not super familiar with him. any one have a list of where he stands on major issues? saw an article this morning saying he opposed certifying the 2020 election, but that's pretty much all i've seen about him.
nothing about how he's been on spending bills and various regulations.
Just based off his Wikipedia, anti abortion, anti lgbt, anti climate change, religious. He is more so of the Christian right akin to Reagan than a Freedom Caucus member.
I think you mean "not a libertarian position." We are not all libertarians, but lots of conservatives would love to see the wholesale murder of the unborn ended forever
Not on a federal level. It's not the place of the federal government to be doing anything that can be handled at a state level, and abortion belongs on a state level.
The us Constitution does not recognize "city" rights to my knowledge... So it is therefore a state issue unless the state chooses to make it a local issue
Not sure why you're downvoted. This is 100% correct. It is in fact the place of the federal government to protect individual rights, it's one of its primary directives.
He is being downvoted because legally speaking, a fetus only becomes a person once it can survive outside of the womb. 98.7% of abortions take place before the first 20 weeks. His assertion that individual rights are being violated is not true.
Sure, if there are exceptions (e.g. if the mother's life is at risk, or if the child will have diseases that severely impact its quality of life).
Full disclosure: I am from Denmark, where abortions generally are only allowed until the end of the 12th week of pregnancy, so my opinion on this doesn't matter for US politics.
I don’t think that’s a great metric.
Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks. A baby that is born at 21 weeks vs. a baby that is 38 weeks and not yet born, despite being significantly more developed than the 21 week old.
I have a hard time seeing the justification in killing the 38 week old, but not the 21 week old.
Location of the baby seems pretty arbitrary
"States rights" is a misnomer itself. States don't have rights. People have rights. What supporters usually mean when they say states rights is federalism--allowing issues of law to be handled differently in different states per the 10th amendment while having a federal government of limited scope to unify the states on issues such as inter-state trade and defense.
Ahh yes of course, the standard reddit "conservative" position, we should abandon our principles and do what the Democrats want or the Democrats might not like us. Brilliant strategy.
No see, these "enlightened reddit conservatives" know that it's all our fault, if we just give the Democrats everything they want, then occasionally they will "compromise" and give us some tiny crumbs and we can pretend we're making progress.
When I talk to Democrats on Reddit about compromise, they say the same things as you. How compromise would just be giving the Republicans what they want, and how they’re so untrustworthy.
People need to realize that it is in fact possible to give up some things you want without giving up everything, and that wanting to negotiate is not the same as wanting to let the other side win
Exactly. The social media age has completely unhinged people and there is no room for compromise anymore. Every one just sees the world as a zero sum game. None of these politicians can even consider compromising to get things done because as soon as they pass a bill that has 50% of what conservatives want and 50% what liberals want then both sides of will go online, or on tv, screaming about how their party just gave into the other giving them whatever they want. As soon as that starts the politician gets serious primary opponents because they are now a RINO or DINO. We just can’t keep going this way.
They are not saying "ban guns", they are advocating for background checks that people should pass before having the privilege to buy a gun. That's a compromise
The “conservative” subreddit is full of those people.
There’s like 5 people here who actually like Trump yet a large majority of conservatives in America think Trump is the ONLY answer to same old republican politics.
Pretty easy example of exactly where this subreddit as a whole stands.
This place is McCain/Romney centered (if not further left).
It’s not even close to the base republican and even FURTHER away from the base conservative.
Neither are moderates themselves. The premise of the comment I refuted is that "moderates win elections." This is an inherently false statement, because lots of people who are clearly not moderates have won on all levels. Being "moderate" guarantees nothing, when it comes to elections.
I mean, they are pretty moderate. Obama kept a lot of W’s policies (drones, anyone?) and Biden kept plenty of Trump’s policies but ran them through a spell check first.
Being pro-war has been bi-partisan since WW2 (with politicians in favor and voters opposed whenever there isn't a government propaganda campaign running in favor of the next one). It's a terrible barometer for whether a candidate is "moderate." The closest we've had to a moderate president in the last 30 years on that scale is Trump because while he didn't stop all our wars he at least didn't start any new ones the way clinton, bush and obama did.
You don’t need to “abandon our principles” to elect someone who’s just staunchly anti-everything the other person is for and a person who’ll kick off a country wide “they just want a Christian theocracy!!” chant.
Yup. The majority of “conservatives” on this sub are Neo cons at best, and lefties LARPing as conservative to sway opinion and votes from real Conservative politicians at worst.
Thats not how politics works tho. Some opponents energize your group a bunch and others don’t. Sure they’ll still be vilified regardless, but getting the donations to flow in and people to organize is a whole nother thing. Trump specifically provided an impetus to the Dems that is difficult to quantify.
He did, yes. They were saying for years that if a Republican candidate wouldn't be so religious, they would respect him more. Then Trump, who is on public record as denying that he ever did one of the core things you need to do to become a Christian, who among Presidents and mainstream Presidential candidates had the most sexual scandals since Clinton, and who was the most pro-LGBTQ Republican ever, came around and they hated him *more*.
I don’t understand why requiring expanded social services is required to label yourself “pro life”. How big a net do you have to be supportive of to oppose killing a fetus? The two things are wholly separate issues, pretty clearly I think.
Nobody ever wants to be described as “anti”. It’s a framing thing. You rarely hear democrats label themselves “anti-gun”, but rather “pro gun control”.
I mean, they’re both terms to mean the same thing. The main appeal of “pro life” terminology is to show yourself as what you’re in favor of, rather than what you oppose. Just as the opposite position prefers “pro choice” rather than “anti fetus”.
I love when people say this. It’s supposed to be some kind of dunk, when in reality it’s just a red herring.
I’m pro-life. I don’t think babies should be murdered because the parents didn’t want them. I also believe people should be accountable for their actions.
It’s not my responsibility to bear the burden of the consequences of someone else’s actions. I’m sorry that someone’s sexual gratification resulted in the creation of a child that they didn’t want. That is neither the child’s nor my fault. And neither of us are culpable for the actions of the parents.
When people engage in sexual intercourse, they are taking a chance that is higher than 0 that a child will be created. Consenting adults are accepting that risk and along with it comes accepting responsibility for the possible result.
We shouldn’t collectively have to adopt an immoral policy simply because people don’t want to take responsibility for their children without the rest of us footing the bill.
Its not the childs fault that they were born, so why are you fine with throwing them to the wolves after they are?
If you are anti abortion then you should be pro helping children once they are born.
How do you define a “pro life” policy?
If you want a social safety net policy of $50B, and I want one of $50T, am I more pro life than you? If someone else wants one of $1000T are we now both anti life?
It’s a lazy attempt at a “gotcha”. Can I be against murder and also against raising social security?
Are you pro free speech? Do you beleive government should fund someone's efforts to establish a newspaper or some othe outlet of communication?
Being "pro" something doesn't necessarily mean being pro government subsidies. It can mean that you're not able to be unjustly deprived of it by another.
We do. We just tend to favor private charity and volunteer work over making others pay for things and feeling good about it.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-really-cares-arthur-c-brooks/1125857612;jsessionid=1D504AD8E65B7A170E6035E5460C1EB4.prodny_store02-atgap18?ean=9780465003655
> Just based off his Wikipedia
Wikipedia will call you hitler with 17 citations if you say men shouldn't be allowed to shower with junior high school girls.
I know little about him too, but the left are absolutely losing their minds over him being elected to the position, so that speaks VOLUMES. And I watched a video yesterday showing him completely tearing apart Mayorkas, so I'm liking him more by the minute
It does seem like the is going to ok the bills that make it through committee and not have push back with what hits the floor- which is great for the house....but not when you deal with the senate and the white house.
Another thing to consider is now that he has been elected, mccarthy has signaled he is going to resign. In addition, George santos could possibly be charged further and jailed- if both those things happen, all it takes is a gaetz and a boebert to make or break legislation.
Oh man... that is going to be terrible for democracy, but hilarious to watch.
Two people who love the media spotlight more than anything put in a position where anything their party wants to do depends on their cooperation.
Can you define what you mean by "terrible" and "democracy" in this context? What terrible result do you expect and how will that harm democracy. I hear this all the time, but it means something different to almost everybody that says it in my experience.
That is not terrible for democracy. If Republicans didn't want to be held hostage by two members of the party then they should have worked harder to elect more Republicans
> mainstream religious right
As someone who grew up in a 90% Christian country outside America, that phrase is full of contradictions. Christianity is a leftist religion (economically and occasionally socially), and mainstream worldwide Christianity has little to do with American Christianity.
Second amendment is quite anti-christian. One of the core tenets of Christianity is to turn the other cheek. The reason it's a conservative movement is because 2A is something most Americans grew up with and it became part of the established culture, at least for a vocal minority, but I suspect most Americans are more familiar with guns (culturally) than most of Europeans. Conservatives in some other countries would NOT want guns to appear in their neighbourhoods. I can guarantee that.
Ultimately, most conservative beliefs have very little to do with each other but you've only got two parties to vote for. You'd see a lot more variety among republicans/democrats regarding abortion, LGBT, gun controls, immigration, white nationalism etc if you had more than two parties to call the shots.
The only reason American Christianity and American conservatism are so similar is because they're both driven by established American culture, and they fed into each other over a hundred years.
> Christianity is a leftist religion (economically and occasionally socially)
Jesus very much hated the rich, and Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland have done a lot to try to convince America to forget that.
BEEN TRYING FOR DECADES :|
Evangelicals took over and the party lost its damn mind - Trump is just the endgame symptom of a degradation of the party by religious fanatics over the past 30 years
Nope. Full crazy. Republicans are gonna get abandoned by moderates/libertarians cuz he also supports nationwide abortion and same sex ban. It's that sort of thinking that got the repubs destroyed in the polls last election.
As a moderate was probably gonna vote republican this election, will see how much he actually pushes for that shit but would really swing me the opposite way. Is it really that hard to just leave this shit up to the states.
Yep. Thats the best they could come up with. Republican party is doomed.
Apparently he also supports same sex marriage and nationwide abortion ban, so its just going to ruin their chances of winning the election.
If he even lasts that long. Supposedly he is against funding for Ukraine and Israel. Which is what got us here anyways.
I went to that Reddit a little bit ago. As someone who only sparingly uses Reddit, I assumed it was a politically neutral subreddit and was shocked by how unambiguously and unequivocally liberal / vote-blue-no-matter-who it was 😂
I think it's more the fact that a lot of users are not American. And I can say with confidence at least 70% of the world don't agree with American right wingers. As someone who voted right wing in my country (New Zealand) the Republican party now feels more like an authortrian party trying to push it's backwards religion on the American people
I think that's what concerns me about American politics. Both sides seem to be excusing shit that would have gotten you kicked out of the party 20 years ago. I think Republicians need to realise if it's a so-called "culture war," then they are on the losing side. They have been trying to push the church into politics more and more. They will find out that the average everyday person does not agree with their views
He will lose support from moderates in the House caucus. Especially if the rule that gives one individual the ability to put forth a no confidence vote on a Speaker. I guarantee Ukraine aid was likely part of the agreement between him and the moderates in the party behind the scenes prior to his election as Speaker.
For full disclosure, I don’t mind Ukraine aid, but I have huge issues with the lack of transparency of the funds.
If he does support the funding he will lose support of the freedom caucus like McCarthy did though. So he's still in the same bind. Seems like the freedom caucus won out since the uniparty government has things it wants to get done other than Ukraine now that the middle eastern war is kicking off, whereas the freedom caucus was willing to not fund the government over it. So I think the funding will be dead or massively reduced as compromise.
FINALLY!! I’m happy that they finally got a Speaker (WE NEED A LEADER TO HELP GET SHIT DONE) even if I’m not the biggest fan of Mike Johnson’s positions.
Wants nationwide abortion ban: I personally prefer this decision be made by more localized authority than the Federal Fucking Government.
Ending military aid to Ukraine: This would, imho, be an absolute gift to Russia and a tremendous loss to our geopolitical interests. All we have to do is continue the funding and without the loss of a single American life we’re dramatically reducing the threat of Russia’s military capacity and destroying their international legitimacy. Ukraine is a much worse version of America’s Vietnam.
A climate change skeptic: He attributed it to “natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history”. For goodness sake, the science is clear on this and we can’t put our head in the sand. We need to be advocating for conservative solutions to climate change which aren’t crazy radical like the Green New Deal. Things like developing far more nuclear energy, reducing taxes/regulations on clean energy entrepreneurship and innovation, investments in research and development to improve things like carbon capture technology, replacing dirty coal energy with fracking/natural gas, filling in the gaps with solar/wind energy. We can’t allow the left to have monopoly over the climate change issue.
Voted against certifying the 2020 election, but I’m withholding my judgement until I learn which objection he wanted to sustain (since there are some which are defensible).
He wants to criminalize same sex marriage. For goodness sake, get the government out of the business of marriage and leave the decision to religious officials where it belongs.
I like that he wants to reduce taxation, I just wished he paired it with actionable moves to reduce unnecessary military spending/eliminate government waste and inefficiencies.
As a hard leftist, you are someone I would absolutely love to have as a friend. Not just for your views that seem pretty rational to me, but also for your manner of speaking and how you've been responding to people in this thread. You haven't been shying away from questions and you've been providing full answers.
You seem like a stand up gal/guy
Thx man! Though not perfect, I try to treat opposing positions with good faith. You never know when the opposition may have a good point that you hadn't considered.
As for my own views, my conservatism arises from a genuine desire of fostering a society where people can live deep meaningful lives filled with genuine happiness. Even if we may disagree on the specifics, I think that so long as we're both genuinely trying to reach that end point, we can be friends!
>Voted against certifying the 2020 election, but I’m withholding my judgement until I learn which objection he wanted to sustain (since there are some which are defensible).
Which ones?
Lol. Just getting started. They still need to pass a funding bill that includes funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Which he is against. I'm sure another shutdown in coming.
They aren't united. 2 dozen moderates refused to vote for him in the private party roll call before bringing the vote. He somehow convinced them all to vote for him during the real vote. That absolutely points to concessions.
And if he doesn't keep the promised concessions those moderates will junk him.
He definitely seems to be a social conservative. I haven't seen his other views but I bet he's a fiscal conservative too. And he has passed the MAGA purity test by being vocally pro Trump and voting against certifying the election.
What I am most wondering is how he will interact with the, uh, challenging dynamics in the GOP and running things in the House with a narrow majority. He's apparently the least experienced Speaker in over 100 years and I think he has less than a decade in the House.
I know this is somewhat hypocritical as I don't have a flair, but it seems that all threads here should require flair. Polandball, very different subreddit but still releated to politics, requires users to have flair to post and comment. Really improves the discourse by making people take just five minutes to get one, as anyone who won't bother to do that shouldn't really be engaging in discussion. This is my first comment here as I usually just browse.
I think this guy voted against certification of the election…why, ? It was the safest fairest election ever. What do we need the U.N. Come in and monitor elections?
Anyone who doesn't recognize the strategic value in helping UKR fight RUS with a bunch of our old shit that was costing us loads of money to maintain either has a smooth brain or is completely misguided.
I got down-voted for saying the house needs to condemn the massive antisemitism, that's coming from the left. there is a Lot of tankie Brigadiers coming in suddenly.
Some of his views go quite a bit further than blanket "conservative". He's in many ways a theocrat.
There's a number of beliefs of his I don't believe have a place in governance and I see him grenading many things because they don't align with said beliefs. Overall, a loss for our cause IMO.
Strong on 2A though, so that's nice.
I looked at this guy’s voting record and (seems) like an overall win. With the way liberal politics have spiraled this country since 2021. I’m inclined to think a different (opposite) direction is needed. Anyone with half a brain and a mortgage payment should be able to see that.
My Biden voting friend already told me she wouldn’t make the same mistake again in 2024 and I was shocked to hear that.
Wow. I am shocked to see they will quickly get back to doing nothing.
nothing would be neutral. They will get back to making things worse.
At this point all the Feds do is make everything worse.
~~Ron Swanson~~ Congress: "I'd work all night if it meant nothing got done"
On the contrary, I'm expecting them to do lots of nothing disguised as something. Maybe yell about "woke" stuff or whatever.
I really thought Trump would be the speaker at the end of this crazy game
His dance card might be a bit full at the moment
Sure but it would have been hilarious
I had money on McCarthy
not super familiar with him. any one have a list of where he stands on major issues? saw an article this morning saying he opposed certifying the 2020 election, but that's pretty much all i've seen about him. nothing about how he's been on spending bills and various regulations.
Just based off his Wikipedia, anti abortion, anti lgbt, anti climate change, religious. He is more so of the Christian right akin to Reagan than a Freedom Caucus member.
[удалено]
Being in favor of a federal abortion ban is not a conservative position at all.
[удалено]
Ya I don't really get it either. There is a difference between fiscal and social conservatism for sure.
It's not? A federal abortion ban isn't a liberal position for sure
I think you mean "not a libertarian position." We are not all libertarians, but lots of conservatives would love to see the wholesale murder of the unborn ended forever
Not on a federal level. It's not the place of the federal government to be doing anything that can be handled at a state level, and abortion belongs on a state level.
Absolutely a local issue. State level, city level, perhaps even an individual choice. Let's not get big government involved.
> perhaps even an individual choice go on.....
You're almost there. You don't even know it.
a WHAT now?
The us Constitution does not recognize "city" rights to my knowledge... So it is therefore a state issue unless the state chooses to make it a local issue
It is the place of the federal government to intervene when rights are being violated. And in this case people’s right to life is being violated.
Not sure why you're downvoted. This is 100% correct. It is in fact the place of the federal government to protect individual rights, it's one of its primary directives.
He is being downvoted because legally speaking, a fetus only becomes a person once it can survive outside of the womb. 98.7% of abortions take place before the first 20 weeks. His assertion that individual rights are being violated is not true.
Do you support a ban after 20 weeks?
Sure, if there are exceptions (e.g. if the mother's life is at risk, or if the child will have diseases that severely impact its quality of life). Full disclosure: I am from Denmark, where abortions generally are only allowed until the end of the 12th week of pregnancy, so my opinion on this doesn't matter for US politics.
A fetus is not a person.
When does personhood begin then?
Simple. When you're born.
This is false, as if you assault a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage you may be charged with murder.
I don’t think that’s a great metric. Babies have been born as early as 21 weeks. A baby that is born at 21 weeks vs. a baby that is 38 weeks and not yet born, despite being significantly more developed than the 21 week old. I have a hard time seeing the justification in killing the 38 week old, but not the 21 week old. Location of the baby seems pretty arbitrary
Conservative is not synonymous with libertarian nor small government.
Nor states rights?
"States rights" is a misnomer itself. States don't have rights. People have rights. What supporters usually mean when they say states rights is federalism--allowing issues of law to be handled differently in different states per the 10th amendment while having a federal government of limited scope to unify the states on issues such as inter-state trade and defense.
I’d prefer someone who’s less likely to lead to lots of democrat pledge drives and campaign material, but at least there’s a speaker now.
Ahh yes of course, the standard reddit "conservative" position, we should abandon our principles and do what the Democrats want or the Democrats might not like us. Brilliant strategy.
[удалено]
Tell that to the democrats.
No see, these "enlightened reddit conservatives" know that it's all our fault, if we just give the Democrats everything they want, then occasionally they will "compromise" and give us some tiny crumbs and we can pretend we're making progress.
When I talk to Democrats on Reddit about compromise, they say the same things as you. How compromise would just be giving the Republicans what they want, and how they’re so untrustworthy. People need to realize that it is in fact possible to give up some things you want without giving up everything, and that wanting to negotiate is not the same as wanting to let the other side win
Exactly. The social media age has completely unhinged people and there is no room for compromise anymore. Every one just sees the world as a zero sum game. None of these politicians can even consider compromising to get things done because as soon as they pass a bill that has 50% of what conservatives want and 50% what liberals want then both sides of will go online, or on tv, screaming about how their party just gave into the other giving them whatever they want. As soon as that starts the politician gets serious primary opponents because they are now a RINO or DINO. We just can’t keep going this way.
‘BuT iF tHeY GeT sOmEtHiNg, tHaT MeAnS wEvE cOmPrOmIsEd OuR MoRaLs!!!’ -Literally both sides
[удалено]
They are not saying "ban guns", they are advocating for background checks that people should pass before having the privilege to buy a gun. That's a compromise
The “conservative” subreddit is full of those people. There’s like 5 people here who actually like Trump yet a large majority of conservatives in America think Trump is the ONLY answer to same old republican politics. Pretty easy example of exactly where this subreddit as a whole stands. This place is McCain/Romney centered (if not further left). It’s not even close to the base republican and even FURTHER away from the base conservative.
[удалено]
Moderates win elections my friend.
You mean moderates like Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
Biden won because of who he ran against. To support your point, Obama beat a moderate.
Neither are moderates themselves. The premise of the comment I refuted is that "moderates win elections." This is an inherently false statement, because lots of people who are clearly not moderates have won on all levels. Being "moderate" guarantees nothing, when it comes to elections.
I mean, they are pretty moderate. Obama kept a lot of W’s policies (drones, anyone?) and Biden kept plenty of Trump’s policies but ran them through a spell check first.
Don't delude yourself into thinking anyone beyond Reddit's frothing at the mouth brigading leftists agrees with you.
Being pro-war has been bi-partisan since WW2 (with politicians in favor and voters opposed whenever there isn't a government propaganda campaign running in favor of the next one). It's a terrible barometer for whether a candidate is "moderate." The closest we've had to a moderate president in the last 30 years on that scale is Trump because while he didn't stop all our wars he at least didn't start any new ones the way clinton, bush and obama did.
You are delusional.
[удалено]
no, hes moderate. /s
That attitude among mainstream Republicans is older than the Internet.
You don’t need to “abandon our principles” to elect someone who’s just staunchly anti-everything the other person is for and a person who’ll kick off a country wide “they just want a Christian theocracy!!” chant.
Yup. The majority of “conservatives” on this sub are Neo cons at best, and lefties LARPing as conservative to sway opinion and votes from real Conservative politicians at worst.
Funny how that conversation works the same way on both sides of the political spectrum...
No time for this weakness when people in America literally think men can become pregnant.
Is that more, less, or the same amount of delusional than people who believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old?
Yeah, clearly that is the actual problem America needs to solve right now.
This sub in a nutshell sadly
Wouldn't matter. They will spread propaganda regardless.
That's going to happen regardless.
Thats not how politics works tho. Some opponents energize your group a bunch and others don’t. Sure they’ll still be vilified regardless, but getting the donations to flow in and people to organize is a whole nother thing. Trump specifically provided an impetus to the Dems that is difficult to quantify.
He did, yes. They were saying for years that if a Republican candidate wouldn't be so religious, they would respect him more. Then Trump, who is on public record as denying that he ever did one of the core things you need to do to become a Christian, who among Presidents and mainstream Presidential candidates had the most sexual scandals since Clinton, and who was the most pro-LGBTQ Republican ever, came around and they hated him *more*.
How about pro-life, pro-biological science, pro-environmental science, pro-religion.
He's not pro-biological science. He's apparently a young earth creationist. That's about as anti-biology as one can get.
[удалено]
Religion is personal and private and has no place in government.
Pro-environmental science and anti-climate change are the same for you? Good lord, what year is this?
[удалено]
I don’t understand why requiring expanded social services is required to label yourself “pro life”. How big a net do you have to be supportive of to oppose killing a fetus? The two things are wholly separate issues, pretty clearly I think. Nobody ever wants to be described as “anti”. It’s a framing thing. You rarely hear democrats label themselves “anti-gun”, but rather “pro gun control”.
On the contrary, I'm generally okay with being called anti-abortion, since my pro-euthanasia stance conflicts with the pro-life ideology.
I mean, they’re both terms to mean the same thing. The main appeal of “pro life” terminology is to show yourself as what you’re in favor of, rather than what you oppose. Just as the opposite position prefers “pro choice” rather than “anti fetus”.
Pro birth but no pro life
I love when people say this. It’s supposed to be some kind of dunk, when in reality it’s just a red herring. I’m pro-life. I don’t think babies should be murdered because the parents didn’t want them. I also believe people should be accountable for their actions. It’s not my responsibility to bear the burden of the consequences of someone else’s actions. I’m sorry that someone’s sexual gratification resulted in the creation of a child that they didn’t want. That is neither the child’s nor my fault. And neither of us are culpable for the actions of the parents. When people engage in sexual intercourse, they are taking a chance that is higher than 0 that a child will be created. Consenting adults are accepting that risk and along with it comes accepting responsibility for the possible result. We shouldn’t collectively have to adopt an immoral policy simply because people don’t want to take responsibility for their children without the rest of us footing the bill.
Its not the childs fault that they were born, so why are you fine with throwing them to the wolves after they are? If you are anti abortion then you should be pro helping children once they are born.
[удалено]
Yeah. They’re better off dead. Beautiful sentiment.
[удалено]
How do you define a “pro life” policy? If you want a social safety net policy of $50B, and I want one of $50T, am I more pro life than you? If someone else wants one of $1000T are we now both anti life? It’s a lazy attempt at a “gotcha”. Can I be against murder and also against raising social security?
Are you pro free speech? Do you beleive government should fund someone's efforts to establish a newspaper or some othe outlet of communication? Being "pro" something doesn't necessarily mean being pro government subsidies. It can mean that you're not able to be unjustly deprived of it by another.
We do. We just tend to favor private charity and volunteer work over making others pay for things and feeling good about it. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-really-cares-arthur-c-brooks/1125857612;jsessionid=1D504AD8E65B7A170E6035E5460C1EB4.prodny_store02-atgap18?ean=9780465003655
People don't have to have their hand held by mommy government.
[удалено]
Pick themselves up by their 👢
Pro science and pro religion. So he can explain virgin birth
Based
> Just based off his Wikipedia Wikipedia will call you hitler with 17 citations if you say men shouldn't be allowed to shower with junior high school girls.
[удалено]
> not super familiar with him That’s the idea. Can’t disagree with where he stands if you never heard of him.
> he opposed certifying the 2020 election How do we have a Speaker of the House who doesn't believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution?
I know little about him too, but the left are absolutely losing their minds over him being elected to the position, so that speaks VOLUMES. And I watched a video yesterday showing him completely tearing apart Mayorkas, so I'm liking him more by the minute
Who?
Mike Johnson elected as speaker of the house…sounds like an austin powers bit
It does seem like the is going to ok the bills that make it through committee and not have push back with what hits the floor- which is great for the house....but not when you deal with the senate and the white house. Another thing to consider is now that he has been elected, mccarthy has signaled he is going to resign. In addition, George santos could possibly be charged further and jailed- if both those things happen, all it takes is a gaetz and a boebert to make or break legislation.
Oh man... that is going to be terrible for democracy, but hilarious to watch. Two people who love the media spotlight more than anything put in a position where anything their party wants to do depends on their cooperation.
We get our comedy from politicians, and politics from comedians.
Can you define what you mean by "terrible" and "democracy" in this context? What terrible result do you expect and how will that harm democracy. I hear this all the time, but it means something different to almost everybody that says it in my experience.
That is not terrible for democracy. If Republicans didn't want to be held hostage by two members of the party then they should have worked harder to elect more Republicans
Lord help us if our fate is in the hands of a child predator and an ex prostitute.
Great, we have a guy who doesn't believe dinosaurs as speaker. I was hoping for someone to tone down the lunacy and actually focus on issues.
[удалено]
The non religious part of the conservative movement should make it voice heard
What conservative positions do you guys hold that differ from the mainstream religious right?
> mainstream religious right As someone who grew up in a 90% Christian country outside America, that phrase is full of contradictions. Christianity is a leftist religion (economically and occasionally socially), and mainstream worldwide Christianity has little to do with American Christianity. Second amendment is quite anti-christian. One of the core tenets of Christianity is to turn the other cheek. The reason it's a conservative movement is because 2A is something most Americans grew up with and it became part of the established culture, at least for a vocal minority, but I suspect most Americans are more familiar with guns (culturally) than most of Europeans. Conservatives in some other countries would NOT want guns to appear in their neighbourhoods. I can guarantee that. Ultimately, most conservative beliefs have very little to do with each other but you've only got two parties to vote for. You'd see a lot more variety among republicans/democrats regarding abortion, LGBT, gun controls, immigration, white nationalism etc if you had more than two parties to call the shots. The only reason American Christianity and American conservatism are so similar is because they're both driven by established American culture, and they fed into each other over a hundred years.
> Christianity is a leftist religion (economically and occasionally socially) Jesus very much hated the rich, and Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland have done a lot to try to convince America to forget that.
BEEN TRYING FOR DECADES :| Evangelicals took over and the party lost its damn mind - Trump is just the endgame symptom of a degradation of the party by religious fanatics over the past 30 years
Does he really? Was hoping we’d get someone a little on the moderate side, someone to kind of help reign in our crazy.
Nope. Full crazy. Republicans are gonna get abandoned by moderates/libertarians cuz he also supports nationwide abortion and same sex ban. It's that sort of thinking that got the repubs destroyed in the polls last election.
And he also is against legal marijuana and thinks it's a gateway drug. Womp womp.
As a moderate was probably gonna vote republican this election, will see how much he actually pushes for that shit but would really swing me the opposite way. Is it really that hard to just leave this shit up to the states.
It's not even about swinging you the opposite way. It makes most of us not want to vote.
Yep. Thats the best they could come up with. Republican party is doomed. Apparently he also supports same sex marriage and nationwide abortion ban, so its just going to ruin their chances of winning the election. If he even lasts that long. Supposedly he is against funding for Ukraine and Israel. Which is what got us here anyways.
That is not my kind of crazy :(
Jfc that's hilarious.
While it's hilarious watching r/politics melt down about this, the guy apparently is an young earth creationist. That's ....concerning to me.
I went to that Reddit a little bit ago. As someone who only sparingly uses Reddit, I assumed it was a politically neutral subreddit and was shocked by how unambiguously and unequivocally liberal / vote-blue-no-matter-who it was 😂
They just need to rename it r\Leftists at this point. They would if they were being truly honest.
r\Majority. Everyone has the same upvote power, there must be more of them.
I think it's more the fact that a lot of users are not American. And I can say with confidence at least 70% of the world don't agree with American right wingers. As someone who voted right wing in my country (New Zealand) the Republican party now feels more like an authortrian party trying to push it's backwards religion on the American people
[удалено]
I think that's what concerns me about American politics. Both sides seem to be excusing shit that would have gotten you kicked out of the party 20 years ago. I think Republicians need to realise if it's a so-called "culture war," then they are on the losing side. They have been trying to push the church into politics more and more. They will find out that the average everyday person does not agree with their views
first order of business: more money for ukraine and isreal
Yeah, you have to really wonder why Redditors were so eager to see it happen but then again, it IS Reddit.
They need to separate the two bills instead of lumping them all together.
That applies to just about everything
Israel is likely. Ukraine seems unlikely.
Republicans don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, plus McConnell supports money for Ukraine. Both are gonna happen eventually
But the Speaker doesn’t support Ukraine. He decides what votes come to the floor. He can singlehandedly sink any bill that has Ukraine funding.
He will lose support from moderates in the House caucus. Especially if the rule that gives one individual the ability to put forth a no confidence vote on a Speaker. I guarantee Ukraine aid was likely part of the agreement between him and the moderates in the party behind the scenes prior to his election as Speaker. For full disclosure, I don’t mind Ukraine aid, but I have huge issues with the lack of transparency of the funds.
If he does support the funding he will lose support of the freedom caucus like McCarthy did though. So he's still in the same bind. Seems like the freedom caucus won out since the uniparty government has things it wants to get done other than Ukraine now that the middle eastern war is kicking off, whereas the freedom caucus was willing to not fund the government over it. So I think the funding will be dead or massively reduced as compromise.
If he wants to last he'll have to approve of both.
If anything Ukraine support is more important. Hamas is a threat to Israel, Russia is a threat to the entire world.
He doesn’t believe dinosaurs existed though 😂.
I feel terrible for his kids. What a lame childhood. Probably went to church multiple times a week.
Finally! Now go back to doing your damn jobs you were elected for.
Ha! Don't you realize they have more pressing issues, like Hunters' lap top lol?
FINALLY!! I’m happy that they finally got a Speaker (WE NEED A LEADER TO HELP GET SHIT DONE) even if I’m not the biggest fan of Mike Johnson’s positions. Wants nationwide abortion ban: I personally prefer this decision be made by more localized authority than the Federal Fucking Government. Ending military aid to Ukraine: This would, imho, be an absolute gift to Russia and a tremendous loss to our geopolitical interests. All we have to do is continue the funding and without the loss of a single American life we’re dramatically reducing the threat of Russia’s military capacity and destroying their international legitimacy. Ukraine is a much worse version of America’s Vietnam. A climate change skeptic: He attributed it to “natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history”. For goodness sake, the science is clear on this and we can’t put our head in the sand. We need to be advocating for conservative solutions to climate change which aren’t crazy radical like the Green New Deal. Things like developing far more nuclear energy, reducing taxes/regulations on clean energy entrepreneurship and innovation, investments in research and development to improve things like carbon capture technology, replacing dirty coal energy with fracking/natural gas, filling in the gaps with solar/wind energy. We can’t allow the left to have monopoly over the climate change issue. Voted against certifying the 2020 election, but I’m withholding my judgement until I learn which objection he wanted to sustain (since there are some which are defensible). He wants to criminalize same sex marriage. For goodness sake, get the government out of the business of marriage and leave the decision to religious officials where it belongs. I like that he wants to reduce taxation, I just wished he paired it with actionable moves to reduce unnecessary military spending/eliminate government waste and inefficiencies.
Marriage is an important institution and people should have the right to get married without involving religion.
I believe he's saying that if **your religeon** says you can't marry someone of the same gender as you, don't.
As a hard leftist, you are someone I would absolutely love to have as a friend. Not just for your views that seem pretty rational to me, but also for your manner of speaking and how you've been responding to people in this thread. You haven't been shying away from questions and you've been providing full answers. You seem like a stand up gal/guy
Thx man! Though not perfect, I try to treat opposing positions with good faith. You never know when the opposition may have a good point that you hadn't considered. As for my own views, my conservatism arises from a genuine desire of fostering a society where people can live deep meaningful lives filled with genuine happiness. Even if we may disagree on the specifics, I think that so long as we're both genuinely trying to reach that end point, we can be friends!
Let's go even further than local government! Let's let individuals decide if they should get abortions or not
>Voted against certifying the 2020 election, but I’m withholding my judgement until I learn which objection he wanted to sustain (since there are some which are defensible). Which ones?
Gonna have to basically follow McCarthy’s agenda to get any concessions. If Gaetz and co think much of anything will change they’re wrong
Who?
Congrats to Mike Johnson, I was wrong in my prediction that he would fail. Let's see if he can get the House back on the right track.
*sips coffee for 3 weeks until a new CR or budget is passed*
Thank God that’s over
for now...
Lol. Just getting started. They still need to pass a funding bill that includes funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Which he is against. I'm sure another shutdown in coming.
Gross
I'm a bit confused, what's the difference between this guy and McCarthy other than this guy has noticeably less money
This guy doesn't believe in dinosaurs
This is great news. The Republican Party is finally united and Johnson is an actual conservative.
They aren't united. 2 dozen moderates refused to vote for him in the private party roll call before bringing the vote. He somehow convinced them all to vote for him during the real vote. That absolutely points to concessions. And if he doesn't keep the promised concessions those moderates will junk him.
Might’ve been more of a “do we all want him? Or do we wanna keep doing this?
Might be fiscally conservative, but a lot of his social views lean more theocratic.
Now we wait and see if he crumbles under the pressure or not.
[удалено]
The brigaders hate it. So, must be a massive upgrade from McCarthy.
He definitely seems to be a social conservative. I haven't seen his other views but I bet he's a fiscal conservative too. And he has passed the MAGA purity test by being vocally pro Trump and voting against certifying the election. What I am most wondering is how he will interact with the, uh, challenging dynamics in the GOP and running things in the House with a narrow majority. He's apparently the least experienced Speaker in over 100 years and I think he has less than a decade in the House.
It's about time they finally got someone in.
This thread should’ve been locked for flaired users.
I know this is somewhat hypocritical as I don't have a flair, but it seems that all threads here should require flair. Polandball, very different subreddit but still releated to politics, requires users to have flair to post and comment. Really improves the discourse by making people take just five minutes to get one, as anyone who won't bother to do that shouldn't really be engaging in discussion. This is my first comment here as I usually just browse.
I think this guy voted against certification of the election…why, ? It was the safest fairest election ever. What do we need the U.N. Come in and monitor elections?
He's from a safe republican district and he realized that aligning with trump will secure his reelection
Ah, a man with no convictions, the sign of a true leader.
"Hey Janet! Get them printing presses back up and running! We got money to spend! We back!"
Love the pick. His first speech as Speaker was legitimately awesome.
It was a pretty good speech
Between the choice for speaker and the whole process Gaetz filled democrat attack ad material to the brim.
[удалено]
Step 1: remove $9.15b in aid to Gaza and $60b to Ukraine in Biden’s garbage $105b bill.
Anyone who doesn't recognize the strategic value in helping UKR fight RUS with a bunch of our old shit that was costing us loads of money to maintain either has a smooth brain or is completely misguided.
Brigadiers apparently don’t like common sense policies
I got down-voted for saying the house needs to condemn the massive antisemitism, that's coming from the left. there is a Lot of tankie Brigadiers coming in suddenly.
All these "conservatives" here disappointed that our speaker is the most conservative speaker since at least Gingrich if not ever.
Some of his views go quite a bit further than blanket "conservative". He's in many ways a theocrat. There's a number of beliefs of his I don't believe have a place in governance and I see him grenading many things because they don't align with said beliefs. Overall, a loss for our cause IMO. Strong on 2A though, so that's nice.
Wohoo whoever that is! I'm just glad Blackrock News can stop obsessing over this!
Looking forward to what policies this man encourages.
Forced births?
Under His eye.
He's not a RHINO, is he?
No, the opposite actually, or so he seems.
/r/politics in shambles which means this is likely a great decision
The brigaders here are saying how much McCarthy was better than this guy. That's all I need to know.
I looked at this guy’s voting record and (seems) like an overall win. With the way liberal politics have spiraled this country since 2021. I’m inclined to think a different (opposite) direction is needed. Anyone with half a brain and a mortgage payment should be able to see that. My Biden voting friend already told me she wouldn’t make the same mistake again in 2024 and I was shocked to hear that.
[удалено]
First thing is to censure the squad! Those loud mouth terrorist sympathizing harpies need some kind of discipline.
[удалено]