Conservative Views Explained

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

The point of the two threads, on liberalism and conservatism, should be to highlight how much people have in common, and how we can work together to build a better society where everyone benefits. NOT our differences.

 

But our differences is exactly how we build a better society, you can't have balance if you only measure one side.

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

beating up on Raider

When did I do this? 

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And how did you come to the conclusion that Liberals can't make money?

I didn't...

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In general, it's the people who have enough money who are Conservatives.

 

[John Cuthber]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

I didn't...

 

But it's the people who actually do stuff who generate wealth, and those people are not typically conservatives

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

But it's the people who actually do stuff who generate wealth, and those people are not typically conservatives

So how come they are generally the ones with money?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But it's the people who actually do stuff who generate wealth, and those people are not typically conservatives

 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

So how come they are generally the ones with money?

Do either of you have citations? Not saying you are wrong but I've not seen evidence one way or the other.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, dimreepr said:

So how come they are generally the ones with money?

The  simplistic answer is theft.

However, the real answer is often that it's like asking why runny noses cause the common cold.

The people who have more money- usually largely as a matter of luck as illustrated by Trump's famous "small loan of a million dollars" from his dad- tend to end up greedily wanting not just to keep it but to acquire more. .

 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do either of you have citations? Not saying you are wrong but I've not seen evidence one way or the other.

Isn't it self evident?
People who do stuff generate wealth- because not doing anything doesn't generate wealth (though it may be possible to accrue wealth from others while doing nothing).

Most  people who are in the business of "doing stuff" are not very well paid and that means they aren't (or shouldn't be) natural Conservative voters.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The  simplistic answer is theft.

However, the real answer is often that it's like asking why runny noses cause the common cold.

The people who have more money- usually largely as a matter of luck as illustrated by Trump's famous "small loan of a million dollars" from his dad- tend to end up greedily wanting not just to keep it but to acquire more. .

1

The real answer is, a runny nose doesn't cause a cold it's just a symptom. The simplistic answer is luck.

Whilst we concentrate on the how we miss the why. 

Fear is the why/cold and you can't just tell people not to be afraid/get better, without a drug/antidote...

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Isn't it self evident?
People who do stuff generate wealth- because not doing anything doesn't generate wealth (though it may be possible to accrue wealth from others while doing nothing).

Most  people who are in the business of "doing stuff" are not very well paid and that means they aren't (or shouldn't be) natural Conservative voters.

So that's a "NO" then.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So that's a "NO" then.

I wouldn't know where to look, do you?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I wouldn't know where to look, do you?

No, I wouldn't. So I'd be careful about making the claim without evidence. I can think of plenty of liberals and conservatives who are rich, and also plenty who are poor. I would have guessed it's a fairly even split based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, but you two seemed to be pretty confident it leaned one way or the other. Seems silly to debate the point if no one has evidence to support their position.

[Outrider]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Do either of you have citations? Not saying you are wrong but I've not seen evidence one way or the other.

 

Quote

 

Vote by Income

Total

 Obama

 McCain

 Other/No Answer

 

 

Under $15,000 (6%)	73%	25%	2%
$15-30,000 (12%)	60%	37%	3%
$30-50,000 (19%)	55%	43%	2%
$50-75,000 (21%)	48%	49%	3%
$75-100,000 (15%)	51%	48%	1%
$100-150,000 (14%)	48%	51%	1%
$150-200,000 (6%)	48%	50%	2%
$200,000 or More (6%)	52%	46%	2%

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Democrat on the left and Republican in the middle. No answer on the right.

 

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/

 

Quote

 

Ultra-Wealthy

While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Wasted time.
Wasted threads.

No sooner do you finish lambasting Raider for daring to define Conservatism as it relates to what he thinks is wrong with Liberalism, than you all start saying what is wrong with Conservatism. And some of you ( John , Dimreepr ) aren't even American, so you shouldn't be as polarized as them.

The point of the two threads, on liberalism and conservatism, should be to highlight how much people have in common, and how we can work together to build a better society where everyone benefits. NOT our differences.
Yet instead of using these threads as a teaching tool, we ( certainly Americans ) insist on getting into pissing contests, and widen the tolerance gap.

Does that seem like a worthwhile goal ?

Moony, John and Dimreeper, I respect you guys, but the only thing beating up on Raider does is make him more committed to voting for D Trump in 3 yrs time ( he's 15 now I believe ).
What problem does that solve ?

 

 

You are of course correct, If I had known Raider was inexperienced instead of dishonest I wouldn't have tried to hold his feet to the fire. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But our differences is exactly how we build a better society, you can't have balance if you only measure one side.

When did I do this? 

I didn't...

 

I was the one who was giving Raider such a hard time.

 

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Too liberal equates to nationalism (on this side of the pond we know where that leads), too conservative equates to a runaway wealth gap. The balance is a well regulated private sector.

So the Nazi's were too liberal... Your statement about a well regulated private sector is spot on. 

I think it's important to mention that a good dollop of socialism is necessary as well. No society can be workable that isn't made up of good ideas, where they come from is secondary. 

In the US conservatism is generally associated with unchained capitalism, bribing our representatives to pass laws they want passed, fascism, destroying the Middle class, tax cuts that favor the 1%. The list is long and sordid and some of it is quite true. 

Liberalism, in the US, is generally associated with Over regulation, communism, restricting the rights of corporations, destroying the upper class, excessive taxation, and helping those who are too lazy to work. The list is yet again long and sordid and some of it is true.

The unholy merging of the religious right with the political right is one big problem but will probably not go away until the religious right realizes how little the political right really cares about them and is only using then as an end to a means.

Trickle down economics and citizens united have to be stopped before we all end up as surfs of the wealthy elite. 

Anyone who blindly follows a label is part of the problem as well. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

to define Conservatism as it relates to what he thinks is wrong with Liberalism, than you all start saying what is wrong with Conservatism. And some of you ( John , Dimreepr ) aren't even American, so you shouldn't be as polarized as them.

Political discussions which aren't about specific policies tend to be difficult. If Raider5678 had express the way his idea of conservatism influenced his support for various policies the nature of this thread would be different. The only issue Raider5678 did that with was Abortion. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

So that's a "NO" then.

Nope.

It's a "do I really have to find a source for everything?"
We are talking about a trend that's this clear

 and which is well known, yet you think it's a 50:50 split.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

would have guessed it's a fairly even split based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen,

Do you have evidence for that?
How did you come to be so wrong?

Edited February 3, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

I think a big difference in the conservative stance is the amount of risk one is willing to take. In a stock portfolio, conservative choices would yield modest returns but be more predictable and thus reliable. And science is very conservative when it comes to its methodology as it strives for predictable outcomes. In our society, we risk changing the stuff we love if we change any part of it. Allow something new and you could be killing off something "classic" (which is far better than "traditional" since it carries none of that "stuck in the mud" connotation). Sometimes things are too risky and we just need to stay the course.

If you identify your entire self as "conservative", you would probably say you don't take unnecessary risks (another universal trait claimed as partisan). And the only real difference between this and the liberal stance is the definition of "unnecessary". It's really easy for either side to place much more value on either tradition or change based on the exact same amount of risk. 

Nothing inherently wrong with this mindset, but I think it's easy to exploit it. Make a conservative think something may be too risky and they'll help you suppress it. Even if it's something that may really end up helping them, like consumer protection or universal healthcare.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Anyone who blindly follows a label is part of the problem as well. 

This is a universal trait assigned to "the other side". Liberals and conservatives both will say they "tend" towards one or the other, but the other guys are always following "blindly". We should probably try to remove these slippery phrases from our arguments if we want to get any traction with them.

[zapatos]

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you have evidence for that?
How did you come to be so wrong?

You have a tendency to come across like an arse. 

[John Cuthber]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You have a tendency to come across like an arse. 

OK, so when you ask for evidence  of something obvious, that's OK but when I ask for evidence I come across an an arse.

Seriously, how did you come to the belief that there wasn't a very strong correlation between income and political allegiance? 

[Moontanman]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think a big difference in the conservative stance is the amount of risk one is willing to take. In a stock portfolio, conservative choices would yield modest returns but be more predictable and thus reliable. And science is very conservative when it comes to its methodology as it strives for predictable outcomes. In our society, we risk changing the stuff we love if we change any part of it. Allow something new and you could be killing off something "classic" (which is far better than "traditional" since it carries none of that "stuck in the mud" connotation). Sometimes things are too risky and we just need to stay the course.

If you identify your entire self as "conservative", you would probably say you don't take unnecessary risks (another universal trait claimed as partisan). And the only real difference between this and the liberal stance is the definition of "unnecessary". It's really easy for either side to place much more value on either tradition or change based on the exact same amount of risk. 

Nothing inherently wrong with this mindset, but I think it's easy to exploit it. Make a conservative think something may be too risky and they'll help you suppress it. Even if it's something that may really end up helping them, like consumer protection or universal healthcare.

This is a universal trait assigned to "the other side". Liberals and conservatives both will say they "tend" towards one or the other, but the other guys are always following "blindly". We should probably try to remove these slippery phrases from our arguments if we want to get any traction with them.

You have a point, they even think it's necessary extend the label to neo conservative or neo liberal. To me, and I realise it's just me, I think the extremists when I use a label for either side. But the blindly following usually applies to the followers who have no real clue as to what the leaders are doing. Like the extreme poor who vote republican, they are buying the executioner a drink so he won't be thirsty when he swings the ax. I guess why I use the term blindly following so easily is because both sides have strayed so far from what the terms really mean that you can hang almost anything on either label. In reality there really is no left, only a moderate trend from near the middle to right. No left really exists inside our government any more.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

... but when I ask for evidence I come across an an arse.

 

No. It's when you act like an arse you come across like an arse. You manage to do that under any number of situations. Surely you are aware of your confrontational approach.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do either of you have citations?

So, when you are confrontational that's OK, but when I do it, I'm an arse.

 

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Seriously, how did you come to the belief that there wasn't a very strong correlation between income and political allegiance? 

 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, when you are confrontational that's OK, but when I do it, I'm an arse.

 

 

Oh for God's sake give it a rest.

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

...

Got rid of Slavery.

Founded NASA.

Passed laws preventing discrimination.

Supported the civil rights movements across the world.

Helped Capitalism.

Helped destroy the system of living under kings.

Helped create democracy.

 

I could carry on, but it's late.

I missed that bit earlier, sorry about that.

The abolition of slavery was the government removing "property" the slaves from rich landowners.

The equivalent of a very heavy tax bill.

It's not a Conservative policy, it's a very Liberal one.

NASA'a interesting. It's the use of government money to do things for the common good- in order to fund it, you need tax revenues. It's a Leftist policy- even if it happened to be enacted by a Republican government- even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

The anti discrimination laws, in much the same way as the anti slavery laws put a tax on the rich- they could no longer employ blacks and pay them less for being black.
Again, that's a profit cutting, but society building  act. It's Left wing.

And the civil rights movement is much the same- if you want to give people the rights to decent conditions you have to be prepared to fund those changes- again, it's a Liberal wing policy.
Helping capitalism is only beneficial if you think hard line Capitalism is a good thing. That is, therefore, begging teh question.
 

Do you somehow think that having royalty is a Left wing policy?
Have a lok at teh Left wing countries + count the kings- you may suprise yourself.
A King is the ultimate Conservative, he only pays tax to himself.

It's kind of difficult to judge whether the start of democracy was under a Left or Right wing government- ancient Greece had a very different  government system.
However, if you take the view that everyone should get a vote regardless of income, it's a Left leaning policy.

It looks like the only good things the Conservatives did were to institute Liberal policies which rather makes my point for me.

 

 

I might get round to giving it a rest when you actually answer a perfectly reasonable question

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Seriously, how did you come to the belief that there wasn't a very strong correlation between income and political allegiance? 

Edited February 3, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You have a point, they even think it's necessary extend the label to neo conservative or neo liberal. To me, and I realise it's just me, I think the extremists when I use a label for either side. But the blindly following usually applies to the followers who have no real clue as to what the leaders are doing. Like the extreme poor who vote republican, they are buying the executioner a drink so he won't be thirsty when he swings the ax. I guess why I use the term blindly following so easily is because both sides have strayed so far from what the terms really mean that you can hang almost anything on either label. In reality there really is no left, only a moderate trend from near the middle to right. No left really exists inside our government any more.  

I recall towards the end of Bush's time in office many Republicans started calling themselves Libertarians. It is all just branding. No one wants to be a Sheep. Bush was terrible and rather than acknowledge they had back a bad horse people just changed their label as a way to distance themselves. They were no longer Republicans but rather: Right leaning independents, Conservatives, Tea Party members, Libertarians, Value Voters, Fiscal Conservatives, and etc. I view all the titles as useless. Politics is about governance and not labeling. Which elected officials we vote for define our ideology in that who we vote literally is our Govt Representative. I can call myself anything but who I choose to represents me in office is what actually counts. In 2016 those who identify as Conservative went 81% Trump. In previous elections 82% for Romney, 78% for McCain, and 82% & 84% for Bush, and so on (link below). Whatever the issues are facing the country, whatever the economy is like, Conservatives vote Republican. 

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/

 

I understand that this uniquely applies to the United States but the OP referenced uniquely American points citing Detroit, the 2nd amendment, Abortion, and so on which are very different issues in other nations than they are here. I am not able to do the mental gymnastics required to apply the stated failures in Detroit to Conservatism in the United Kingdom. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I missed that bit earlier, sorry about that.

The abolition of slavery was the government removing "property" the slaves from rich landowners.

The equivalent of a very heavy tax bill.

It's not a Conservative policy, it's a very Liberal one.

NASA'a interesting. It's the use of government money to do things for the common good- in order to fund it, you need tax revenues. It's a Leftist policy- even if it happened to be enacted by a Republican government- even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

The anti discrimination laws, in much the same way as the anti slavery laws put a tax on the rich- they could no longer employ blacks and pay them less for being black.
Again, that's a profit cutting, but society building  act. It's Left wing.

And the civil rights movement is much the same- if you want to give people the rights to decent conditions you have to be prepared to fund those changes- again, it's a Liberal wing policy.
Helping capitalism is only beneficial if you think hard line Capitalism is a good thing. That is, therefore, begging teh question.
 

Do you somehow think that having royalty is a Left wing policy?
Have a lok at teh Left wing countries + count the kings- you may suprise yourself.
A King is the ultimate Conservative, he only pays tax to himself.

It's kind of difficult to judge whether the start of democracy was under a Left or Right wing government- ancient Greece had a very different  government system.
However, if you take the view that everyone should get a vote regardless of income, it's a Left leaning policy.

 

This is a good example of the way Conservatives move the goal posts. Now that it is 2018 on things like Jim Crow and understood to be indefensible Conservatives just say that stuff was a long time ago and had nothing to do with Conservatives. Meanwhile in real time it was Conservatives claiming states rights and all that to combat equality. 

[MigL]

Its very easy to vilify conservatives if you define everything that is bad as a conservative policy and, everything that's good as a liberal policy.
( can a policy be left or right wing, or is it an attitude/mind-set people have ?  specifically, the people who do the defining )
The fact remains that people who identify as conservatives have ( in the past ) implemented good policy, which benefitted society, as Raider pointed out.

I know you're not American John, but do you think antagonizing and alienating almost half of Americans ( who identify as conservative ) will convince them to work together with the other half ( who identify as liberal ) ?

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

I know you're not American John, but do you think antagonizing and alienating almost half of Americans ( who identify as conservative ) will convince them to work together with the other half ( who identify as liberal ) ?

Those who identify as Conservative alienate every fair minded person who believes in equality when they excuse, defend, and or support groups like the Neo-Nazis White Nationalist groups. You can shoot back that ALL Conservatives (Western World) are not Neo-Nazis but it does appear that all Neo-Nazis are Conservatives. I am all for Olive Branches but those who identify as Conservative need to do a much better job distinguishing themselves from the hate groups among them. Describing stern speech against bigotry as "antagonizing" is a deal breaker for working together.

This isn't merely a U.S. problem either. Faith Goldy is a Canadian self identifying conservative and she was there in Charlottesville supporting Nazis. In Canada groups like Proud Boys in Halifax, the Aryan Guard in Alberta, Blood and Honour Canada, Nationalist Party Canada, and the Heritage Front all identify themselves with Conservatives. Some serious house cleaning is in order among Conservatives. Please feel free the list the current liberal identifying organizations you feel are terrible as Neo-Nazis and as prevalent within liberalism as Neo-Nazis are within conservatism; they don't exist.  

[MigL]

Simple enough...

Not that I would consider them as such, but most anarchist groups identify themselves as left wing.
You know, those guys who dress up in black masks at rallys that turn ugly and like to destroy all aspects of private property.

Google 'left-wing anarchist groups' and the second web page that comes up is Wiki's list of anarchist organizations.

There are 16 international organizations listed.
Four North American.
Another four Canadian.
And twenty three American ones.
( disregard rest of world for now )

My favorite, by far, if only for their imaginative name, called themselves
'Up Against the Wall Motherfu*kers'
out of New York city in the 70s.

But as I've said, I personally, do not consider these groups as liberal, and I certainly don't consider Nazis as conservatives.
( though they might self-identify as such )