I was making a gender identity joke, but yeah there are a fair amount of middle road types.
Me too, mate. That's why I put the
.
I actually happen to be one. I love guns, think gender stuff is confusing (but I accept it mind you), am also pro choice ish, think more socialism might be good, etc.
Also, climate change is real and a problem ffs. But I generally keep up on political stuff to snark and try to get people to explain their positions because teh knowledge.
Ninja'd: you may have explained a Republican ism I could support. Gotta research Teddy's politics now.
Like I said, I think there's a lot of room for an enterprising Dem to pull the rug out from underneath the reps. The issue is that they need funding to combat the Republican Propaganda Machine that's going to be spewing out as much bullshit as possible to convince people that he doesn't really mean that because he's a SOCIALIST and he's LYING TO YOU AHHHHH!
Teddy's politics were pretty good for the early 1900's, but they're probably pretty dated by now. They'd need some good polishin' before they were presentable to the modern crowd, probably. I do recall that he was big into National Parks and stuff, because he noticed that as industrialism progressed we were losing more and more forested land, and he wanted to make sure that all the funky medicinal plants and spoopy creatures stayed alive so that we could exploit them. I think that's something a lot of Republican voters would support, but their politicans and donors are Morganites and want ALL THE THINGS RIGHT NOW, AND DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES! And Republican voters are particularly susceptible to memes, so it'd be hard to flip them even with the right arguments.
The problem with you Amerrhucans is that you don't get to have a genuine political opinion, just a binary affiliation. And if you try to break away from the mould, you get to be the Caitlyn Jenner of politics.
A big part of that is that our elections are run by a handful of donors who can pay for nation-wide ad campaigns for their pocket candidates. There's not a lot of useful restrictions on how you get money for the campaign, after all.
I know it's a small thing in the context of your larger post, but the threat to human life and destruction of resources are ethical ramifications of climate change. I think ethics gets a bad rap as 'those things that aren't practical considerations,' but it's really just about how to determine the correct course of action.
I submit to your greater linguistic fluency.
What I meant was that, to the Republican eye, Democrats want to "save the forests" because they're soft-skinned and want all the little fluffy owls and squirrels to live, and are willing to sacrifice people or people's QoL to do that. That's not the case IRL, but that's the perception. I was saying that those aren't my concerns, and if I were a politican I'd take pains to make absolutely clear that I don't give a fuck about the fluffy owl, I'm concerned about our future generations running out of wood, and hopefully impress on that segment of the population that keeping the environment stable is just smart planning.
Republicans love their babies too, and they want them to have nice things. Package environmental reform as saving some woodland for your babies at low cost, and most of them will be on your side.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4458337 times)