POLL: How conservative are you?

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

So this was an idea I had. I wrote the question from a conservative point of view.

Thanks for taking part.

Leave suggestions for topics you would like to see in another run.  

[Ido 0]

I honestly can't figure out why "Supporting Israel" and "Supporting Guaido" are "conservative" positions, imagine supporting a state based on ideology. Ah well, American politics are just another dimension

[vcczar 1,224]

I’d have to know more about Venezuela’s situation to make a statement on that. I put supporting lowering taxes but I support raising them if necessary to pass socially liberal policies, primarily on the wealthy. The goal would be to lower the taxes where we can, but that is secondary to achieving needed progressive goals. 

I support the 2nd amendment in so much that I think people aught to have guns for hunting and reasonable self-defense (pistols, no ARs)  

Almost nothing on this conservative list is appealing, and I’m often shocked that anyone would even support a selection of some of these. 

[SilentLiberty 219]

16 minutes ago, Ido said:

I honestly can't figure out why "Supporting Israel" and "Supporting Guaido" are "conservative" positions, imagine supporting a state based on ideology. Ah well, American politics are just another dimension

The American media has largely dressed up those two issues as being left vs right, nothing is that simple but if it can be dumbed down to be D vs R than that is what they try to do. It's disappointing.

[Ido 0]

As I said, having the support of an allied country be a partisan issue is one of the worst points in America @SilentLiberty

[victorraiders 0]

50 minutes ago, Ido said:

I honestly can't figure out why "Supporting Israel" and "Supporting Guaido" are "conservative" positions, imagine supporting a state based on ideology. Ah well, American politics are just another dimension

here in latinamerica are considered conservative positions too depiste guaido are leftwing he are supported by centerright/rightwing leaders example bolsonaro,pinera,duque and left don't support him(probably because are bunch of socialist farleft politics who love castro,maduro,etc) they support because say guaido will restore democracy in venezuela

[Patine 469]

3 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

So this was an idea I had. I wrote the question from a conservative point of view.

Thanks for taking part.

Leave suggestions for topics you would like to see in another run.  

Most of these things don't determine how "conservative" one is in general, only the popular portrayal of conversativism if one is an American citizen and American issues are central to one's heart. Less than half of these questions would really be relevant to determine a Canadian conservative - or an Austrian conservative, for that matter, nor do they focus on the common and broad themes that generally unite and define the concept of post-WW2 Western Conservatism as a general phenomenon (and yes, just a list of themes is easier to assemble than you might think). I'm not even remotely a conservative and this is glaring to me. And, indeed, as @Ido, some have strangely defined provenance as being 'conservative" by nature.

[Actinguy 862]

3 hours ago, Ido said:

As I said, having the support of an allied country be a partisan issue is one of the worst points in America @SilentLiberty

Oh, I assure you we get MUCH worse.

For example...*waves hands in the general direction of everything*

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

3 hours ago, Ido said:

As I said, having the support of an allied country be a partisan issue is one of the worst points in America @SilentLiberty

More like a leech tbh

[Patine 469]

9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Oh, I assure you we get MUCH worse.

For example...*waves hands in the general direction of everything*

 

3 hours ago, Ido said:

As I said, having the support of an allied country be a partisan issue is one of the worst points in America @SilentLiberty

Although, to be fair, maintaining the American alliance with France from the Revolutionary War after France's own Revolution, or making a permanent peace and new, lucrative trade deal with the British Empire was very much a PARTISAN issue in the EARLY First Party System. It's not remotely a new concept.

[Patine 469]

5 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

The American media has largely dressed up those two issues as being left vs right, nothing is that simple but if it can be dumbed down to be D vs R than that is what they try to do. It's disappointing.

I feel @Conservative Elector 2's are not actually even asking a list of questions really tied to gauging "Conservativism." They are solely, strictly, and narrowly a measure of 21st Century American George W. Bush-instigated Neo-Conservatism, and a significant number of people who would be considered, or consider themselves, staunch Conservatives, globally certainly, but even in the U.S. (like a lot of Classical Libertarians) would not be truly "Conservative" by this reckoning. I find this list of questions poorly assembled and chosen.

[Ido 0]

Honestly as an Israeli, I look at our apparently "greatest ally" debating our existence and future like it's a toy to be played with and it being a partisan issue, just makes me sad.

Also I kinda have to point out, when a lot of people style themselves with this new hip title "anti-Israel", they tell me that they're just against the government. Ah yes, I'm against Netanyahu too, he's a corrupt piece of shit and I'm glad he lost the vote last Tuesday. Still doesn't make me "anti-Israel". People flinging the title "anti-Israel" around just makes me sad.

[Patine 469]

2 minutes ago, Ido said:

Honestly as an Israeli, I look at our apparently "greatest ally" debating our existence and future like it's a toy to be played with and it being a partisan issue, just makes me sad.

Also I kinda have to point out, when a lot of people style themselves with this new hip title "anti-Israel", they tell me that they're just against the government. Ah yes, I'm against Netanyahu too, he's a corrupt piece of shit and I'm glad he lost the vote last Tuesday. Still doesn't make me "anti-Israel". People flinging the title "anti-Israel" around just makes me sad.

Let's me fair here on one thing, at least. Pragmatically, this isn't the 1950's. Even if the U.S. never gave another penny or bullet to Israel again, and made them buy any future armaments in cash, like many of their NATO allies have to do, and didn't go out of their way to give endless diplomatic support, at this point Israel could still defeat ALL of their neighbours and is not under any existencial military threat to their existence from the entire military forces of the Middle East - national and insurgent militia - combined. Just a practical look at the situation in the cold light of day.

[Ido 0]

And that connects to my point because....?

 

Even if Israel has the military might, no reason to isolate itself from the world

[Patine 469]

1 minute ago, Ido said:

And that connects to my point because....?

 

Even if Israel has the military might, no reason to isolate itself from the world

I wasn't talking about isolation, at least not myself. I was talking about military self-sufficiency, rather than receiving constant military aid and equipment, and diplomatic interference by the U.S. that is often counter-productive and causes jarring ripples in a delicate and tense situation and military and political arena.

[Ido 0]

Honestly the aid thing helps America more than Israel, it prohibits Israel from selling weapons abroad, if America ended aid, Israel could potentially gain much more money by selling weapons to other countries.

[Patine 469]

2 minutes ago, Ido said:

Honestly the aid thing helps America more than Israel, it prohibits Israel from selling weapons abroad, if America ended aid, Israel could potentially gain much more money by selling weapons to other countries.

Oh, how is this trade ban so? Why do Ecuador, Peru, and South Africa have Kfir's in their air forces? Why are Uzi's so prolific around the world? This ban doesn't seem to be there in practice.

[Ido 0]

The Uzi was made and marketed before the 1979 treaty that started this whole thing, and so was the Kfir

and even if they were exported, I think the exact ban was on exporting "newer" weapons, so the Uzi and Kfir were out of the umbrella

[Patine 469]

1 minute ago, Ido said:

The Uzi was made and marketed before the 1979 treaty that started this whole thing, and so was the Kfir

Still, there's a broader thing. I believe big powers like the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, etc. should stop meddling entirely in the damned Middle East! Such meddling has never, in the long-term, done any good and only harm. In fact, the whole institution of "Islamic Terrorism" and "Islamist Fundamentalism Politics," as they are manifest in the Post-WW2 world, did not exist in Islamic history prior to the end of WW2, going all the way back in that history to Muhammed. It is a very new phenomenon, historically speaking, and is purely a reaction to Western and Soviet (and later Russian) interests, in the region - and thus nations are - as Ron Paul, indeed, pointed out in 2008 - the instigators of these movements and the ones who stirred up "the hornets' nest" against themselves.

[Ido 0]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Still, there's a broader thing. I believe big powers like the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, etc. should stop meddling entirely in the damned Middle East! Such meddling has never, in the long-term, done any good and only harm. In fact, the whole institution of "Islamic Terrorism" and "Islamist Fundamentalism Politics," as they are manifest in the Post-WW2 world, did not exist in Islamic history prior to the end of WW2, going all the way back in that history to Muhammed. It is a very new phenomenon, historically speaking, and is purely a reaction to Western and Soviet (and later Russian) interests, in the region - and thus nations are - as Ron Paul, indeed, pointed out in 2008 - the instigators of these movements and the ones who stirred up "the hornets' nest" against themselves.

This still doesn't take into account the fact that Israel really wants to be America's ally, ever since the 1940s, Israel refrained from getting too much on America's nerves

in 1956 when it, the UK and France attacked Egypt, when the US issued a demand to stop the whole thing, Israel stopped

in the 70s, when America pressured Israel to develop an agreement with Egypt, Israel didn't argue too much

in the 90s, when America again pressured Israel to talk with the PLO, while hesitant at first, they did

 

Basically, Israel didn't want to get on America's bad side and see Israeli-American relationships as vital and frankly good, it's more of a relationship between "Friends" rather than an overlord and a vassal

[Patine 469]

14 minutes ago, Ido said:

This still doesn't take into account the fact that Israel really wants to be America's ally, ever since the 1940s, Israel refrained from getting too much on America's nerves

in 1956 when it, the UK and France attacked Egypt, when the US issued a demand to stop the whole thing, Israel stopped

in the 70s, when America pressured Israel to develop an agreement with Egypt, Israel didn't argue too much

in the 90s, when America again pressured Israel to talk with the PLO, while hesitant at first, they did

 

Basically, Israel didn't want to get on America's bad side and see Israeli-American relationships as vital and frankly good, it's more of a relationship between "Friends" rather than an overlord and a vassal

Also, how do you feel completely comfortable with this ally who ALSO considers the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be a good friend and ally?

[Ido 0]

As it stands in Middle Eastern realpolitik, the biggest threat is Iran, so the biggest superpower in the world having your back is always good

[Patine 469]

2 minutes ago, Ido said:

As it stands in Middle Eastern realpolitik, the biggest threat is Iran, so the biggest superpower in the world having your back is always good

Well, the Iranian Revolution would never have happened if the U.S., UK, and Israel didn't strongarm the Shah into selling out his nation and all of it's resources acting flagrantly against his people's and nation's interests, and needlessly antagonizing the religious vast majority community, with such a show of contempt and derision. Of course, what came after the Revolution was far worse, and I am definitely not in support of it, but the cause of it is very clear indeed. The "meddling" thing I was talking about.

[Ido 0]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, the Iranian Revolution would never have happened if the U.S., UK, and Israel didn't strongarm the Shah into selling out his nation and all of it's resources acting flagrantly against his people's and nation's interests, and needlessly antagonizing the religious vast majority community, with such a show of contempt and derision. Of course, what came after the Revolution was far worse, and I am definitely not in support of it, but the cause of it is very clear indeed. The "meddling" thing I was talking about.

Correct, but I was talking about the current dynamics

[darkmoon72 2]

Some of these in #1 are tough, and my opinion is a bit more nuanced than the statements themselves.  Since I can't just vote in #2 (I'm a liberal and proud of it), I left everything blank.

For example:

"I recognize Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela" - hard for me to say what the best outcome for Venezuela is right now, although I have serious concerns about both Maduro and Guaidó, and have entertained the possibility that neither of them are really great for the country.  It seems Venezuela may just be another proxy war.

"I support an intervention in a foreign country if US interests are threatened" - really depends on what you mean by this.  If "threatened" means "we're being invaded right now", I would absolutely agree.  If "threatened" means "we made up fictitious reasons to invade another country that didn't attack us, like George W. Bush's Iraq War", my answer is no.  And there's a whole lot of grey area between those two extremes.

"I support reducing taxes" - far too broad a statement.  I definitely think the US tax system is backwards - income is taxed more than capital gains, and I think the two should largely be reversed, and higher incomes taxed more progressively than they are now.  On the other hand, I do prefer more regressive taxes being reduced, like sales taxes, because they disproportionately hurt poorer people.

"I support Israel and it's government" - I definitely support Israel's right to exist, which not everyone does.  I also generally support democratic peace theory, and Israel is hands-down the most stable democracy in the Middle East.  But I can't stand Netanyahu, or indeed many Likud leaders, and would be quite happy to see Benny Gantz become PM instead, and Netanyahu in prison for his corruption scandals.

"I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana" - well, sure, but only because I believe marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, much like alcohol and cigarettes.  "Decriminalization" doesn't go far enough - there's still a black market.

"I support making flag desecration a criminal offense" - depending on how the "desecration" occurs, in some cases it already is a criminal offense.  Arson, theft, and vandalism, for example, are already criminal offenses, and I am perfectly fine with that.  But I don't think we need an additional law specific to the flag itself, and what constitutes "desecration" is often in the eye of the beholder - some people think hanging a flag upside down is desecration, for example.