> The problem with Jerk Conservatives is that they're jerks, not that they're conservatives.
Yes.
But the problem, specifically, with jerk conservatives who run the country, is that their policies are founded on wishful thinking, and end up screwing a lot of people over.
If faced with the choice between supporting an asinine individual actively fighting for the rights and freedoms of innocent people and an affable one fighting misguidedly but passionately for strictures on them, I would probably run.
> The problem with Jerk Conservatives is that they're jerks, not that they're conservatives.
Yes.
But the problem, specifically, with jerk conservatives who run the country, is that their policies are founded on wishful thinking, and end up screwing a lot of people over.
Remind me again what the difference is between Liberals and conservatives?
Which one is the one that's for gun rights and the environment and which one is anti-homosexual-marriage and pro-marijuana?
Stereotypically, American liberals are anti-gun, pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-marijuana. American conservatives are pro-gun, don't care about the environment, anti-gay, and anti-marijuana.
Strictly speaking, most other countries would call what we call "liberal" in the USA "conservative," so it is a thorny thicket, but in simple terms: Social liberals stand for increased personal freedoms, commonsense business and environmental regulations, expanded public healthcare and equality in civil rights for all people; fiscal conservatives stand for looser regulations on business and reduced government spending with more diffuse views on other things; and social conservatives stand for strict adherence to "traditional" morality in law in addition to holding mostly fiscally conservative views on economics. Conservatives at large tend to favour gun ownership; liberals at large do not. Conservatives at large also tend to be more militaristic, although many more devoted fiscal conservatives are quite opposed to military spending.
I am a libertarian socialist, and therefore exist outside of this continuum, but to give you an idea: As liberals are to the most serious social conservatives, I am to many liberals.
Man, but the liberals never do anything for the environment. Nobody does anything for the environment. They still drain swamps and cut forests and let Gypsy Moths run rampant and they spend effort killing alligators that should be spent on European Starlings.
Screw them both. Stupid humans.
I'll care when we get a party that wants to stop the slaughter of my kind, and stop the selling of our baby's heads at market; and ban Swamp People.
Well, many liberal politicians have tried to push through laws to stop such things, but conservatives tend to respond with nonsense like "it's bad for business."
That's a simplification, of course, but not wrong.
Yeah, and the conservatives would probably say that the liberals are stopping them from making laws to stop such things.
I don't care what you say about this; I care what you frigging get done.
And until something actually gets done about my major concerns, I see no reason to otherwise discriminate between people who's differences are unimportant to me; because priorities, yo (I could be frigging murdered, and nobody would care).
Except that by getting people of one party in office, I make them hated by the other party; and vice versa. Even if I convince one party to do something, the other party will be anti-whatever-that-is.
All I would be doing would be making opposition for whatever I want to happen.
The proper thing to do here is to bribe people along the whole spectrum to do what I want and not make a big issue of it.
Except that by getting people of one party in office, I make them hated by the other party; and vice versa. Even if I convince one party to do something, the other party will be anti-whatever-that-is.
Not necessarily. While the parties have become exceedingly polarised lately—mainly due to the increasing extremism of a certain faction of the Republican Party—there are still politicians that attempt to cooperate with those not of their party in order to help the country move forward.
What you have to do is work with people from across the spectrum who hold individual beliefs that you share and work with them on mutual goals.
Comments
Yes.
But the problem, specifically, with jerk conservatives who run the country, is that their policies are founded on wishful thinking, and end up screwing a lot of people over.
Which one is the one that's for gun rights and the environment and which one is anti-homosexual-marriage and pro-marijuana?
Screw them both. Stupid humans.
I'll care when we get a party that wants to stop the slaughter of my kind, and stop the selling of our baby's heads at market; and ban Swamp People.
I don't care what you say about this; I care what you frigging get done.
And until something actually gets done about my major concerns, I see no reason to otherwise discriminate between people who's differences are unimportant to me; because priorities, yo (I could be frigging murdered, and nobody would care).
All I would be doing would be making opposition for whatever I want to happen.
The proper thing to do here is to bribe people along the whole spectrum to do what I want and not make a big issue of it.
I'll try that.