10 ms·

Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to mo

Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to move to cities. Normally, a healthy response to this would be to realign and target a more popular set of messaging and policy objectives. Instead the American Right has decided instead that this popularity (and the reflection in media) is a threat to its ability to continue serving a shrinking pool of wealthy benefactors. It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. Republicanism doesnt work for anyone but the wealthy, it will do everything in its power here.

apparent 8mo ago
[flagged]
atoav 8mo ago
Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations. So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but the way it is now it is a dictatorship of the minority, even if you ignore all the blatant ways of voter disenfranchisement. Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Ideally you'd want a party to have to listen to their voters. Gerrymandering, predicting voter behavior and throwing out the ones who might not vote for you are all the shameful behavior of traitors to democracy. This has to be stopped and punished on every political level, as long as you still have a say.
- jjtheblunt 8mo ago
  > Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Isn't their main assertion that only citizens should vote? (something like 80% of people claiming allegiance to both parties said the same, last i saw, but numbers surely fluctuate from poll to poll)
  - filoeleven 8mo ago
    It's an assertion not backed by data. Non-citizens voting is infinitesimally small. Between that, Noem saying out loud "we want the right people to vote", and Trump calling for nationalized elections, it's clear what the real purpose is.
    - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
      Early in-person voting and making election day a federal holiday are things everyone on all sides ought to be able to rally behind, together. Idk if any of that is in the SAVE Act though
      - cwillu 8mo ago
        It's not.
  - jmyeet 8mo ago
    No. There is a long history of Republican voter disenfranchisement: - In the 1980s The RNC created the Ballot Security Task Force [1], which was a scheme to strike people off the voter rolls by sending them a mailer if they didn't respond. This led to a consent decree requiring "preclearance" for any voter roll enforcement that lasted 25+ years [2]; - Republicans lead the charge in restricting access to mail-in voting because it's used more by Democratic Party voters [3] despite there being no evidence of fraud; - In response to Arizona turning blue in 2020, Republicans went on a massive voter suppression spree [4], which disproportionately impacts Native Americans [5]; - Nationally, the push to have a street address unfairly impacts Native Americans who often don't have an official sstreet address if they live on a reservation. That's not an accident. It's the point; - Even the push to force people to have birth certificates is aimed at Native Americans and poor people. There are quite literally millions of Americans who don't have them [6]; - Even if you have the necessary documentation to get an ID, you may have problems getting access. Again, this is by design. For example, Louisiana closed a bunch of DMV offices in minority areas such that the only DMV in certain black-majority areas was only open one day a month [7]; - The so-called SAVE Act recently passed by the house required your birth certificate to match your ID. Well, that's a problem for married women [8]. - States such as Florida have used private firms to strike people off the voter rolls if their name sounds like a convicted felon anywhere else in the country [9]. And why are we doing all this? There is zero evidence of voter fraud on a large scale [10]. And those convicted of voter fraud are most commonly Republican anyway [11]. But let's just say that we want an ID to vote. Why don't we fund the Federal government to issue it and make sure it is readily available and cheap or free? No, we can't have that because it's never been the point. At some point you have to realize that they don't care about "integrity". Voter suppression is the point because it's the only way they can win elections. Lastly, I feel compelled to remind people of Lee Atwater's famous 1981 remarks [12]. Republicans went from overt racism to being ever more abstract but the goals remained the same: to disproportionately impact black and brown people. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force [2]: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-security-consent-decree-328995 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-securit... [3]: https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influenced-partisan-divide-over-voting-mail https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influence... [4]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/arizona-epicenter-fight-voting-rights-today https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ariz... [5]: https://azmirror.com/2024/06/06/100-years-after-citizenship-indigenous-peoples-continue-to-fight-to-vote/ https://azmirror.com/2024/06/06/100-years-after-citizenship-... [6]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... [7]: https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/one-day-a-month-is-not-enough-says-ldf https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/one-day-a-month-is-no... [8]: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-women-vote-rights-explained https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-w... [9]: https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2000/06/23/hundreds-of-voters-mistakenly-tagged-as-felons-in-mix-up/ https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2000/06/23/hundreds-of-vote... [10]: https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... [11]: https://archive.amarkfoundation.org/the2020election/voter-fraud-convictions-since-2016/ https://archive.amarkfoundation.org/the2020election/voter-fr... [12]: https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-on-the-southern-strategy https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/lee-atwaters-infamous-...
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
  >you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives Doesn't California have 54 reps, out of 485? And 90 out of ~800 Article III judges (lifetime appointment). It also collects $858 billion a year in state and local taxes that it gets to do mostly what it wants with
  - AshleyGrant 8mo ago
    Yes, but it only has two senators. The 39.5 million people in California have the same Senatorial representation as the less than 600 thousand people in Wyoming. In what world is that fair or remotely democratic?
    - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
      Don't think it was ever supposed to be. The Senate was set up by the founders to be picked by the State Legislatures anyway, not a direct vote. Did you read the Federalist Papers?
      - filoeleven 8mo ago
        The idea was that the House of Reps exists to represent the people of the state, and the Senate exists to represent the state itself. The 17th Amendment did away with state legislatures choosing senators, so we have this wonky system left for no good reason. And don't get me started on freezing the rep count to 435. I certainly don't feel represented by my congresscritter.
      - AshleyGrant 7mo ago
        Both you and the other person who responded to me completely avoided the question I posed and hid behind "The Founding Fathers said it should be this way, so it is that way." I didn't ask why it is the way that it is or if it is operating to the plan presented by the Founding Fathers. I asked in what universe is it remotely fair or democratic. Care to try and come up with an answer to that question?
    - 8mo ago
meowface 8mo ago
While I agree with much of what you say, there are a lot of urban, educated, socially left, economically right people (including myself) who complicate some of this analysis. Many economically right-wing people believe a free market is the most effective and helpful path to improve the standard of living for the working class and the poor. ("Progressive neoliberal social democracy", one might call it.) The issues with Republicans right now go far, far, far beyond "they care more about the wealthy than the poor" (though that is definitely one of their core problems). They're basically destroying the rule of law, the country's internal and international reputation and credibility, all of our most important institutions, our ability to discern what is true, our sense of decency, our civil liberties, our basic respect of human rights... The class stuff is secondary or tertiary to the bigger issues, in my opinion.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
numbers_guy 8mo ago
Conservatism is a set of political principles and values, which somebody like Trump overtly does not possess, and never did. The whole Republican party feels like a country wide gaslighting operation at this point. They claim to be conservative and Christian, but are clearly neither.
snowwrestler 8mo ago
> It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. To be clear, they were “handed power” by decisively winning a national election, which sort of undercuts your opening statement about how unpopular they are.
- decremental 8mo ago
  [dead]
RickJWagner 8mo ago
[flagged]
- nullocator 8mo ago
  Is it? Citizens in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota have ~3x the voting power as citizens of California, seems pretty easy to win many of the things you mentioned on rural townships.
  - RickJWagner 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - g19fanatic 8mo ago
      i believe you have that backwards, senate gets 2 representatives per state. house gets based on population (less gerrymandering!). but your point still stands
      - RickJWagner 8mo ago
        [flagged]
bitshiftfaced 8mo ago
People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor... "Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).
- xscott 8mo ago
  Language changes over time, and I remember recent memes where a cute girl says something like "claiming you're moderate means you know conservatives don't get laid" (presumably because of abortion politics). It makes me wonder if the moderates actually became liberal or if they just don't want to use that word any more. After all the polarism in "reality show politics", my diehard liberal friends seem less liberal to me, but they'll state which team they're on more fervently than ever.
sejje 8mo ago
Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. Then he lied about it and the network corrected him. But okay, yeah they pushed the boundaries and all that bullshit.
- hn_acker 7mo ago
  > Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. How did Colbert lie? And do you have a source for the supposed lie? The equal-time rule does not obligate proactive actions from the broadcaster such as invitations or "extend[ing]" an offer. The equal-time rule requires an equal opportunity for political opponents to use a broadcast station, and it is up to each political opponent to reach out and assert their intent to use the equal-time rule. Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request. > Then he lied about it and the network corrected him. No, CBS lied about what the equal-time rule requires. > He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time Don't pretend that the "law about equal time" is the same in 2026 as it was in the 95 previous years [1]: > Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until FCC chair Brendan Carr issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption. [break to avoid mixing quotes from different parties] > He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time Could you explain how you reached the number 95? I don't get 95+-1 from 2026-1927 or 2026-1934 [1]. > and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. CBS didn't want to air the Talarico interview because CBS didn't want to be forced to provide equal time in case Jasmine Crockett would have used the equal-time rule to get her own interview. Colbert did not oppose and has not opposed having Crockett on in relation to the equal-time rule. I get the feeling that you're pretending to be angry on Jasmine Crockett's behalf. What's more, it seems like you want to be angry at Colbert and are projecting your feelings onto Jasmine Crockett. But why does Jasmine Crockett seem to have no issue with Colbert's actions [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#Details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#Details [2] https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/politics/jasmine-crockett-reacts-colbert-talarico-interview-drama/ https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/politics/jasmine-cro...

apparent 8mo ago

[flagged]

atoav 8mo ago

Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations. So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but the way it is now it is a dictatorship of the minority, even if you ignore all the blatant ways of voter disenfranchisement. Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Ideally you'd want a party to have to listen to their voters. Gerrymandering, predicting voter behavior and throwing out the ones who might not vote for you are all the shameful behavior of traitors to democracy. This has to be stopped and punished on every political level, as long as you still have a say.

jjtheblunt 8mo ago
> Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Isn't their main assertion that only citizens should vote? (something like 80% of people claiming allegiance to both parties said the same, last i saw, but numbers surely fluctuate from poll to poll)
- filoeleven 8mo ago
  It's an assertion not backed by data. Non-citizens voting is infinitesimally small. Between that, Noem saying out loud "we want the right people to vote", and Trump calling for nationalized elections, it's clear what the real purpose is.
  - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
    Early in-person voting and making election day a federal holiday are things everyone on all sides ought to be able to rally behind, together. Idk if any of that is in the SAVE Act though
    - cwillu 8mo ago
      It's not.
- jmyeet 8mo ago
  No. There is a long history of Republican voter disenfranchisement: - In the 1980s The RNC created the Ballot Security Task Force [1], which was a scheme to strike people off the voter rolls by sending them a mailer if they didn't respond. This led to a consent decree requiring "preclearance" for any voter roll enforcement that lasted 25+ years [2]; - Republicans lead the charge in restricting access to mail-in voting because it's used more by Democratic Party voters [3] despite there being no evidence of fraud; - In response to Arizona turning blue in 2020, Republicans went on a massive voter suppression spree [4], which disproportionately impacts Native Americans [5]; - Nationally, the push to have a street address unfairly impacts Native Americans who often don't have an official sstreet address if they live on a reservation. That's not an accident. It's the point; - Even the push to force people to have birth certificates is aimed at Native Americans and poor people. There are quite literally millions of Americans who don't have them [6]; - Even if you have the necessary documentation to get an ID, you may have problems getting access. Again, this is by design. For example, Louisiana closed a bunch of DMV offices in minority areas such that the only DMV in certain black-majority areas was only open one day a month [7]; - The so-called SAVE Act recently passed by the house required your birth certificate to match your ID. Well, that's a problem for married women [8]. - States such as Florida have used private firms to strike people off the voter rolls if their name sounds like a convicted felon anywhere else in the country [9]. And why are we doing all this? There is zero evidence of voter fraud on a large scale [10]. And those convicted of voter fraud are most commonly Republican anyway [11]. But let's just say that we want an ID to vote. Why don't we fund the Federal government to issue it and make sure it is readily available and cheap or free? No, we can't have that because it's never been the point. At some point you have to realize that they don't care about "integrity". Voter suppression is the point because it's the only way they can win elections. Lastly, I feel compelled to remind people of Lee Atwater's famous 1981 remarks [12]. Republicans went from overt racism to being ever more abstract but the goals remained the same: to disproportionately impact black and brown people. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force [2]: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-security-consent-decree-328995 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-securit... [3]: https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influenced-partisan-divide-over-voting-mail https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influence... [4]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/arizona-epicenter-fight-voting-rights-today https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ariz... [5]: https://azmirror.com/2024/06/06/100-years-after-citizenship-indigenous-peoples-continue-to-fight-to-vote/ https://azmirror.com/2024/06/06/100-years-after-citizenship-... [6]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... [7]: https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/one-day-a-month-is-not-enough-says-ldf https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/one-day-a-month-is-no... [8]: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-women-vote-rights-explained https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-w... [9]: https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2000/06/23/hundreds-of-voters-mistakenly-tagged-as-felons-in-mix-up/ https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2000/06/23/hundreds-of-vote... [10]: https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... [11]: https://archive.amarkfoundation.org/the2020election/voter-fraud-convictions-since-2016/ https://archive.amarkfoundation.org/the2020election/voter-fr... [12]: https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-on-the-southern-strategy https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/lee-atwaters-infamous-...
CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
>you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives Doesn't California have 54 reps, out of 485? And 90 out of ~800 Article III judges (lifetime appointment). It also collects $858 billion a year in state and local taxes that it gets to do mostly what it wants with
- AshleyGrant 8mo ago
  Yes, but it only has two senators. The 39.5 million people in California have the same Senatorial representation as the less than 600 thousand people in Wyoming. In what world is that fair or remotely democratic?
  - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
    Don't think it was ever supposed to be. The Senate was set up by the founders to be picked by the State Legislatures anyway, not a direct vote. Did you read the Federalist Papers?
    - filoeleven 8mo ago
      The idea was that the House of Reps exists to represent the people of the state, and the Senate exists to represent the state itself. The 17th Amendment did away with state legislatures choosing senators, so we have this wonky system left for no good reason. And don't get me started on freezing the rep count to 435. I certainly don't feel represented by my congresscritter.
    - AshleyGrant 7mo ago
      Both you and the other person who responded to me completely avoided the question I posed and hid behind "The Founding Fathers said it should be this way, so it is that way." I didn't ask why it is the way that it is or if it is operating to the plan presented by the Founding Fathers. I asked in what universe is it remotely fair or democratic. Care to try and come up with an answer to that question?
  - 8mo ago

meowface 8mo ago

While I agree with much of what you say, there are a lot of urban, educated, socially left, economically right people (including myself) who complicate some of this analysis. Many economically right-wing people believe a free market is the most effective and helpful path to improve the standard of living for the working class and the poor. ("Progressive neoliberal social democracy", one might call it.) The issues with Republicans right now go far, far, far beyond "they care more about the wealthy than the poor" (though that is definitely one of their core problems). They're basically destroying the rule of law, the country's internal and international reputation and credibility, all of our most important institutions, our ability to discern what is true, our sense of decency, our civil liberties, our basic respect of human rights... The class stuff is secondary or tertiary to the bigger issues, in my opinion.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

numbers_guy 8mo ago

Conservatism is a set of political principles and values, which somebody like Trump overtly does not possess, and never did. The whole Republican party feels like a country wide gaslighting operation at this point. They claim to be conservative and Christian, but are clearly neither.

snowwrestler 8mo ago

> It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. To be clear, they were “handed power” by decisively winning a national election, which sort of undercuts your opening statement about how unpopular they are.

decremental 8mo ago
[dead]

RickJWagner 8mo ago

[flagged]

nullocator 8mo ago
Is it? Citizens in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota have ~3x the voting power as citizens of California, seems pretty easy to win many of the things you mentioned on rural townships.
- RickJWagner 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - g19fanatic 8mo ago
    i believe you have that backwards, senate gets 2 representatives per state. house gets based on population (less gerrymandering!). but your point still stands
    - RickJWagner 8mo ago
      [flagged]

bitshiftfaced 8mo ago

People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor... "Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).

xscott 8mo ago
Language changes over time, and I remember recent memes where a cute girl says something like "claiming you're moderate means you know conservatives don't get laid" (presumably because of abortion politics). It makes me wonder if the moderates actually became liberal or if they just don't want to use that word any more. After all the polarism in "reality show politics", my diehard liberal friends seem less liberal to me, but they'll state which team they're on more fervently than ever.

sejje 8mo ago

Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. Then he lied about it and the network corrected him. But okay, yeah they pushed the boundaries and all that bullshit.

hn_acker 7mo ago
> Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. How did Colbert lie? And do you have a source for the supposed lie? The equal-time rule does not obligate proactive actions from the broadcaster such as invitations or "extend[ing]" an offer. The equal-time rule requires an equal opportunity for political opponents to use a broadcast station, and it is up to each political opponent to reach out and assert their intent to use the equal-time rule. Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request. > Then he lied about it and the network corrected him. No, CBS lied about what the equal-time rule requires. > He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time Don't pretend that the "law about equal time" is the same in 2026 as it was in the 95 previous years [1]: > Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until FCC chair Brendan Carr issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption. [break to avoid mixing quotes from different parties] > He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time Could you explain how you reached the number 95? I don't get 95+-1 from 2026-1927 or 2026-1934 [1]. > and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett. CBS didn't want to air the Talarico interview because CBS didn't want to be forced to provide equal time in case Jasmine Crockett would have used the equal-time rule to get her own interview. Colbert did not oppose and has not opposed having Crockett on in relation to the equal-time rule. I get the feeling that you're pretending to be angry on Jasmine Crockett's behalf. What's more, it seems like you want to be angry at Colbert and are projecting your feelings onto Jasmine Crockett. But why does Jasmine Crockett seem to have no issue with Colbert's actions [2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#Details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#Details [2] https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/politics/jasmine-crockett-reacts-colbert-talarico-interview-drama/ https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/politics/jasmine-cro...