Steellover(sub male)
|
9 months ago •
Feb 14, 2024
Here's the thing with Reagan: He was conservative, much like his predecessor was liberal. With Reagan and the conservatives at the time, you could have an honest and intellectual debate about the merits (or flaws) of supply-side economics and whether that benefitted the country as a whole. Or whether the War on Drugs was effective or not. Or whether his strong-arm foreign policy was a deterrant or too dangerously provocative. You could argue whether his de-regulation policies had an adverse effect on health and safety, or whether it lent itself to a stronger and more efficient economy that actually boosted health and safety in the long run.
Since the point of this thread was NOT to start a political debate of liberals vs conservatives, I won't give my personal take on any of these issues. But I will say this: Many, but not all, "conservatives" today are nothing like those in Reagan's day. Many people getting elected to office today calling themselves "Conservatives" would have, during the 80's, been dismissed as angry radical fringe politicians. But now, you are seeing these once fringe ideas becoming more accepted. And this makes it harder and harder to have a reasonable dialog when people hold views that are so controversial and polarizing, and these views are often coming from a place of heavy and sometimes dark-sided emotion. Back then, it was easier to have a fair and intellectual debate with someone from "The Other Party." Now, with polarizing views so much more prevalent, it is more difficult. |
|
|
Online now
CuteTransSub(sub trans woman){Uncollared}
|
9 months ago •
Feb 14, 2024
To weigh in on this as a trans woman: I could not ever be with a partner that does not see me as a woman or believes that I should have less rights than any other woman.
|
|
|
fluffypoppet(sub female){Protected}
|
9 months ago •
Feb 15, 2024
I think if my partner had different political views, I'd want to discuss it. So much can be resolved by discussing things.
If my partner was anti-abortion, I'd want to know what he felt the government shouldn't interfere in... - immigration - censorship - education - taxes - marijuana - gun control - environmental control perhaps something else? And I'd want to know why, if any of those things cannot be entrusted to the government, why would my beloved feel comfortable relying on the government to make choices about *my body*. Surely my body is precious enough to be protected? Even if you're the kind of guy that likes to share a girl, it is a bit much to force her to let the entire state legislature have a say in what goes on in her girl parts- especially without her consent. I just want to understand why someone responsible for me would co-sign away the rights for me and my medical team to make the best choices for my mental, emotional and physical well-being. And look... if I got pregnant, I'd happilly have a kid. BUT, I want all the girlies to be protected- their bodies matter too- even if they don't have a big strong Dom to defend and advocate for them. |
|
|
Nitrev(dom male)
|
9 months ago •
Feb 15, 2024
It's nice to think of politics as some set of philosophical differences or as harmless theories/thought experiments that can be set aside in favor of common interests/goals, but the reality is that policy has significant, real-world impacts on ours', our friends' and families', and everyone else' lifestyles and quality of living.
Unless you are so far removed from the affects of policy making, it's hard to imagine aligning with someone whose views oppose your own |
|
|
Mistress Kassandra(dom female)
|
9 months ago •
Feb 15, 2024
You can change Reagan, conservative, liberal, 80s to JFK, liberal, conservative, and the 60s and it's more true. The left has gone much further in the extreme than the right has.
Steellover wrote: Here's the thing with Reagan: He was conservative, much like his predecessor was liberal. With Reagan and the conservatives at the time, you could have an honest and intellectual debate about the merits (or flaws) of supply-side economics and whether that benefitted the country as a whole. Or whether the War on Drugs was effective or not. Or whether his strong-arm foreign policy was a deterrant or too dangerously provocative. You could argue whether his de-regulation policies had an adverse effect on health and safety, or whether it lent itself to a stronger and more efficient economy that actually boosted health and safety in the long run.
Since the point of this thread was NOT to start a political debate of liberals vs conservatives, I won't give my personal take on any of these issues. But I will say this: Many, but not all, "conservatives" today are nothing like those in Reagan's day. Many people getting elected to office today calling themselves "Conservatives" would have, during the 80's, been dismissed as angry radical fringe politicians. But now, you are seeing these once fringe ideas becoming more accepted. And this makes it harder and harder to have a reasonable dialog when people hold views that are so controversial and polarizing, and these views are often coming from a place of heavy and sometimes dark-sided emotion. Back then, it was easier to have a fair and intellectual debate with someone from "The Other Party." Now, with polarizing views so much more prevalent, it is more difficult. |
|
|