Greece?
Seriously, I’m hoping to just slow it down so my kids have some shot. I’ve had the freedom to work part-time and mostly be a stay-at-home mom. I hope my children have that option if they choose. I sincerely doubt that my lifestyle will be attainable to very many of our kids, even if they do all the right things. I suspect I am a dinosaur in that respect.
We have had a couple of families from Sweden and Norway live on our street over the years. They’ve consistently been just AMAZED that so many Americans have the option to stay home while raising young kids. As you know, they have one salary to pay the bills and the other salary to pay the taxes that support all of their social programs. You know, the programs that take the place of the parent who would like to have the freedom to take care of her own babies and elderly parents.
Instead, we’re sold the idea that we need to vanquish racism and poverty and THEN selfish people like me can be free. Sure. The logic is, "Puff, you need to get your booty to work and pay taxes “for the greater good.”
For you @anon50325502. I told this joke in another thread. Posting again for people who missed it. This got a lot of laughs on FB. See, politics are fun!! I still have my sense of humor.
For my friends who don’t live in CA, we’re deciding some big issues on election day. Legalizing weed, making plastic bags at the grocery store illegal, and making sure adult film actors wear condoms. I’m a little worried about how we’re supposed to get our pot home from the store without a plastic bag. Apparently, we want to keep the plastic ON the adult film actors, but AWAY from our groceries. It’s all very confusing.
