Nobody thinks a rich politician will share their OWN money with them. They're obviously selfish, in fact some of them brag about it like it's some virtue. Maybe people think that good job opportunities will come from magic chemtrails that conservative politicians carry in their pockets?
Uhh... what? No, I think good job opportunities happen when politicians don't put a bunch of fees and taxes on things, when companies and employees aren't forced to pander to entrenched unions, when they don't make an insanely high minimum wage. You know, like I said before, they just have to basically stay out of the way. Politicians don't create jobs. They have to thread the needle between enough regulation to protect people, and not so much regulation that the bureaucracy chokes the businesses.
So it was "unfair" for state college to be free until the 1950s, and it's more "fair" now, for rents to be sky-high and college and healthcare costs through the roof? I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Heh, no. What I'm saying is, those are things to be considered on a cost/benefit analysis. Saying something is "fair" or "unfair" implies one way is right. Subsidies where they have a worthwhile benefit are absolutely worthwhile. Subsidies that are just a waste of money for some feel good points are not worthwhile. Healthcare costs through the roof is because of government intervention (Forcing people to buy something is a good way to get the price to increase). College prices through the roof is a deep and complex issue, but I don't personally think giving them more money is the solution.
So in other words, you don't trust conservatives and you know they are all liars, but you vote for them over liberals because at least they give lip service to your values. Hmmmmm...
No, not quite. Like I said, we've got history to look at. Conservatives generally, on average, are better about shrinking government, where liberals actively want to expand it.
I mean, we kinda both know that very few so called conservative politicians are actually getting rid of government intrusion into ordinary people's lives. They just SAY they're doing that, while constantly expanding federal surveillance powers, military powers, police powers, and taking away more and more human rights. Just like the liberals. But hey, at least they SAY "we're fighting big government together", right?
You're mixing a lot of things here. Conservatives were indeed in charge when the patriot act was signed into law, but it had almost total bi-partisan support. I don't like it though, I agree there. So yeah, expanding federal surveillance is not just a liberal thing, for sure.
Military and police power? I guess you'll need to specify what exactly you mean by that.
Taking away more and more human rights? Again, you'll have to define what you mean here.
They say we're fighting big government together? Some do, I suppose, but what a politician says seldom has much to do with what they do. Looking at history is a better way to judge, individual politicians all have different takes on policy, the best you can do is pick one that seems most likely to do what you want.
Seems like one thing we agree on is that we don't like liberals or conservatives. So at least there's that. I thought Brianna was a liberal who "leans progressive" or could even "become progressive". And I mean, maybe someday. But oy, maybe not today lol.
You're using progressive to mean something different from liberal. I apologize if you've already explained the distinction as you see it, but I don't think I understand entirely what you mean. Brianna is a documented liar and scam artist, so like I said about history, it doesn't really matter what she says at the moment, look at how she has acted in the past. There's nothing there to suggest she would be a serious progressive or liberal candidate.
When you say we agree that we don't like liberals or conservatives, I have to disagree a bit, because we seem to mean different things by that statement. I don't trust politicians. Liberal politicians and conservative politicians are politicians, they make a career out of lying, and unfortunately, due to human nature, they have to lie to get elected. So they're not to be trusted. But it'd the same thing with a socialist politician, a "progressive" politician, a nazi politician. First and foremost, they are politicians, so they shouldn't be taken at their word.
I could vote for an Eisenhower style conservative who isn't smoking an Ayn Rand crack pipe. But modern conservatives and modern "mainstream" liberals pretty much mostly want the same things in my book. Privatize everything, and screw the little guy.
I mean... that's a handy bumper sticker I guess, privatize everything and screw the little guy, but you'll need to be more specific if you want to dig any deeper into it. I'm not seeing a whole lot of Ayn Rand crack pipe smokers, but maybe if you give an example of some policy or another I could understand where you disagree.
I am trying to talk to you in good faith, and you seem to be responding in kind, so I appreciate that. I hope you don't think I'm trying to trick you or something, I think we're not clearly seeing each other's positions due to some core assumptions we don't even realize we're making. It's been quite interesting to see your point of view, and I hope you can get some deeper understanding of why someone might share similar values but vote completely differently.
