politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why are they still claiming "fiscal conservatism" is anything more than racism and class warfare by a different name? Why are conservatives "stronger on economy?" Of course this is causing divides about morals; a vote for the GOP is a vote for oppression and hate.
This bullshit dog-whistling by the media has to stop or we're just letting 70+ million American voters off the hook by letting them claim "but I'm just worried about the economy."
edit: I can't find the source right now, but there's a quote about this. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like "historians have a term they use for a person who voted for Hitler because they liked his economic policies. That term is 'Nazi'"
—A.R. Moxon
🏆
That's the one, thank you.
I remember when i thought they wanted balanced budgets.
Me too. And then Bill Clinton gave them balanced budgets and they still hated him and his economic policies, and I never really understood why until I realized it was because he wasn't "hurting the right people"
Trumps "platform" was by any measure or definition less fiscally conservative than kamala. Pretty sure the reps left fiscal conservatism in the wasteland with Romney.
The new bullshit dogma for the right wing is "growth". But I don't think the Trump parade really even tried to explain that was the goal, or really any coherent economic policy.
Edit: the article seems to make the same point. That previously at least outwardly normal people have gone off the deep end.
You're missing my point, at least partially. Even going back all the way to Reagan years (and certainly for Romney) "fiscal conservatism" was not actually about the economy or saving money; it was always about cutting social safety net programs that help minorities while enriching the elites (especially defense contractors and banks).
It's a convenient piece of fiction that allows people to vote for conservatives who pass hateful legislation while claiming to be "not a racist," but fiscal conservatism in the US is and always has been racist. If we want to see any change, we need to start forcing the media outlets and "fiscal conservatives" to say the quiet part out loud instead of getting away with claiming they are "not racist but..."
Agreed, de facto, budget cuts have been and would be racist.
Fiscal conservatism actually does mean something though. Like you could imagine a left leaning fiscally conservative government that maintained a balanced budget by raising taxes on corps and the wealthy. That would be basically fine (though I think on balance not as good as running a modest deficit to fund nice policy). If you just go, yeah no those words are henceforth no-bueno, aren't you just buying into their doublespeak?
I'll tell you what; when I see the term used by an elected official or GOP voter to mean something besides a dog-whistle, I'll be on your side here.
Until then, when someone uses "fiscal conservatism" to tell me they're voting Republican, I'm going to continue to believe that they're ok with the rest of the GOP's racist, homophobic, misogynistic platform, too.
When people tell you who they are, believe them. And don't let them off the hook when they claim they're "fiscally conservative"