# Better Conservatives? Where?! (A response to Coffeecat) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2018, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208 "2018-09-30T08:43:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/461 "2018-10-05T14:35:02Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Man, that is probably a very good question. To be honest I don’t think it would take a whole lot if there was some centrally vocal third party. > For me to make the move to the Democrats, they would have to stop trying to ban guns, they would need to want a smaller less involved government, no more tax and spend. Less involvement in my daily life would be great > > Ultimately I don’t have a firm position on Roe (I can see both viewpoints). > I think the Gay and Lesbian community should be able to do what they wish. > I think minorities deserve to be equal in regards to opportunities (but not made to be equal in regards to outcomes) > I think global warming is the real deal, however how to go about combatting it is a big ole mess. > > Does that answer anything for you? A bit, yes, but the question was more about what you are willing to tolerate to get your guns, less government and tax breaks (although “tax and spend” coming from the current Republican party is a joke. Now it’s just don’t tax and spend and build the deficit). Trump and his high approval rating amongst Republicans indicates that the stuff you’re willing to tolerate for that is pretty damn high. Being constantly lied to. Russian involvment in our elections. The nomination of a perjurying, sexual assaulter. Trade Wars. The gutting of departments that protect the environment, work for equality of minorities, deal with foreign relations, and education. A complete and utter ass as President. Criminal convictions for his people. A swamp made even worse by a guy who claimed he’d clear the swamp. The question was meant to get you to think about just how far you’re willing to let this kind of stuff go, and just how revolting the company you keep has to be, for you to abandon the party. Because I’m a bit shocked at what many conservatives are willing to put up with just to not “lose”. As I said earlier, there are some conservatives who may be willing to shift their priorities. Ones who realize that it simply isn’t worth it for me to pay a tiny bit less in taxes to give a massive tax break to the rich and build up the deficit. Ones who think that maybe protecting the environment is more important than making sure businesses can do as they please. Ones who think that maybe being able to buy another assault weapon isn’t worth propping up a irrational, minority hating, human piece of garbage and his hate filled base of voters. Ones who decide that maybe factual based decision making and getting to the truth about the realities of a Supreme Court nominee and the illegalities of Russian interference in our elections are more important than having a perjuring, sexual assaulting, tantrum throwing 5 year old Republican puppet on the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/462 "2018-10-05T14:37:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Trump’s own asinine commentary after Charlottesville proved what he is, showed his true color. He sided with the fucking Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/463 "2018-10-05T14:45:03Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Man, that is probably a very good question. To be honest I don’t think it would take a whole lot if there was some centrally vocal third party. > For me to make the move to the Democrats, they would have to stop trying to ban guns, they would need to want a smaller less involved government, no more tax and spend. Less involvement in my daily life would be great. > > Ultimately I don’t have a firm position on Roe (I can see both viewpoints). > I think the Gay and Lesbian community should be able to do what they wish. > I think minorities deserve to be equal in regards to opportunities (but not made to be equal in regards to outcomes) > I think global warming is the real deal, however how to go about combatting it is a big ole mess. > > Does that answer anything for you? It doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what you do. If right-wing campaigns to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians arise, how do you oppose them? If minority rights are threatened by right-wing campaigns, how do you oppose them? If global warming is denied by right-wing campaigns, how do you oppose them. _If any and/or all of these campaigns are deemed necessary by Republicans to win an election, WILL you oppose them?_ ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/464 "2018-10-05T14:45:29Z")
It’s worth revisiting Al Franken and how the Democrats intended to set an example of how to deal with their own in the #metoo era. Republicans aren’t following that example. From #metoo to #boyswillbeboys ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/465 "2018-10-05T14:53:40Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This statement seems strange to me. I’m more worried about my daughter actually being a victim of sexual assault than I am about my son getting accused without supporting evidence. Since, you know, one happens almost zero times, and the other happens to women every single day. I wouldn’t call in the region of 5% of accusations “almost zero”. And that’s just the provably false ones. That it’s a smaller issue than rape doesn’t mean it’s an unimportant one. [Cite.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45565684) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/466 "2018-10-05T15:00:59Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I wouldn’t call in the region of 5% of accusations “almost zero”. And that’s just the provably false ones. That it’s a smaller issue than rape doesn’t mean it’s an unimportant one. > > [Cite.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45565684) Having a couple of mice loose in the room can be a problem, as can having a couple of elephants. If both the mice and the elephants are in the same room, which should you focusing your attention on? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/467 "2018-10-05T15:04:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I wouldn’t call in the region of 5% of accusations “almost zero”. And that’s just the provably false ones. That it’s a smaller issue than rape doesn’t mean it’s an unimportant one. > > [Cite.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45565684) Do you even read the links you cite? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/468 "2018-10-05T15:09:03Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Do you even read the links you cite? Yes. Between 2% and 10% of rape allegations are provably false. That’s a long way from the “almost zero” you claimed. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/469 "2018-10-05T15:11:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Having a couple of mice loose in the room can be a problem, as can having a couple of elephants. If both the mice and the elephants are in the same room, which should you focusing your attention on? But that’s not what’s happening. Both rape and false claims of rape are serious crimes, and should be treated as such. If you have 10 blue elephants in a room and 1 red one, why would you focus on getting rid of only one colour? Get rid of all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/470 "2018-10-05T15:15:49Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > So, in my example above it is actually you, the privileged leftist who has adopted the more restrictive response to the problem, and me, the discriminated against minority who seeks to maximize freedom. > From this, I conclude that you are mistaken. > > Whether or not someone thinks a social problem should be solved by government regulation is not a function of their race or gender privilege (it sounds really silly putting it that way, doesn’t it.) > > Rather it is more likely a function of how they view government, and its role in society. > > I view government pretty negatively. I don’t think that has anything to do with my race or gender, or my privilege. > > I think that based on the historical evidence, it is an eminently rational and defensible position. Meaningless semantics. From my POV, I am the one who is maximizing freedom. I am protecting the gay person’s freedom to go about his daily business without being discriminated against, at the cost of restricting the baker’s right to choose who to do business with. Since “freedom” isn’t a quantifiable physical thing, neither of us are right or wrong. I think the difference between us is that you hold the\* a priori\* idea that restrictions of freedom caused by government regulations are somehow fundamentally worse than other restrictions of freedom. I see no reason to hold that belief. Government regulations which protect my freedom to breathe relatively nonpolluted air are very much preferable to the lack of such regulations, which protects the freedom of businesses to pollute the public airspace in order to maximize their profits. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/471 "2018-10-05T15:17:08Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > But that’s not what’s happening. Both rape and false claims of rape are serious crimes, and should be treated as such. If you have 10 blue elephants in a room and 1 red one, why would you focus on getting rid of only one colour? Get rid of all of them. So, this 15-year experiment with blackout drinking… it’s ongoing? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/472 "2018-10-05T15:20:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes. Between 2% and 10% of rape allegations are provably false. That’s a long way from the “almost zero” you claimed. I think I’ll go with this quote from your cite: 'False rape accusations very rarely lead to convictions or wrongful jail time" Just a quick reading of your own cite gives a few more quotes I could use to mock you, but I’m just not into it. Became boring after the cops who shoot unarmed men debate. Besides, shouldn’t you be finding a woman who was raped in order to spend a day in her shoes before you have opinions on the matter? Check back in when you do. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/473 "2018-10-05T15:29:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Yes. I agree. > > One of the fundamental civil rights cases in history is fought over who gets to sit in what seat on the bus. Perhaps Rosa Parks could have saved us all a lot of bother If she had called ‘shotgun.’ Fighting over seats on the bus is how we decided to settle civil rights? > > Similarly, gay rights is being battled over cake? > > Are we all still in the 2nd grade? > > Without deprecating the underlying important issues, is it unfair to point out the silliness of how we are debating them, the battlegrounds that get chosen? > What’s next? Is the defining landmark case over gender issues going to get litigated in the Supreme Court because somebody forgot to put the seat back down? Are you saying that Jim Crow laws inconvenienced blacks to such a trivial extent that they were being silly and quarrelsome by objecting to them? I mean, that sure SEEMS to be what you’re saying, but I’m sure it’s not what you mean, right? Or are you just objecting specifically to Rosa Parks’ action? Given that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a spectacular success from both a legal and political standpoint, what could your grounds for that objection possibly be? Even decades after the strategy chosen by the people actually experiencing the oppression has been demonstrated to have been brilliantly successful, you’re still second-guessing them without apparent embarrassment? Good grief. Any given example of discrimination can be made to look trivial, silly, and certainly not worth devoting years of one’s life to fighting a high profile legal battle over…\*from the point of view of someone who hasn’t experienced discrimination on a daily basis throughout their entire life. \*Such people are able to perceive that these trivial inconveniences are all part of the same system that produces lynchings, and any point at which the system seems vulnerable is the right point at which to attack. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/474 "2018-10-05T15:46:06Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Man, that is probably a very good question. To be honest I don’t think it would take a whole lot if there was some centrally vocal third party. > For me to make the move to the Democrats, they would have to stop trying to ban guns, they would need to want a smaller less involved government, no more tax and spend. Less involvement in my daily life would be great. > > Ultimately I don’t have a firm position on Roe (I can see both viewpoints). > I think the Gay and Lesbian community should be able to do what they wish. > I think minorities deserve to be equal in regards to opportunities (but not made to be equal in regards to outcomes) > I think global warming is the real deal, however how to go about combatting it is a big ole mess. > > Does that answer anything for you? OK, you’ve given three excellent reasons to vote for the Democrats, and one really bad reason to vote against them, plus one which is too vague to understand. The Democrats do not, in fact, want to ban guns. As far as I know, no Democratic legislator at any level has ever introduced legislation calling for an Australian-style gun ban. No high profile Democratic politician has ever called for such a thing. So unless your definition of “ban guns” extends to “pass common sense laws which are supported by the vast majority of Americans”, you have nothing to worry about on that count. Honest question: how do you perceive the government as being overinvolved in your daily life? I mean, as I go about my daily business, I rarely think “aha, there’s the government interfering with me!”. Of course, it’s all around me as I take public transportation to my job, which I qualified for due to government-backed loan programs, stopping to mail a few letters on the way. And of course, it’s taxing my income to do all this great stuff, which I definitely want it to do responsibly and efficiently. But none of that is in my conscious mind the vast majority of the time. I basically never think “Oh noes, here’s something I really want to do that the government won’t let me do!” With the exception of recreational drug users, I can’t think offhand of any large group of people who would think that that I would feel particularly sympathetic towards. So could you expand on what you mean by that. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/475 "2018-10-05T16:08:44Z")
Hamlet: Here is a badly written partial reply. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Thank you for acknowledging the miscommunication and taking the blame. And thanks to **Kimstu** for helping getting us to that point. I am but a humble servant of truth. > [@](#): > > If it is a minor point of yours, I will minorly point out that the Jim Crow laws were targeted at blacks, not the merchants who served blacks. Sure the merchants were effected, but they were never the intended target of the laws. The laws were made to keep blacks economically, politically, and socially powerless. Yes, it is minor and we really don’t disagree. You are still not seeing what I am getting at. You are stuck on “Jim crow laws were meant hurt black people” my paraphrase. You are concerned that I am disagreeing with that statement or are attempting some sort apologist rationalization to suggest that they werent so terrible, or something. Because of this, you keep repeating yourself. I explained it badly, initially. That was my fault. What I think is causing the misunderstanding is the word “targeted.” Here is an example of a Jim Crow law from Alabama: “It shall be unlawfully to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.” So, who is the target? You say something like “these laws were intended to discriminate against black people. Black people are the target.” This is true, but it’s not literally factual. This particular law does not say anything about what black people can or can’t do, or what white people can or can’t do. It specifically names and targets restaurants. It says what they can and can’t do. As you say, the overall purpose of Jim Crow Law’s was to make life hell for black people. You don’t have to say that again, and act like you are correcting or educating me. Everybody knows that’s what they are for. But how did they do it economically? They targeted businesses (do you see how we can use a word to mean or reference more than one thing? This is where we are getting hung up. Our relative uses are complimentary, and not, as you seem to think, mutually exclusive.) Why not just write a law that says “it’s illegal for blacks to eat at the same restaurant as whites?” It’s subtle, and it **is** an example of capitalism’s invisible hand at work. Here’s how: If it is illegal for an 18 year old to buy alcohol. A pure capitalist, without morals or prejudice, doesn’t care. Such a person will happily sell all the alcohol kids can pay for. He’s not breaking the law. The kids are. If you want to stop 18 year olds from buying alcohol, making it illegal for them to do so does little. Instead, you target the store. You make it illegal to sell alcohol to minors. You do this because capitalism says “take the money.” This moral agnosticism of capitalism is both it’s biggest virtue and it’s biggest vice. This is what I was trying to communicate. Do you understand? > [@](#): > > Which brings me to the large point I made in response to your postings. You seemed, and again if I misinterpret let me know, to be positing that unseen hand of capitalism would lead to the financial end of bigoted businesses. That’s not exactly it. Again, I don’t think this is difficult or controversial topic. You understand that a business that chases away customers makes less money, all other things being equal? You understand that this can create a void that can be filled by another business that does not chase away customers, and that business can then out compete the original and replace it? This effect is not a universal inevitable immediate thing, but is a tendency of markets to work this way. Again, I am confused. Are we not on the same page? Is this difficult or controversial? Why are we talking about this? > [@](#): > > It seemed to be a part of your larger point that government should have had nothing to do with fixing the problems of racial (or currently sexual orientation) discrimination (unless it fits into your “public trust” exception). Have I got it right? No. I have been pretty clear and consistent in pointing out that the market does not always produce an efficient or fair outcome and requires regulation. What I am saying is that government regulation is a blunt instrument, and that their are consequences to using it, that can cause real damage and hardship, so one needs to be very careful and judicious about how one uses it, so that you don’t end up doing more harm than good. [quore]Because my response then, and now, is to point out that there is no evidence to support your ideas that capitalism would have eventually (or will now) put an end to racial or sexual discrimination, and, in fact, the opposite is true. [/quote] I’m pretty sure that I’m not and have not argued that capitalism is the cure for racism. The opposite is not true. As i’ve said before, capitalism is agnostic on such things. > [@](#): > > The majority of evidence was that change only occurred when the government stepped in, not when business started to get hurt by the laws. The Jim Crow Laws also enforced racism. That’s why (as you so frequently insist on explaining) they were put in place. So, it’s not like we can claim that government regulation is this wonderful source of positive social change. I am spending an awful lot of effort supporting the notions that: 1. Money doesn’t care about race 2. Government regulation can be good and bad It feels like I am having to drag you kicking and screaming to those conclusions. > [@](#): > > I then asked, and will ask again, this question: How long should the victim of discrimination have to wait for capitalism to bring about fairness and equality? Blacks in the South waited (and are still waiting) for almost 100 years after the Civil War and before Brown v. Board and the Civil Right Act of 1964. Should they have stuck it out a bit longer and waited for commerce to solve the problem? He shouldn’t have to wait at all. It’s not capitalism’s fault, and it’s not government’s either. People are sometimes shitty to each other. You seem to think that I am expected to have a solution to this. I don’t. It’s complex, and it’s a series of trade offs. With this cake guy, you could make a law and force him to bake the cake, right? How are you going to phrase your law? What will it specifically say? Answer that. How will you craft it in such a way, as to avoid setting precedents that cause more damage than the problem you are trying to solve? > [@](#): > > And this discussion, is part of an even larger one you seem to be making about the role of government. You seem to be positing that the government should not have, and should not currently, involve itself in the creation and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws (again your public trust exception). And I pointed out, and will continue to, that the only thing that actually changed discrimination was governmental action. Sure, victims of discrimination could wait until society makes the glacial shift in beliefs about their worth and value. But, again and again, the evidence shows that it is only when the government intervenes to enforce anti-discrimination laws that actual change has come to protect US citizens from bigotry. > > And, to tie a nice little bow on the entire discussion, I engaged you earlier (largely ignored by you) about the importance of deciding ones priorities in the political realm. To me, it is much more important to me that the government work for the betterment of ALL its citizens, including issues of social justice like anti-discrimination laws, than it is that the rich get a tax break. Just as it seems more important to you that government be limited in those aspects than it is that victims of discrimination have a remedy that actually works rather than waiting for the economy to magically fix it. > > Full circle! > > I know it’s a ton of text and some pretty deep thoughts, but I think this is an issue that is worth discussing on the multiple levels of we’ve engaged in. I understand if you want to stick to sound bites and being affronted, but I hope you understand better what I’m getting at. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll rethink your priorities in deciding who or which party, to support. I’m on a phone, and i’ve Gotten to where I need to be, and need to deal with this larger last part later. Or maybe not. I disagree with you about the “deep ness” of this subject. You and I seem to be stuck in the basic mechanics of markets and capitalism, and that it is difficult and dangerous to try to write magical regulations that suddenly fix everything without causing more damage than they fix. My sincere hope is that these things we are discussing here are accepted as givens or defined with a few quick back and Forths, so that we actually do talk about the deep and interesting stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/476 "2018-10-05T16:11:51Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > So, this 15-year experiment with blackout drinking… it’s ongoing? No, it stopped almost 7 years ago, and that would be _pink_ elephants anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/477 "2018-10-05T16:13:16Z")
Thing Fish: I’m not a Chinese immigrant ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/478 "2018-10-05T16:14:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Cheese, Kimstu: > I’m here to argue big ideas. I go along on nitpicks and digressions because I don’t wish to be one who avoids getting down to brass tacks. > > However, we seem to have left the realm of big ideas, and you now seem to focus on details of my yearbook (making a throwaway one line attempt to coin a term fro modern evident which will doubtless result in another lengthy digression) > > So, I find the choice of battleground mildly humorous. Perhaps this means that I am insensitive, privileged person who has proven his inability to truly appreciate the struggle, and who demeans those who are discriminated against, this revealing his true colors as gay hating racist who is part of the problem and in need of re-education by finer minds. Or wherever you are going with this. > > Or, I could just plead guilty and admi that I failed to recognize the deep gravitas of cake eating, bus riding, and who left up the toilet seat, while climbing up on my cross. > > Got some nails. > > * * * > > The part that really interests me though, and the part to which I feel I never really got a serious answer is to my original question: > > If you believe that there are reasonable and intelligent conservatives out there, who are fully aware of the odious failings of Trumpism, who still feel obligated to side with the Republicans and oppose the left, why, in order that they would agree with, do you think they are doing so? > > What I am asking is really very simple. Can you faithfully articulate the oppositions viewpoint? > > I ask this because I see how Republicans are characterized as morally bankrupt racists, whose stupidity is only exceeded by their greed, intellectual dishonesty, and willingness to destroy the environment, and hatred of women, blah blah blah, and I wonder if that’s rhetoric or literal gospel belief. I bring up the metaphor of the guy who can’t get dates who blames the women to open up the possibility some posdibility’s For thought. > > We are at a time right now where the President of the Republican Party is so horrible, it’s really not up for debate. Given that this is so readily apparent, why do half the people in the country still find it preferable to what the left is offering? > > Are they all bad and stupid or do they see something even worse on the left (hint, it’s the latter) > > What is it? Not Cheesesteak but yeah. I think they believe that Republican economic policies will bring prosperity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think the vast majority of them see the government taking their money and giving it to lazy black people. They see the border being opened up to floods of rapists and drug dealers. They see women and gay people being treated as if they were worthy of respect, and that enrages them. They think the Democrats want to take their guns. They think global warming is a hoax and that college-educated people have been brainwashed by liberal elites. I wouldn’t label them as “bad and stupid” people, but they are certainly voting for bad and stupid reasons which can’t be rationally debated, because people capable of informed, rational discussion don’t hold them. Of course, a small number of conservatives are simply obscenely wealthy and want to stay that way. A rather larger number are convinced without evidence that they will someday earn obscene wealth and are voting proactively. And then they also include a relatively insignificant number of intellectuals who support the GOP because it aligns with their preferred legal, economic and/or theological positions. I would certainly do you the honor of putting you in this category. We could argue for years over the substance of those positions and why you are wrong about all of them(actually, I guess we have, off and on!:)). But I think you’re badly mistaken if you see people like yourself being more than the tail on the rabid dog that’s the current GOP. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/479 "2018-10-05T16:19:56Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > We are at a time right now where the President of the Republican Party is so horrible, it’s really not up for debate. Given that this is so readily apparent, why do half the people in the country still find it preferable to what the left is offering? > > Are they all bad and stupid or do they see something even worse on the left (hint, it’s the latter) Few issues there. 1. Who says half the people in the US think Trump is preferable to the left? If we look at the election 3/4 of US adults did not vote for him: > **[Who are the three-quarters of adult Americans who didn't vote for Trump?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non-voters-election-donald-trump)** > > The president-elect came second in the popular vote in November but the biggest bloc in the US electorate was those who for different reasons did not vote So I think you’ve jumped into a very contentious position there. Hell, it’s a given that Clinton got more votes than Trump did: > **[2016 presidential election results](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president)** > > Full results by state for the 2016 presidential election and electoral vote count. And that’s before you consider that since then, Trump’s popularity has dropped a fair bit. So really, I think that claim is an exaggeration. 1. “Are they all bad and stupid or do they see something even worse on the left (hint, it’s the latter)” Few issues with that too. First, you’re giving a false dichotomy. A number of them might well be bad and stupid and see something wrong with the left. A number of them might have been convinced by the whole “lock her up” spiel, or been susceptible to some of the undeniable social media exploitation Russia engaged in. A number of them might view Trump’s financial policies as likely to benefit them. Oh, and good to see you again, it’s been years. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208/480 "2018-10-05T16:20:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I think I’ll go with this quote from your cite: 'False rape accusations very rarely lead to convictions or wrongful jail time" That doesn’t change the fact that a significant amount of accusations are provably false. Lying about someone committing a crime doesn’t magically become acceptable if the person you lie about isn’t actually convicted. > [@](#): > > Besides, shouldn’t you be finding a woman who was raped in order to spend a day in her shoes before you have opinions on the matter? Check back in when you do. Obviously I can’t literally do that, but I’ve had plenty of conversations with friends and lovers who’ve been abused and raped. One result of those is that I have absolutely no time for those who make false accusations for whatever reason, whether for revenge, regret, or political gain. They are taking others’ serious pain and using it for their own benefit, admittedly at one remove. They also make it harder to believe an accusation. It’s worth noting that most people I’ve spoken to about abuse aren’t making an accusation, they’re not naming the person who did it. They are talking about what happened to them, how it’s affected them, and other things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-conservatives-where-a-response-to-coffeecat/822208.md?page=25)