OK, here’s finally something I can work with. (It’s a long post because I didn’t have time to write a short one.)
On the one hand, though, saying that I’m a mudslinging radical who won’t listen to other opinions is a little weird for a story titled “Is There a Rational Conservative I Can Talk To?”
Also, I’ve been trying to get you into a rational discussion, but you’re giving me things from the right-wing fever swamp, like “open borders” and “killing babies after birth.” I’m the one trying to discuss, you’re ducking my questions. If you’re not just a troll, please prove it. Otherwise, I’ve got better things to do.
But set those aside because there is finally some meat on the bone.
However: there is a problem with your policy of not generalizing, and it’s the way politics works now. There are only two parties, so the person you vote for means very little compared to which party they’re in. For example, if you vote for any congressional Republican, they might as well be McConnell and Johnson.
Hence supporting (or even not opposing) Mango Mussolini means cosigning his entire agenda, and his insanity is overt and horrifying.
Do I disagree with the Democrats sometimes? Absolutely. They are perennially disappointing. But the mainstream of the party and its leadership hold very few if any extreme views. Generally, they match public opinion pretty much down the middle. So I can vote for them without bothering my conscience.
“You can believe in immigrant rights and a pathway to citizenship while believing that there should be reasonable enforcement at the border.”
Indeed — which is why that is the stated position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream left. Welcome to being a liberal! I’d teach you the secret handshake, but we’re too disorganized to have one!
Are there crazies who want an actual open border? I’d be surprised if there weren’t. Three hundred thirty million people have a lot of opinions. Try a poll on this question: “If there is no other way to control illegal immigration, should we decapitate illegal migrants and post their heads on stakes as a warning to the others?”
Now, this is clearly insane, and anyone who supports it belongs in a mental institution to protect themselves and others…but I guarantee you’d get some “yes” replies, possibly even a few percent. As Jim Morrison said, people are strange.
Hence, one of my Rules of the Internet: social media is full of crazy people, don’t mistake them for reality.
So cool, you’re being rational. But you aren’t representative of people who call themselves conservative. They’re nodding in agreement when their presidential candidate talks about eliminating birthright citizenship and shipping anyone they suspect of being undocumented over the border. That’s mainstream, not fringe. (It would also destroy the economy and be a human rights disaster, but The Former Guy hasn’t let those stand in his way so far.)
But I’m glad to hear you’re not among them, even if you’re a lonely outlier. How do you propose to do this?
It’s what Democrats have been trying to do for ages, but the GOP won’t let them. The Senate actually managed to pass a comprehensive immigration bill this year, but TFG gave it a thumbs down, and it was DOA in the House. Even the Republican senators who voted for it disowned it, and their lead negotiator was censured by his state party for his involvement.
So, not promising.
You can get your preferred option, but only with Dems in charge of the Congress and the White House. Otherwise, it’s more of the same. If you’re worried about “open borders,” don’t be. That wouldn’t be a thing even if there were no Republicans in Washington at all.
“You can support a transgender persons right to live in security and have equal employment without supporting transgender women in woman’s sports there is nuance.”
This is actually a debate on the left. Check out “TERF”s, trans-exclusionary radical feminists; this is their position.
The problem is that the official conservative and GOP position is more of less grinding trans people into the dust. That’s true for much of the LGBTQ+ alphabet. Just a few years ago, there was no gay marriage or legal protection from being fired for no reason other than your sexual preference. Revoking all that is the stated goal of the GOP and apparently most of those who call themselves conservatives.
As a side note to those on the right clutching their pearls over women’s sports: some people may have forgotten, but I remember the way you battled nigh unto death to stop Title IX.
But I’m glad you personally disagree, even if you’re a lonely outlier once more. Welcome again to the rainbow chaos that is liberalism!
What should we do about the situation?
“Not every liberal thinks police should be kicked out of minority communities”
You’re right, it’s damn near none. (Refer back to the “social media is bullshit” story above.) Could you find someone opining this on a reputable outlet? Maybe. But it’s very much a fringe position. It’s the kind of thing I avoid — I try to limit myself to mainstream opinion, sizable minorities, or positions held by those with real political power. Your statement fails all three tests.
Here’s an interesting question: if a community wants to go without police, should they have that option? It’s their lives. Isn’t the conservative choice to remove state mandates? If no one else gets hurt, is it anybody else’s business? But that’s not relevant because it isn’t going to happen. Support is small and would get smaller if it ever got close to becoming a reality.
“Not every liberal supports terror groups”
Well, that’s a hell of an understatement. It’s damn near none.
Now, if you are talking about supporting Palestinians generally, that’s another issue. I’m all for Israel’s right to exist, but calling either side terrorists is a drastic oversimplification of a 1200-year-old conflict in which both sides have behaved appallingly. Terrorists should be in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity, but so should Netanyahu.
Change it to “Not every liberal supports this particular group I consider to be terrorists.” Then there’s something to talk about.
And it’s true. Many liberals support the Palestinian cause, but terrorism per se isn’t popular. (Refer back to the “social media is bullshit” story above.) Still, it is an arguable position, even if I want more substance.
Now, unfortunately, we get to the fever swamp, certified insanity.
“Not every liberal applauds suicide”
Not every? How about functionally zero? Anyone who agrees with “every liberal applauds suicide” is a heartless, soulless monster. Not every, not many, not more than a few. No reputable outlet would support otherwise.
If you mean suicide bombers, go back a few paragraphs.
Do some liberals support one particular form of suicide, euthanasia? Yes. Libertarian-leaning conservatives should as well — if someone doesn’t want to live anymore, why should the state force them to against their will?
But that’s grownups making a grownup decision at the end of life. I want that option. But essentially nobody is applauding suicide, for God’s sake, and there’s no evidence for it. How do people who suggest otherwise look at themselves in the mirror?
Another Rule of the Internet: given any position, no matter how crazy, it’s more surprising not to find anyone who supports it than to find one who does. However, even implying that such a thing is widespread is monstrous, and strike any news outlet implying otherwise off the reputable outlet list.
On the other hand, monstrous is kind of an excellent description of Tr*mpism generally, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Violence, cruelty, and chaos are his stated positions, and his party applauds.
So again, there’s the problem with your policy of not generalizing. You can say you believe whatever you want, which is fine. But in practice your vote tells the only story that matters. You can claim to support comprehensive immigration reform and the right of trans people to exist — but not if you vote for a party that believes otherwise at a majority and leadership level.
