Sincere Questions for Conservatives

[The Whispering Monk]

The scariest quote for any Conservative, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

This specifically addresses the fact that the Federal govt, can't fix anything. All it can do is make a law and roll the dice. It might actually work for a small number of people, but the Law of Unintended Consequences is almost as much of an asshole as Murphy is.

Tax Code = something like 70,000+ pages of nonsense that even the IRS can't decipher. Call 6 times and you CAN get 6 different answers as to what's legal in the tax code.

Department of Education: All you need to know about this organization is two things. First, look at the average abilities for our nation's kids starting with 5 years before the DoEd was created and bring it to today. Our kids aren't necessarily less intelligent today, but they are certainly less educated. By EVERY metric that matters the Department of Education has failed miserablye. Second, Teachers' Unions have stopped giving a shit about the kids. They only care how much power they wield and how much money they can bring into the union. Please note that I said Unions; there are still a great number of teachers that give a crap.
*Biggest problem is that it's Fed Govt. all over again. Rules and standards to fix one problem AS WELL AS fixed items to be taught with no deviation, OR ELSE your school looses federal money. In this regard, Covid was a blessing. We've gone from <4% of our kids in Home School to >11%. That's a huge win, I hope we can see dividens

I can at least understand their point of view. I could got to a lefty forum and find you a hundred stories about people who grew up in a really shitty family or had a really shitty marriage or relationship, but didn't have a way to survive on their own. That is where, in my opinion, the project comes from. The idea is that people shouldn't be trapped with a family that makes them miserable, that if you're treated like shit you should be able to walk out and not worry you're going to end up homeless on the street.

This is a conversation I have with my father all the time. Why does the Federal Government have to be involved to help these people out?

I don't get what's appealing about doing bank shots where we don't do anything directly, but instead just try to unshackle small companies and hope one of them will successfully compete instead of selling out to the big company once they can.

Cracking the Facebooks and Googles is not a bank shot. It's a slam dunk as long as we make sure they can't delete/bar posts b/c the owners don't like a certain POV.

Maybe try a number and the increase it every year, measuring employment and school attendance rates and ability to find housing, then level off the number when things start to dip downwards.

I'm more in line with @ShieldWife in this regard. I thnk we've SO blown past what we can handle right now, that a complete freeze would be worthwhile for the next 5-10 years. The reason I'm there is b/c I know we're likely not going to be able to deport all the illegal aliens here already. This gives us time to recognize who's here legally and illegally and steadily work towards assimilation.

Reasons the Illegal part matters...
1. so many bad things happen as a result, child slavery and the sex trade are HUGE money right now across the southern border
2. criminals stay criminals. Illegal aliens fear what happens if they get arrested or are detected. So crimes go unreported and some are even drawn to crime as a means of income. Course some are hardened criminals (MS 13).

I have to say, I have been astonished at the level of hatred for the Department of Education. I've had multiple responses telling me people want to get rid of it. What's the deal?

I get the idea that it's viewed as unconstitutional, but is just a matter of principle or do you actually not think it is or could be a tool to do anything useful.

I mostly addressed this above. I'll add this: I am in I have two children who have been completely failed by my school district. The school doesn't give homework regularly (1 in Highschool the other a year out). No consequences for lateness or bad grades (redo your work for a 70), and "we don't care if you actually understand the material b/c we'll never really test on it again." Oh your kid is failing, but we don't allow that so he passed and gets to move on to the next grade. (not our problem any more!) The only reason my kids are doing better now is because my wife and I are taking so much time with them after school. (I'd love to have gotten to them younger, but we only adopted them 2 years ago from a VERY broken home.)

The school system it broken. It's ACTIVELY harming our children. I am completely in favor of severing all ties with the Federatl Dept. of Education and moving to Home Schooling Coops or just neighborhood schools.

I won't get into the fact that many places and schools are actively indoctrinating kids to hate their country, race and/or gender.

I'm gonna stop now...before I keep ranting.

 

[Sobek]

[snip]

Sobek... thank you for taking the time to write all of that. All I can say is that from the other side, it doesn't seem like that at all. For every leftist extreme position or hypocrisy you talk about, I could get an essay written about how that's not how I understand my side's position. But I don't know man, what's going on in the world where our two points of view are so far apart? I'm sure I'm getting some echo chamber effect. I'm sure there's some stuff where the more extreme positions on my side are getting less play. But at the same time, I don't recognize the leftist movement you describe. I don't think I could be deceived to that extent.

There is an idea that a writer I follow floated, which is that we are being lied to by being told the truth. I'm coming around to it. Basically, the idea is in a country of hundreds of millions of people you can always find an extreme position or an outlier position that is the worst and most extreme example of the other side. Then you publish that position and it gets shared a 1000 times and it becomes the other side in everyone's mind. And mind you, this extreme example is absolutely true. But you're still hearing about the other side's worst.

That's why I try to concentrate on laws and regulations and shit. Because any fool, even a politician, can write a crazy op-ed. But passing actual legislation is skin in the game. And mind you, I understand that some of what you were complaining about is actual laws or at least proposals. Sure, sanctuary cities are the government doing something. But at least with that it's possible to go to the source and look at what it's actually doing and deciding how extreme it really is for yourself and what measurable effect it actually had on the world.

[snip]

You have a point about the extremes being given voices to justify things, but take a moment to realize which side has their extremes pushed as fact and which has them written off as crazy. Would you believe me if I told you a neo-nazi was a middle school teacher, hung swastikas and pictures of Hitler in the classroom, had students attend neo-nazi rallies for extra credit and had aryan brotherhood tatoos and no one did anything about it until a journalist blew the whistle and the parents found out? Of course not, that would be simply not possible. Someone would have noticed, someone hiring this man would have seen this.

Yet the exact opposite happened. A hardcore communist who hung pictures of Mao and the North Korean Communist Party in the class, who had hammer and sickle and a fucking INGSOC tatoo, was teaching kids in California. He bragged about "having 180 days to make revolutionaries" and the school board once confronted by parents basically pulled a "we didn't know, honest guys we didn't see it" and eventually ran away.

YOUR leftist positions aren't that extreme. YOU don't recognize it as your own. But that is you, the individual. And as we have already established, the fact you even came here and is talking to people sets you aside from the grain. And you have to realize that just like there are RINOs that will spout things my side believes in without any conviction or care to act on them the same is happening on the DNC side. I admit that there are bad people on the right just as on the left. But the fact is in the current climate there is a plain bias to excuse the left. Reminds me of the time some twitter retard asked Notch, who wasn't playing nice with the extreme politics of Twitter, to condemn Nazis. He replied by saying "Fuck Commies and Nazis" and they went insane he wouldn't just say fuck Nazis alone.

Extreme right positions are both misrepresented and overblown into strawmen. Extreme left positions get defended and treated with obvious bias. Antifa breaking shit all over the country? Fake news, myths and lies. Proud Boys are white supremacists? Fact checked correct and a complete truth, see the wikipedia. AOC talks out of her ass and spouts radical communist ideas and pushes complete bogus claims of rape threats against her or that white supremacy is the biggest terror threat? Oh she is just the progressive token girl, pay no attention, she doesn't actually have any influence even if she is constantly there to push things farther left. Majorie Taylor brings up how vaccine cards are dystopian, how the election was possibly stolen and how people need to defend against the coming commie dictatorship? The Republicans NEED to curb their extremists! She needs to be removed from social media to stop spreading her misinformation!

See a pattern yet?

The issue of this bias is even worse in academia and education, as we mention and particularly Monk here mentions:

Department of Education: All you need to know about this organization is two things. First, look at the average abilities for our nation's kids starting with 5 years before the DoEd was created and bring it to today. Our kids aren't necessarily less intelligent today, but they are certainly less educated. By EVERY metric that matters the Department of Education has failed miserablye. Second, Teachers' Unions have stopped giving a shit about the kids. They only care how much power they wield and how much money they can bring into the union. Please note that I said Unions; there are still a great number of teachers that give a crap.
*Biggest problem is that it's Fed Govt. all over again. Rules and standards to fix one problem AS WELL AS fixed items to be taught with no deviation, OR ELSE your school looses federal money. In this regard, Covid was a blessing. We've gone from <4% of our kids in Home School to >11%. That's a huge win, I hope we can see dividens

[...]

I mostly addressed this above. I'll add this: I am in I have two children who have been completely failed by my school district. The school doesn't give homework regularly (1 in Highschool the other a year out). No consequences for lateness or bad grades (redo your work for a 70), and "we don't care if you actually understand the material b/c we'll never really test on it again." Oh your kid is failing, but we don't allow that so he passed and gets to move on to the next grade. (not our problem any more!) The only reason my kids are doing better now is because my wife and I are taking so much time with them after school. (I'd love to have gotten to them younger, but we only adopted them 2 years ago from a VERY broken home.)

The school system it broken. It's ACTIVELY harming our children. I am completely in favor of severing all ties with the Federatl Dept. of Education and moving to Home Schooling Coops or just neighborhood schools.

I won't get into the fact that many places and schools are actively indoctrinating kids to hate their country, race and/or gender.

I'm gonna stop now...before I keep ranting.

My point about the Antifa teacher stands here and helps you Monk.

The problems of this bias aren't just a minor issue of the DOE, they are absolutely terminal. This retard was the man in charge of the DOE for 8 years under Obama.



EDIT: Lmao retard deleted it. Probably got scared of the pushback. Here is a article about it

Ex-education secretary compares anti-maskers to Kabul suicide bomber

A former Obama education secretary has slammed anti-maskers and foes of the vaccine, comparing them to the suicide bomber behind the explosion at the Kabul airport.

nypost.com

Would YOU trust this man to lead the schools of the USA? And that is not even mentioning all the other woke teachers. These 3 videos from the Lotus Eaters cover the issue, but if you don't feel like watching (which is fair, I probably wouldn't watch long videos like these if they were sent my way in a discussion like this) there is a link in the description that has all the sources so you can cut the middle men and go straight there.

 

[prinCZess]

I have spent roughly an hour on-and-off fiddling on this, only to delete a bunch of stuff.
Because, bluntly...

Mostly, I'd like to see laws removed. The Dept's of Education and quite a few others have done more harm to this country than non-intervention by the government EVER would have...by a HUGE factor. Metaphorically, we've hired the USPS to solve our problems. It's only funny if you don't think about it.

As someone that certainly doesn't belong under the general 'Conservative' title; I would reemphasize this bit and the principle around it.

'Liberal' perspective even recognizes this phenomenon in some manners--the detrimental effect of the Drug War or the War on Terror to both the practical lives of Americans and their larger freedoms is a HUGE issue that has harmed tens of thousands or more people directly by slamming them into courtroom legal battles they have, frankly, not done enough harm to justify (and empowering police to harm both the guilty and the innocent in American society--no-knock raids and asset forfeiture two major examples within this).

-Laws need removed--the Drug War harms Americans with incarceration and police aggression, the War on Terror harms Americans with interstate oversight, unconstitutional and immoral surveillance, detentions and executions without trial. Everything from firearms laws to land-use regulations have been weaponized, their enforcing agencies built-up into massive bureaucratic arms of enforcement that will bankrupt a person in court if they don't murder his family in the field, weaponized for use against Americans for little benefit to society besides their agencies continued funding and militarization.
-In that vein, entire agencies need removed.
-Government, broadly, especially at the federal level, needs MORE checks on its authority, scope, and ability to pass or enforce new legislation, not less. It has revealed itself incapable of handling the authority provided, and the stewards in Congress have either voluntarily given up their own ability to properly check it or it has been usurped from them by Supreme Court decisions granting regulatory agencies massive independence of action. This, in many ways, has created or at least contributed to the cultural divides of the country--and the healthiest way of keeping that from boiling into something horrible are a devolution of powers back to the states where citizens hold both more direct power and may witness more direct results (or lack thereof).

Long story short...
Whatever the cause, arguments over 'unintended consequences' of actions have become partisan at the national level--with opposition or support of action based not on principle of a law applied universally with thought given to repercussions, but to whether a law or action is detrimental to an opponent in the short-term. And a partisan media, whatever the cause, has not and cannot safeguard against that. As such, power must be devolved before the opposing sides separate completely and begin--or accelerate--taking measures outside of the political or judicial/legal system in search of power.

 

[ShieldWife]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot. Like PrinCZess says above, I want to end the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

Thanks for the reply! I wonder if the disconnect is that it's not so much what's actually being done as what we feel our leaders are directing us to do.

Leftists often feel we're told by our more moderate leaders how important it is to understand and empathize with conservatives. For every "clinging to guns" remark it seems like there are all these articles directing us to be patient and understanding and feel your pain and look for compromises and we're all Americans together. Maybe nobody actually does it in your experience, but it feels like we've been told to do it. Meanwhile, we don't see any conservative leaders talking about how important it is to understand that people in big cities are real Americans too and we're all brothers. I dunno, maybe it comes out in the more religious ones?

You‘re welcome 😊

Well, the entire thing is rather subjective. Everybody is going to see themselves as being more open minded, more magnanimous, more willing to compromise than their opponents.

These are some very radical and scary changes being proposed. Even compared to things that leftists want to do, they're pretty extreme.

If you could really do these things, would you really be so confident to upend so much of the US? I think I'd chicken out myself. I'd be too afraid of all the unintended effects.

I might chicken out too. Though really, the changes I would enact are impossible, I even admit it would take supernatural powers to do it and I don’t have those. Changes I would would have to happen over the course of generations. In fact, the problems (I have) with the USA as it is took over a century to arise and I see no reason that it would take less time to fix them.

I have to say, I have been astonished at the level of hatred for the Department of Education. I've had multiple responses telling me people want to get rid of it. What's the deal?

I get the idea that it's viewed as unconstitutional, but is just a matter of principle or do you actually not think it is or could be a tool to do anything useful.

For me it has very little to do with the Constitution and much more to do with undermining the family and some of the negative influences of the public school system. I am a home schooling mom and I believe that home schooling is one of the most important forms of political activism that there could ever be. As long as people are letting the government and Hollywood raise their children, there is no hope for the future. If education can come back to families, communities, or even private schools that are more in keeping with the parents’ values then that is such a big improvement.

Respect for stating this position clearly. I don't agree at all, but respect for making it clear.

My immigration position is one of those positions that a lot of conservatives say “conservatives don’t really want that.” Though in my case, yes we do. Well, I might have a moratorium on migration for a decade and then allow some very selective immigration after that if the situation is under control.

 

[LordSunhawk]

OK, I'm going to ask you a simple question, rather than go point by point.

What is the incentive for a government program intended to 'help solve' Issue X to actually, you know, solve Issue X? Because so long as they are 'working to solve' Issue X they are going to get a paycheck, and if they manage to convince people that Issue X is getting worse they will get more money to 'fix' Issue X. But if they ever actually fix Issue X... what happens to their paycheck? What happens to their prestige? Their comfortable positions in the bureaucracy?

In point of fact, conservatives recognize that there is a perverse incentive trap central to all bureaucracies. All bureaucracies, no matter how well meaning at the beginning, exist solely to perpetuate and sustain the bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less. They do not exist to solve problems, if they did do you not think there would have been at least ONE problem solved by the government program formed to solve it? Just ONE? Anywhere in the world?

 

[LordsFire]

What I have bolded is a fascinating statement and maybe the answer to the question I think I have at the core of all of this.

"Why aren't conservatives more angry at their politicians for not passing laws to do the stuff they want to do and make the world like they want it to be made and make life better?"

If there's a widespread belief that legislation truly can't get you what you want, I can see not caring very much when conservative politicians don't seem to have a lot of legislative ideas, as long as they're making sure leftists can't do the stuff they want to do.

I mean, just as an example, that recent Texas abortion law? As a leftist, I'm horrified. But you know, genuine props to the Texas State Legislature for actually getting a law passed that will have a measurable effect on their state and that the voters can judge on its merits. That's how democracy is supposed to work. The side in power gets to do something, and then the voters decide if what they did was right or too far. If I lived in Texas, I'd sure like to see them follow up with something to make sure the failures in the power grid earlier this year don't repeat themselves. Give everyone the conservative solution to that one.

I'd love to see leftists and rightists debating that way, by alternately passing laws and judging their effects and seeing who can actually solve shit. I really hate this idea that we can't do it that way and only changes in culture will solve things, because there's no one person or organization that actually has the power to make a change in culture. We can get a law passed. Nobody can change culture.

Now, before I get started on my response to this post, I want to say two things:

1. That you're willing to come in here and step up to engage in discussion is admirable. If this was more commonplace, our current political climate would not be so polarized.
2. I appreciate how courteous you've remained towards those present here. Respect for other human beings, even when you disagree with them, is a Godly virtue.

Now, to proceed to the substance of your post:

The problem, is that leftists don't judge their effects.

Obamacare caused insurance prices to skyrocket.

Abortion legalization never resulted in 'safe, legal, and rare,' there have been more than sixty million abortions in the last 48 years. That means that there is roughly one dead baby for every six people in this country. Do you understand the sheer level of death involved? On top of all this, Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, did so for the specific purpose of population control against black people. Have you looked at the racial percentage of who gets abortions? I'll give you a hint; it's insanely disproportionate to black people.

Every single city that Democrats gain uncontested control of turns into a shithole. All of the top ten crime cities in the US are Democrat controlled, and not just as of recently, for decades or even a century into history. I did a chunk of the research to confirm these things myself. If you take these aberrantly-highly-criminal cesspits out of the US statistics, it's one of the lowest violent-crime nations in the world.

As a specific example of the above, in 1960, Detroit was the most prosperous city in the world. It had the highest standard of living, of education, and was more or less the jewel of the US. There were racism issues there, but the difference in educational and income performance between blacks and whites was between 2-10%. Once the Democrats gained control of the city, it fell apart so fast that by the 1980's Hollywood was making jokes about how being sent to Detroit was worse than being tortured or killed. Ten or fifteen years ago, the mayor of the city was arrested for violating his bail to cross the river to go gambling in Canada, while up on corruption charges. And do you want to place any guesses as to how large the wealth, health, and educational disparity between whites and blacks in the city became? I'll give you a hint, it's much worse.

The welfare state has destroyed the black family, and is in the process of doing so to other families as well. There's some evidence that this was even deliberate when the 'Great Society' was implemented.

Student loan programs have both inflated tuition to an absurd level, and resulted in a crop of college students with degrees that are either useless, or only useful for being political commissars to enforce ideological orthodoxy for the left.

I could go on and on and on, but the simple fact is that the Democrat Party, and much of the ideological leadership of the left, has invested the entirety of their skillset into effective PR and lying, and refused to acknowledge the fact that every single aspect of their ideological platform has at best done more harm than good, when it hasn't just been purely destructive on the whole.

This is why the hard left attacks with lies (and occasional truths, their political opponents are flawed too) about their opponents moral failings, claims that the 'real' motive behind X conservative or Republican policy is some form of 'ist' or 'phobe' effect.

Because they cannot win an actual honest debate. Any vaguely-reasonable look at the track record of the two different ideological movements, and the parties loosely associated with them, will show that leftism is destructive and corrosive everywhere that it spreads.


I'll wrap this up here for now.

 

[Bigking321]

I pretty much agree with all that. If something doesn't work it should be stopped and the resources used for something else but government never does that. Programs just go on forever. Only the good intentions matter even if the results are a absolute disaster.

What's the saying? "There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program". Social security was only supposed to be a temporary 5-year program but kept getting extended forever and will probably bankrupt our whole country at this point.

The Republicans aren't nearly as bad as the democrats but please don't confuse that for actually thinking that the Republicans are good. They aren't. They are quite awful.

They refuse to stand for anything they campaign on. They never actually push back on anything when they have power, they only try to spend money on their own projects increasing government more even though their base is completely opposed to that.

We want people that will actually face reality, look at the facts, evaluate the best available options, then do what might actually work and stop what hasn't.

What we have now is spending 10 trillion (just a random number, I've no idea what the real number is) over 40 years to fight poverty, checking to see if there is still poverty, finding out it's worse than it's been in decades, and telling them to carry on. It isn't working!!!

I want Republicans to stop caring about getting reelected and start being the adults in the room pushing back against really horrible policies, agencies, and laws, instead of just being a speed bump and only slowing down the collapse of America whenever they get power.

 

[Zachowon]

Welcome! I am gonna have a fairly short post, because on phone, before PT and all.

A couple things.
1. Everyone on here has thier on views km things and often butt heads with each other over issues. It is just how we are on here. Sometimes we get heated sometimes we don't, but woth the amount of variation in our viewpoints, your answers to questions will stay relatively the same but also very wildly.

2. The government shouldn't have a program for every little thing the people want.
People should be able to do most things themselves, wkth exceptions like National Security based things.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. It's more that the Sietch is a collection of conservatives, libertarians, some moderates, and maybe one or two liberals.



It's not that neither side tries, it's that both sides exist in a different moral matrix. Bear touched upon this. There are six pillars to morality; liberty, compassion, loyalty, authority, karma, and purity. Liberals are primarily focused on compassion, followed by liberty. Conservatives are split between all six of those moral principals. The difficulty that conservatives have, is why liberals claim to be moral, when they ignore authority (such as laws, like border control), loyalty (such as to other American citizens hurt by immigration), karma (seem to want to subsidize people who don't do the right thing, such as sneaking through the border or cheating welfare programs), and purity (the defacing of public property, defiling the body, and the destruction of religious institutions).

Liberals, for their own part, will dismiss anything that does not fall within their liberal viewpoint, because they do not matter. You can see this with literature. Look at Harry Potter. The primary focus is on personal liberty (ie magic, how people are different, ect), but the prime importance is compassion (ie, love). Harry's strength in most of the series came from his mother's love (which defeated Voldemort's spell) and protected him long after she died (Books 1-4). Harry's own ability to love drove Voldemort out in Book 5 and kept him from trying in the next two books. Meanwhile, Voldemort (the bad guy), is the leader of a group of racists who do not like those of lower blood (meaning that most Slytherins work from the function of purity). Voldemort himself is evil because he physically lacks the ability to love or hold compassion for anyone else. That drives his hatred and anger towards his father, which in turn drives it towards Muggles.

An interesting note for the series is that Voldemort has to be someone who LACKS compassion entirely. It's not that Voldemort HAS compassion and a focus on purity, but that he lacks it altogether. And this mirrors how liberals treat conservatives on the issue of immigration. They assume that they lack compassion. In reality, conservatives arrive to different conclusions not because they lack empathy--but because they believe that the immigrants have violated various morals that they hold dear and liberals can't really be bothered with.

1. Rule that internet services are utilities. Which would make it illegal to ban conservative platforms. Some have argued for services like twitter to be made into utilities, but I don't think that would solve the problem.
2. Leave the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. We have no strategic interests there. We are not the world's charity bucket, offering protection to ships and borders simply because the locals refuse to do it themselves.
3. Stricter voting laws. I don't mean laws that drives voters away, but ensures that only citizens vote and that those citizens can trust that their votes were properly counted. Regardless of what happened in 2020, we cannot have people rioting because they think their votes were stolen.
4. Disable internet connections to China and Russia. They are by far the worst cybersecurity offenders on the planet. We'd save billions by severing our cables with those two.
5. Decentralize government power back to the states. The US is composed of 11 different major national identities--not even including black ones. Trying to focus all our power into the Federal government is not a great idea.

Conservatives are primarily concerned with illegal immigration.

Why should someone be able to move here, simply because they managed to sneak through our borders? Why should that someone be able to get a place to rent, thereby driving up costs for citizens? Why should that someone get government assistance, which is thus taken from a US citizen? Why should they be allowed the opportunity to commit crimes against our people? Especially those who've been deported for crimes before?

Do liberals not feel a duty to protect their own people from outside economic competition--or are they happy to feed companies cheap labor? Do they not feel as though laws should be obeyed? A liberal expects that black people can eat at any establishment without fear of being thrown out for the color of their skin, don't they? Why don't they thus feel that our border laws should be respected? Do liberals not feel that those who do wrong, should be punished? If your friend borrows your car and totals it, shouldn't he pay for it? Even if he didn't mean to? Even if it hurt him economically to do so? And do you not think that the culture that has created so much social and economic advances should be allowed to hold its head up high? To see its flag as something sacred, its statues as something worth protecting, and its history as something that must be remembered?



But that's the issue. Conservatives wouldn't be so upset about immigration if the southern border hadn't been exploited for decades and causing a shift in demographics that favor both an alien culture AND their political opponents.




Well, I'll just go into one. And that is on putting careers over families. Women are now expected to put their careers before their families. They're expected to have their careers worked out before they start a family. That can work out and in many cases it has, but in many others it hasn't. Worse than that, by the time women figure out that they need a family, they've already put themselves in a bad strategic position to obtain desirable husbands. Keep in mind that the following is the general rules, not the rules for everybody.

1. Women who earn significantly more than most of their male counterparts don't want to settle for men who can't provide for their standard of living while they're pregnant. Keep in mind that this can happen 2-3 times for a woman who wants an average size family. This narrows the amount of men they're willing to date.
2. Those same women are going to have personal tastes for the type of man they want, outside of economic. That can range from physical, to personality, to hobbies, ect. That narrows the amount of men they're willing to consider outside of economic issues.
3. The men who do make enough and are to the women's taste aren't just fewer in number, but have a larger amount of competitors. Because whereas many (not all, but many) women are comfortable dating up in age, very few men are willing to do the same. In fact, they prefer to date down and do so when possible. So a man whose 28 and has a nice job is not really going to consider marrying a 34 year old, when he can date 28 year old--or younger. Nor will a man whose also 34, preferring to date someone whose 28. This drastically narrows the amount of available men for those women.
4. Because of America's health crises (ie, obesity), women are even more gravely affected. It is easier for women to gain fat and harder for them to lose it. And as the mechanism that forced most people to try and remain fit is removed (ie, public shaming), they have grown large. And the older they are, the harder it is for them to keep the weight off and lose it later. So the women who are 34 now have had 16 years to over-eat, under-exercise, and are now trying to compete against younger and more physically fit women. For a sex that is wired to like fit and young companions. That DRASTICALLY narrows the available men for those women.

The result is that these women are finding themselves victims of "pump and dump" schemes. A man will date a 34 year old woman, sleep with her for a while, get bored, and move on. The women don't have much recourse unless they're willing to settle for men they don't really want because no one else will take them. That's a self-feeding cycle of abuse and neglect that I already see happening. Go on any dating app and try and search in that 30s range. You'll find a lot of overweight women with bios that read "serious relationships only" or "not interested in games". And about half of them will already have kids from a previous relationship.

And what is this all for? They've gained nothing they otherwise wouldn't have, had they not put their careers first. Most of them are still struggling financially (kids or no), they're lonely, they live mostly sexless (and loveless) lives, and the only people who've won are the multinational companies who doubled their workforce (thereby halving what they have to pay people) and get hard working, relatively docile drones (when compared to men).

Don't even have to be in the 30s.
19 year olds saying the same thing, and have a kid or two. I have seen it from every age up to 35

 

[S'task]

2. This one is American politics centered. On a federal level especially (though answer for other government levels if you like), what is the legislative agenda of the Republican party from your point of view as a common voter? What laws, specifically laws, would you like to see passed? What are the big priorities that can be addressed by laws. You notice how I keep saying "laws"? That's because, from my point of view, it often seems like Republican members of Congress spend a lot of time talking about issues that aren't really in the domain of government, or if they are seem only tangential. Like I don't think "cancel culture" is something that the United States Congress can really do much about. (Or maybe I'm wrong and you do think that.) But what laws would you like to see a Republican president and Congress pass if they could just pass any law they wanted? What would your highest legislative priorities be?

Others have talked about things they'd like to see passed, and I'm in broad general agreement with most of them, especially those that seek to reduce the number of TLA (Three Letter Agencies) and general bureaucratic bloat. Another thing I'd like to see passed is a Federal law proscribing public sector unions. Public Sector Unions are one of the largest causes of major issues in government and serve not the interest of the public or even the membership of the unions, but rather, they end up only serving the interest of the bureaucracy. I also think that Congress needs to dust off the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and start applying it liberally to Big Tech and Unions in the US, as Unions like the Teamsters do not actually well represent the interests of the workers under them, rather they end up representing their own interests. A Union should only exist for a single company, once a Union is "representing" workers to multiple companies they lose the incentive to actually work WITH the company and instead become more willing to take hardline stances that end up destroying the company, and the union doesn't care because the other companies the union engages with means it will still exist.

But the real thing the Congress needs to do is not pass new laws, it's repeal old laws that clearly aren't working. Many have mentioned education and the like, but gun laws are another area where bad old laws are never repealed, just added onto or, if we're lucky, sunset. A good example of this is firearms noise suppressers and how they require an ATF tax stamp and approval to even OWN. Want to know how ridiculous this is? In many European countries with much stricter gun control laws, a person can buy a suppresser from a hardware store without anything, and in fact, many places MANDATE the use of a noise suppresser on guns to minimize the damage done to hearing and to reduce general noise. Why is it still on the register? Why could not a simple law be passed to remove it, as was tried? It's not a good law, it doesn't accomplish anything besides making it less easy to own a firearm. Firearms noise suppressors shouldn't be on that registry AT ALL... and that's hardly the only place where we have more Federal laws on the books than are needed.

Now as to active laws? Well, there's a growing desire to more strictly regulate international trade on the American Right with more protectionist measures. Laws designed to incentivize industries being located in the US, as well as cutting our reliance on hostile foreign powers (like China). There's a lot of support on the right for broad deployment of nuclear power, and I'd love to see laws that streamline and incentivize the construction of hundreds or thousands of new nuclear power plants across the country (this would simultaneously MASSIVELY reduce the emissions footprint of the US while lowering the cost of electricity, thus helping address you concerns about climate change while also benefiting people).

4. Often in leftist circles you get a frustrated "why can't we convince conservatives of X; don't they see it would be in their own self-interest". So what's the reverse? What are the issues that conservatives see where you think leftists are absolutely screwing themselves, where it would be way more in their personal self-interest to follow the conservative policies because it would help them live happier, healthier, safer lives? Not cultural stuff, but areas where you legitimately think that if only leftists would understand what conservatives want to do, they'd see how it would make them more secure and better off.[1]

Nuclear power.

Seriously, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but Nuclear Power.

The left/green opposition to Nuclear Power is one of the Big Reasons so many on the Right write off the Left's concern with "climate change" as not actually being concerned with climate change and actually being concerned with being able to control people. Nuclear power more readily addresses ALL the emission concerns (since, yanno, the greenhouse gas emissions are 0), requires smaller land use footprints than wind or solar (thus not requiring massive ecologically disruptive farms), is a mature technology that doesn't ties us to hostile foreign powers (check out who makes the batteries and solar cells sometime... hint: it's China), and actually can meet and EXCEED the present power demands of the nation (which wind and solar STRUGGLE to do).

When you picture legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, are they fundamentally different sorts of people? I guess what I'm saying is, do you think of it as pretty interchangeable where if we allowed an extra one million legal immigrants a year, then we would have about one million less illegal immigrants because they'd all immigrate legally instead? Or do you view them as mutually exclusive, that the sort of people we'd let in as legal immigrants would never come here illegally?

They are fundamentally different people, there's no doubt about it. Getting through the legal immigration process is a matter of having time, patience, and the resources to do so. The people this allows into the country generally come from the middle and upper classes of other countries, with decent educations, and with the will and determination to make long term plans and delay gratification. These people, once here, tend to get good jobs or start businesses and in the long term be economically successful and not criminal.

Those let in by illegal immigration tend to be people who cannot enter in the legal way, they tend to come from the lower classes of the countries they are from and have shown a willingness to bypass legal systems and work with criminals in order to pursue their own personal interests above others. This mindset leads to very different outcomes and unwillingness to work with the established system, which actually increases criminality, as criminals can more easily hide among groups of illegals who are disincentivized from turning them in due to their own illegal actions.

I have to say, I have been astonished at the level of hatred for the Department of Education. I've had multiple responses telling me people want to get rid of it. What's the deal?

I get the idea that it's viewed as unconstitutional, but is just a matter of principle or do you actually not think it is or could be a tool to do anything useful.

The Department of Education is fundamentally unconstitutional but also has been systemically unsuccessful. American students performed better academically BEFORE it even existed and have been getting worse every year since. It also pushes what we would term the buracratic's ideology into every school system, seeking to create a one size fits all policy, stamping over state cultures and ideals, in favor of a centralized plan. In many respects, the DoE is perhaps the greatest poster child for the failure of the DC bureaucracy and the fact that it is so beloved by so much of the country DESPITE how much of an utter failure it is showcases just how effective leftist messaging is.

The liberal criticism is that conservatives have lost faith in the ability of government to solve problems, and I'm not sure I've gotten a lot of pushback in this thread to say it ain't so.

There is very little faith in the Federal Government's ability to solve anything, and the last few months especially have made it worse. The handling of the C19 pandemic and the fiasco withdraw from Afghanistan have only deepened this distrust that goes back to so many other things.

For example: violent crime in the US. The leftist/government position is that "more gun control solves violent crime". This was put to test with the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban which showed that... there was literally no correlation between gun control and violent crime (or even violent GUN crime). Rather than drop gun control as a way to solve violent crime, the left doubles down on it basically going "it wasn't ENOUGH gun control, you need MORE before you'll see results!". And they do this for any number of areas. Bad results from school, the answer is spending more money, yet when you break down per student spending vs per student results, you know what the numbers show? There's ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION between the amount spent per student and how well the students perform (add into the results of homeschooling where the per student spending is stupidly low and the results tend to blow both public and private education out of the water and it only amplifies this result). Yet what does the left always say? "Give teachers raises! Spend more money!" Despite, again, DECADES showing that either of these things have an impact on results.

The Federal Government was not set up to "fix" problems within the country. That's literally not it's remit based on the list of powers Congress has in Article 1. The Federal Government's main responsibility is in dealing with matters external to the country and making sure the States aren't fucking with each other by providing certain common ground things (Patents and copyrights, uniform currency, etc.). People on the Right are much MUCH more willing to let State governments have their hands on "fixing" issues because, well, that IS actually the responsibility of the State governments. Most issues that the left want addressed by the Federal government (education, crime, etc.) are things actually best left up to State and Local governments to handle, with the Federal government basically having no say. I'll grant there are some areas of the left's concern that would require federal action to handle (climate change, for instance, due to the large scale nature of the problem, would fit into this category), but then they always take the path that reduces people's freedom and prosperity over methods that solve the issue and maximize freedom and prosperity (again see Nuclear vs "Green Energy").

So yeah, there's no trust in the Federal Government to solve ANYTHING, but that's also because to those on the US Right they literally do not see solving problems as the JOB of the US Federal Government, since a core belief is that there is no "one size fits all" solution to these problems, thus State and Local governments are much better positioned to solve them.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, first post here. Sorry.

So look, most of the places I hang out on the internet have a strong leftist bent. And usually that's fine, leftist views are more in line with my personal politics. The thing is, often issues come up where I think to myself, "I'd really like to know what the other side thinks about this." but there's no one to ask. If I post a thread on my usual spots, it's just going to get crowded with people with more leftist views eager to argue with any more conservative poster that's dumb enough to respond. I don't want that, I want to find out what the more right-wing portion of the population (mostly from an American perspective) actually thinks without getting into an argument about it.

So I heard about The Sietch as being a message board where some of the more conservative posters from Spacebattles (and SV?) had migrated when they felt they were no longer welcome at SB. And that's about all I know; I've never paid much attention to the politics of Spacebattles. Sorry. But it seemed like this could be a place to go to ask some of those questions.

I don't want to come into someone's home and shit on the floor. My rules for this are:
1. I'm going to try to avoid arguing back. I may sometimes ask for more clarification, or I may leave it as "Thank you for the response," but I don't want to get into an argument in someone else's home.
2. I am going to try to avoid talking about specific politicians. I'm more interested in general political philosophy or what you see yourselves as trying to accomplish.
3. I would like to avoid the "but what about the left" responses, though of course I can't control how you respond. Yeah, I don't know, probably there's plenty of shit talk and hypocrisy on the left, but I'd more like to hear about your personal experiences than the bad stuff people on the other side have done.

I may not get back to this thread every hour or anything since this isn't one of my regular spots, but I'll try to at least thank anyone who responds for their efforts.

So here we go, these are some starter questions.

1. Often in the very leftist/liberal spaces I hang out in, there is an accusation thrown around that leftists are supposed to try to understand and empathize with the point of view of the right wing, but there is no reciprocity. That is, no right wing media articles trying to patiently explain, "This is what leftists think and why, and here's how you can reach out to leftists in your life to try and find common ground. They're good people, just like you, they only have a different view of some things. Etc." Do you feel like that's incorrect and that there's a lot of work done by the right to reach out and try to talk to the left? Have you personally ever had a leftist person in your life that you asked to explain their views to you and that sort of thing? Do you have a favorite article written for a right wing audience that's like "liberals explained so you can understand them" that seems sincere? Is there a "Hillbilly Elegy" for the right? Again (taps rule #3) please let's not make the conversation about whether leftists are actually trying to understand conservatives or not.


2. This one is American politics centered. On a federal level especially (though answer for other government levels if you like), what is the legislative agenda of the Republican party from your point of view as a common voter? What laws, specifically laws, would you like to see passed? What are the big priorities that can be addressed by laws. You notice how I keep saying "laws"? That's because, from my point of view, it often seems like Republican members of Congress spend a lot of time talking about issues that aren't really in the domain of government, or if they are seem only tangential. Like I don't think "cancel culture" is something that the United States Congress can really do much about. (Or maybe I'm wrong and you do think that.) But what laws would you like to see a Republican president and Congress pass if they could just pass any law they wanted? What would your highest legislative priorities be?


3. I see conservative arguments about immigration often get framed as an economic issue. Low skill immigrants driving down wages for low wage American workers. Immigrants taking too much money from the social safety net. But is it really just about the money? If you saw a convincing economic study that immigrants made the local community wealthier on net after, say, ten years of investment would you change your mind? Or maybe you don't need to change your mind. Do you have a sense for how much immigration you want to see? What about people coming into America to work and then leaving? How hard do you think that should be? Are there cultural concerns as well?

I guess I should say that I watched "An American Tail" growing up, you know. I heard about Ellis Island and immigrants coming in, being registered with a name, and getting citizenship like it was nothing... and framed in a positive way. Hey, I understand this is a really big question, but I guess I'd like to hear about what you as a conservative think about immigration in terms of general philosophy rather than as a specific question about border security or what to do with people here illegally or any of that.


4. Often in leftist circles you get a frustrated "why can't we convince conservatives of X; don't they see it would be in their own self-interest". So what's the reverse? What are the issues that conservatives see where you think leftists are absolutely screwing themselves, where it would be way more in their personal self-interest to follow the conservative policies because it would help them live happier, healthier, safer lives? Not cultural stuff, but areas where you legitimately think that if only leftists would understand what conservatives want to do, they'd see how it would make them more secure and better off.[1]

[1] You don't have to tell me about land use regulations. Screw mandatory single family occupancy and the leftists who support it.


Okay, I think that was a pretty good starter. If this thread is in any way successful, I might come back and ask more questions as they occur to me. Thanks in advance for anyone participating.

I have been all over the political spectrum in my life. Where I lie on it right now, I honestly have no idea. And yet, I've realized for a long time now that something needs to change. No stable, healthy society can sustain these levels of political polarization indefinitely.

I've played Devil's Advocate. I've been a contrarian basically everywhere I've gone. I've argued with the Left, the Center, and the Right, and this is what I see:

The Left and the Right, especially the populist strains of them, essentially want the same thing; honest pay for honest work, and the good living standards that should come from that. This presents a problem for greedy Neoliberal Centrists and their bureaucrat lap dogs, since the cost of wage labor comes out of the bottom lines of the shameless oligarchs they ultimately represent. Therefore, they have set about dividing the Left and the Right further and further apart on the basis of identitarianism so that they cannot form a single, powerful economic bloc.

Twenty years ago, if you called yourself an anti-globalist, people knew you were a left-winger against sweatshops, corporate colonialism, and empty consumerism.

Today, if you call yourself an anti-globalist, people have been conditioned to think you're a nativist and a protectionist and just want to deny upward mobility to people in the developing world.

The one matter which all populists can generally agree on is economic disenfranchisement. People, both left-wing and right-wing, have been denied the income they need to reach the milestones of a middle-class lifestyle, by companies who are eager to drive out small businesses, pay their workers peanuts on a part-time basis and give them no benefits, and loot people's pensions.

The promise of civilization is fading. In its place, neofeudalism is rising, with the CEOs and bankers of the world as the new feudal rentier-overlords, and us as the dependent debtor-serfs. Meanwhile, millions of very distracted people are squabbling over increasingly zany definitions of civil rights and what qualifies as decent or obscene. The people who rule over us see reality as a winner-takes-all zero-sum game, while also begging us to conform and cooperate. They fly around in private jets while profiting off of container ships that spew millions of cars' worth of pollution, while telling us our vacations are destroying the planet.

The contradictions pile up on one another. Reality stops making sense.

 

[bullethead]

First of all, I really like how this thread is shaping up.

Second, I'm not going to follow the points of the conversation, both because I think plenty of people have done that, and because my weird ass, idiosyncratic views don't really fit that matrix.

My position on fixing a lot of the problems we're seeing now is what I would label the thermobaric option. (I am reserving nuclear for a far more drastic solution.) The problem we have is that there are too many damn laws, regulations, and executive orders, and Congress cannot be trusted to do shit, because there are no mechanisms to hold Congress accountable. So, we need to attack the problem via implementing a number of Constitutional amendments:

• All laws, federal regulations, and executive orders must be given a lifespan of no more than 20 years, at which point they will sunset, unless they are reapproved by a 2/3 vote of Congress and a new presidential signature. This also applies retroactively to all existing laws, regulations, and executive orders, with a 90 day grace period following approval of the amendment to allow Congress to determine what, if anything, should be reapproved.
• Sitting members of Congress can be called for impeachment or subpoenas by the President, the state governments, or legal representatives of the citizens of their home states.
• All laws, executive orders, regulations, and legal documents must be written in plain, common vernacular.
• Corporations are redefined as non-persons and given an explicit mandate to stay in their lane.
• A digital bill of rights, including things like right to repair, a higher bar for copyright claims, and labeling parts of internet infrastructure common carriers.
• Balanced budget amendment.
• Explicitly laying out that health care/insurance can be bought across state lines and that all prices must be publicly accessible.

There's probably a few more that could be thought up, but these are a solid starting point.

You maybe going "wow, that's going to cause some chaos," and my answer is "We've passed the point where flipping the table over is the right solution, might as well wipe the slate clean and put in rules aimed at keeping people from fucking things up."

The goal is meet Heinlein's high bar of "as hard as possible, on purpose" and to put as much friction on as many power accumulating organizations as possible.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure any of these things are possible, mostly because there doesn't seem to be much willpower on the state level to constrain the federal government. Sure, there's a few states passing laws thumbing their nose at big tech or federal agencies, but not enough are using the mechanisms intended for the purpose of fixing things on the federal level.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@bullethead
Here's an organization you'll probably like!

 

[Robovski]

I want to say welcome to the forum, so welcome aboard!

I don't really know where to begin with getting into the nitty gritty of this conversation. I agree that you should get involved in the wider forum and interact with us on the subjects; many of the policy points and conservative concerns are already existing topics on the forum. I do not consider myself a conservative, I used to identify as Libertarian, and maybe I still am an old-school Libertarian, in favor of Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood, but I currently do not carry a party affiliation. I feel both the Democrats and the Republicans no longer serve the American public but their corporate masters and I am hard pressed to find candidates in their organizations I would be happy to vote for, let aside leave alone with a small child and expect them to not injure the child in some way, let aside not steal their candy. How do you solve that without revolution or some miracle leaders that we just don't seem to have? Even now, Americans are uninterested in third parties and think their vote is wasted if you don't vote for a Republican or Democrat and refuse to see the fecund dung piles both parties really are.

I'll start with these on policy:

1. Environment. I have said this elsewhere but I cannot take seriously any environmental policy that does not include nuclear power. If man-made climate change is such an urgent issue, surely we should be utilizing nuclear power to it's fullest. The Left seems to be all about feelings and looking like you are "doing something" while not being focused on making real changes that will get results. Plastic bags, straws, not putting water out for a customer unless they ask, this is all environmental theater at best, detrimental at worst. Climate change happened before there were ever human beings, and when I was a child you could still read about the impending Ice Age that was of concern. If change is happening in our lifetimes then we need to prepare and I see nothing serious being done.

2. On immigration, I am for a lot of legal immigration and a guest worker program so that taxes are collected and needs are met. I am also for a massive crackdown on illegal immigration; it is not fair to those waiting their turn legally to allow those who just decide that they won't wait to be allowed in. They need to be liable for their taxes like anyone else and have ID like anyone else. We need tax paying citizens and tax paying guests that advantage the US and people who want to be part of America, not people who just see it comfier here than where they came from.

3, I would love to see a simplified tax code and the clearance of the many, many tax exemptions and loopholes offered by the system. And that businesses not be allowed to offshore profits made in the US to other low-tax and no tax havens, which should be illegal.

4. Infrastructure. This country is crumbling before our very eyes. We need roads, rails, bridges and ports and we need it all now. We needed all of this 40 years ago. It's not sexy, but it is something that we can invest today's money in for the benefit of tomorrow.

5. Healthcare. It is an embarrassment that many US citizens avoid necessary health care because of out of pocket costs. Obamacare did nothing but make the situation worse. We already have single payer systems in the US for the military and the retired, but somehow the general public should be left with "hope you don't get sick". Not like there aren't problems in places like the UK, but at least you can go see a doctor and get a prescription for your high blood pressure or go to an emergency room for that pain in your chest without being worried it will bankrupt you.

I'll stop here. Again, welcome to the forum.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Thank you for the list. As with the other response I've got, it's very different from my view of what major priorities are, regardless of the merit of the proposals. I'll respond on a few:

2. I think it's more the so-called "Washington consensus" (AKA "the Blob") that the problem on this one than a left-right divide, which in some ways is great. Though to be fair, I don't think those bastards view bases as being charity but rather "Hey isn't it great to have military bases all over the world allowing us to intervene anywhere we want."

The Washington establishment is not really left or right in the populist, but in the globalist sense. The vast majority of people who work in DC and are interested in foreign affairs are probably globalists or realists (and probably with a liberal bent). That was a result of World War II and the Cold War. We're talking about a hundred years of globalist ideas and policies. They were trained to look at a map and find a way to expand American power and beliefs. To them, Donald Trump's foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster.

4. Is this technically practical as a cybersecurity measure? I don't really see how it would work without cutting all connections to everywhere, since you'd figure China/Russia would just route through some other country.

It's a reasonably effective one. Our relations with China are reaching an end. There's not really anymore good economic benefit for the US to maintain those open links, because it's mostly going to be Chinese hackers stealing from old, gullible US citizens. And that's the real problem; the criminal element of Russia and China, not their state actors. Actually, most of Russia's hacking force is really just a collection of criminals that are "hired" to do a job for the government. China less so, but cutting off most of their cabals reduce their capacity to inflict damage to the US.

I think mainly I don't get why so many conservatives seem to get so seemingly emotionally invested in illegal immigration. Like, I don't feel personally insulted by illegal immigration or anything, and I think the likelihood that illegal immigration is going to make my life worse in any measurable way to be very small.

Because conservatives have an above-average amygdala. That's the part of your brain that helps you identify danger. Which means that conservatives react to things that makes them feel threatened more than moderates. And rather tellingly, liberals tend to have a smaller-than-average amygdala. They have been observed to be less likely to respond to things that are dangerous to them and are more interested in things that are strange and new.

So if you're a liberal, you don't feel threatened by large numbers of different-looking people moving in next door, whereas if you're a conservative, your amygdala is slamming the panic button.

I'd be happy to have a cold-blooded rationalist, "what's the most effective use of our resources and when does the cost of enforcement exceed the benefit of enforcement" debate, but the idea it's some kind of a point of principle is very alien to me.

You might as well dismiss any "cold-blooded rationalist" concepts you might have. Contrary to how robots are portrayed as being perfectly intelligent and rational in fiction, the reality is that humans who've suffered brain damage to where they don't have intuitive thinking (ie, emotions) are horrible at making any sort of decision. Humans do not rationally think things over. You do not see a puppy being beaten by an abusive owner and rationally work out why you should be offended. Your brain immediately (emotionally) decides that you are offended. The rationalizing part is mostly you justifying yourself to others. Your rationality is not a scientific tool--it is a social tool.

So when everyone else in the tribe corners you and asks why you punched the abusive pet owner, you can present a defense for your actions. Your rationality is about social cohesion, it is not a form of pure intellectual knowledge. It's your PR man. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't change your mind based on rationality. Your rationality allows your intuitive side to see past the pure emotional response and take new facts into account. For example, if the tribe is angry that you were beating on the abusive dog owner, they might change their minds when they learn that the dog owner had been abusive towards an animal.

So yes, people can sometimes change your mind with a good rational argument. But only if that rational argument doesn't violate your moral matrix. A priest could sit you down and present you with the best rational argument in the world about why you can't have homosex, but if you're a liberal and you think that this sort of law hurts people, you aren't really going to be all that interested in pushing it onto others.

The only way to change your mind is to address you on an emotional level, NOT an intellectual one.

Answering since you seemed to phrase that as questions. I guess? I just honestly doesn't seem like a big deal. Plenty of motherfuckers among my fellow countrymen that cause me issues; it doesn't make much difference to me whether they came to my state from Ohio or Mexico.

But we're responsible for our fellow countrymen, for better or worse. How would you think it would look if the US just turned South Africa into a penal colony where we dump our unwanted? Do you imagine that South Africa may not like having a lot of convicted thieves, killers, and rapists suddenly dropped off on their shores? Because that is essentially what countries like Venezuela (Mexico is no longer the major source of immigration) is doing. You get a lot of criminals and weirdos who leave their homes and travel to the US to start a new life, but because a lot of them are already troublemakers, they generally aren't going to do better in a foreign country with no family, no social connection, and disliked by the natives.

Now, there are also good, hardworking people in that group of people. Everyone knows that, but how do you parse the father and daughter from the creep who kidnapped a kid and intends to sell them to a pervert in the US? Or how do you tell the difference between a 16 year old who just wants to work hard and be honest and a thug?

We have no way of knowing because most people don't have proper documentation and those who don't want to be identified will happily not provide it and lie through their teeth.

It is actually within the realm of leftist policy discussion that we are not doing enough to support women who want to stay home and take care of kids rather than go back to work. Like, this is a criticism and debate that leftists are having among themselves. There is a real concern that families are being trapped into not being able to survive without two incomes and that many women would find it more fulfilling to be able to raise their kids than do a job they're only doing to pay the bills. A lot of this centers around the proposed childcare allowance, which encourages women to work but gives them nothing if they stay home. Naturally the leftists debating this wouldn't put it quite the same way you would, and there is of course the handwave of "mother or father" and it being "a parent" who stays home, but still... I think there's real room for engagement here.

The bad news is that of course leftists want to handle it the way we hand everything... spend government money to allow a household with children to survive on one income.

No, that's just an extension of feminist theory, just with a refocus on women's happiness. The left, as a political entity, is incapable of actually producing any useful legislation, because it views masculinity as an oppressive and abusive force. It's not everyone--I don't mean to suggest such, but there is too much political division for that to be possible from liberals at the moment. They won't realize until the disaster is in full swing that a lot of women are going to end up being misused. And the result will be a conservative backlash similar to the Taliban's sweeping of Afghanistan.

Not in a violent way, but the progressive alliance is pretty much seeing its last days.

I expect that there is going to be a sort of "marriage crises", in which women (and some men) will be throwing themselves at the altar, because they're on the wrong side of 30 (or 40) and don't want to die rich and alone, but finding that affection transcends materialistic concerns. Those women who were told their whole life that they needed a career to start a family and thus be happy are going to find that they were lied to...and there may not be a lot of happy endings.

Just a lot of terrified, angry women who insist on believing that they'll find Mr. Right as he walks another woman down the isle.