2617
2618

My conservative friends right now (imgur.com)

Da1UHideFrom が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 262
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Ray___Finkle 231ポイント232ポイント  (94子コメント)

*Social Conservatives. Many consider themselves to be fiscally conservative, while socially liberal. I certainly would hope that those that know me, and know I occasionally vote conservativly, realize that I support equal rights.

[–]monkeedude1212 122ポイント123ポイント  (47子コメント)

Such is the problem with the current electoral system. Without more direct representation - you can't vote for both things you support; you're forced to weigh your values against one another and choose.

[–]arakele 31ポイント32ポイント  (42子コメント)

That's what the 3rd parties are for.

[–]monkeedude1212 166ポイント167ポイント  (30子コメント)

How's that working out?

[–]arakele 14ポイント15ポイント  (27子コメント)

Give it time, its a slow process.

[–]NegativeRepComments 93ポイント94ポイント  (20子コメント)

like how many decades or centuries?

First past the post = two party system by design

[–]Cairo9o9 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tell it to Canada, bro. We're FPTP and we're currently dominated by 3 parties.

[–]FAGET_WITH_A_TUBA 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And it will eventually be two. You guys just haven't had enough time :/

[–]Toribor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The two parties got into power and made rules so that other parties don't stand a chance.

[–]FreshFruitCup 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

How many parties did the U.S. Start with?

[–]Kadmos 26ポイント27ポイント  (9子コメント)

Officially, None.

But realistically two "parties" formed: Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists.

[–]FreshFruitCup -4ポイント-3ポイント  (8子コメント)

EDIT: I'm agreeing with you all, this list is to demonstrate that we have had very few times with --3 major parties simultaneously.-- IM NOT TRYING TO SAY THE U.S. HAS HAD MANY PARTIES.

And there were a couple more right after that. In 1816 it looks like there were 3 parties simultaneously!

But I couldn't find many others beyond this:

Federalist Party (c. 1789 – c. 1820) Democratic-Republican Party (1792 – c. 1824) Toleration Party (1816 – c. 1827) Anti-Masonic Party (1826–1838) National Republican Party (1825–1833) Nullifier Party (1830–1839) Whig Party (1833–1856) Liberty Party (1840–1848) Law and Order Party of Rhode Island (1840s) Free Soil Party (1848–1855) Anti-Nebraska Party (1854) American Republican Party (1843–1854) American Party (a.k.a. "Know-Nothings") (c. 1854 – 1858) Opposition Party (1854–1858) Constitutional Union Party (1860) Unconditional Union Party (1861–1866) National Union Party, (1864–1868) Readjuster Party (1870–1885) People's Party of Utah (1870–1891) Liberal Party (Utah) (1870–1893) Liberal Republican Party (1872) Greenback Party (1874–1884) Socialist Labor Party of America (1876–2008) Anti-Monopoly Party (1884) People's Party (a.k.a. "Populists") (1887–1908) Silver Party (1892–1902) National Democratic Party ("Gold Democrats") (1896–1900) Silver Republican Party (1896–1900) Social Democratic Party (1898–1901) Home Rule Party of Hawaii (1900–1912) Socialist Party of America (1901–1972) Independence Party (a.k.a. "Independence League") (1906–1914) Progressive Party 1912 (a.k.a. "Bull Moose Party") (1912–1914) National Woman's Party (1913–1930) Non-Partisan League (1915–1956) Farmer-Labor Party (1918–1944) Proletarian Party of America (1920–1971) Progressive Party 1924 (1924) Communist League of America (1928–1934) American Workers Party (1933–1934) Workers Party of the United States (1934–1938) Union Party (1936) American Labor Party (1936–1956) America First Party (1944) (1944–1996) States' Rights Democratic Party (a.k.a. "Dixiecrats") (1948) Progressive Party 1948 (1948–1955) Vegetarian Party (1948–1964) Puerto Rican Nationalist Party (1922–1965) Constitution Party (1950s) (1952–1968?) American Nazi Party (1959–1967) Puerto Rican Socialist Party (1959–1993) Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (1964) Black Panther Party (1966–1970s) Patriot Party (1960s–1980s) Youth International Party (a.k.a. "Yippies") (1967) Communist Workers Party (1969–1985) People's Party (1971–1976) New Union Party (1974–2005?) U.S. Labor Party (1975–1979) Concerned Citizens Party (1975–1992) Citizens Party (1979–1984) New Alliance Party (1979–1992) Populist Party of 1980s–1990s (1984–1994) Looking Back Party (1984–1996) Independent Party of Utah (1988–1996) A Connecticut Party (1990–?) New Party (1992–1998) Aloha Aina Party (1997–2000?) Marijuana Reform Party (1998–2002) Natural Law Party (1992–2004) Southern Party (1999–2003) Veterans Party (2003–2008) Christian Freedom Party (2004) Personal Choice Party (2004–2006?) Labor Party (1996–2007) United Citizens Party (1969–2008?) The American Party (1969–2008) Moderate Party (Illinois) (2005–2008) Populist Party of Maryland (2004–2008) New Jersey Conservative Party (1992–2009) Republican Moderate Party of Alaska (1986–2011) Taxpayers Party of New York (2010–2011) Freedom Party of New York (2010–2011) Florida Whig Party (2006–2012) Boston Tea Party (2006–2012) Raza Unida Party (1970–2012) Independence Party of America (2007–2013) Connecticut for Lieberman (2006–2013)

[–]triangle60 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

There have only ever been three serious contenders for president, the whigs, the democratics, and the republicans, ignoring some of the funky transition. Pretty much all of the parties you listed are short lived and small. Duverger's law states that plurality systems lead to two major parties, and that is functionally what has been observed.

[–]crusher2598 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Party pooper?

[–]rightfulemperor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Law and Order: Party of Rhode Island

heh

[–]swim_kick 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well it wasn't really a party so much as a shooty pew-pew-pew Revolution party. Unless we're counting the Boston Tea Party.

[–]Iwaspromisedcookies 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There ain't no party like the Boston tea party

[–]Foxtrot-150 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's more like GRATA-TAAAH.

Those muskets bark yo.

[–]mlbontbs87 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except in the UK...

[–]livingonasuitcase 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

right yeah the greens and lib dems have always had so much say

[–]teamhoun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They also have a completely different form of government

[–]Laxguy59 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look up duvergers law, it'll be 2 party till we change our electoral system.

[–]kabanaga 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whigs2016

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]LoboDaTerra 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      America will never have a big 3rd party. Our electoral system won't let it happen

      [–]CherethCutestoryJD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Go ahead, throw your vote away!

      [–]ESPN_outsider 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

      And no one votes for 3rd parties.

      [–]Grumbleduke7749 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

      [–]ESPN_outsider 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And how did that work out?

      [–]Foxtrot-150 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

      I voted for Ron Paul, if that counts.

      [–]ESPN_outsider 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I really hope rand wins the republican nomination. He's got a solid chance if he does.

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]dittbub 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I seem to recall Americans have lengthy ballots to vote for a number of different people and initiatives.

          [–]krunnky 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          "you're either with us or against us!"

          [–]taidana -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          lol, tell me about it. I am all about marriage equality, couples rights to abortion, and ending the prohibition of Marijuana, but I feel like I am forced to vote republican because I do not want to be turned into a felon with liberal gun laws, start paying 14 year olds who bag groceries $15/hr, or give in to this whole tumblr generation PC movement. It is literally impossible to find a candidate in line with my views. Shit, I would be ok with paying the 14 year olds the same as college graduates if it means we can still get equality, end prohibition, and get rid of some unnecessary gun restrictions like NFA, but I can't even find that.

          [–]livingonasuitcase 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The reason why some people want to pay "14 year olds" to bag groceries is because for some people that's all they have to make a living (hint: they're not 14). Government support should not be about how much an individual's deem their work is worth, it should be about enough subsistence that would not render the welfare system like one of a third world country.

          [–]Whalers7997 15ポイント16ポイント  (5子コメント)

          I like guns and gays....where's my party?

          [–]john_snuu 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

          In my pants.

          [–]Minxie 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Honestly? The Democrats. Plenty of pro-gun Democrats. Not many pro-gay Republicans in elected office.

          [–]dittbub 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          yet some of them are gay

          [–]SuperSaiyanSandwich 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Libertarian. Sadly you might as well piss on your ballot and toss it out the booth with the current set up.

          [–]nightpanda893 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          /r/gaybros

          [–]mrmojoz 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

          fiscally conservative

          This doesn't currently exist in any party.

          [–]SeanTCU 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

          And if it just means "I like the GOP's economic policies", then I have to wonder how socially liberal you really are.

          [–]iNEEDcrazypills 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Everyone likes to call themselves a fiscal conservative until they realize what that entails.

          [–]CrossCheckPanda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Sad and true. That's my key voting point and I can't even get it without voting third party

          [–]LoNDoN1332 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Glad to know there are others who recognize this difference as well. I was beginning to thing I was all alone out here.

          [–]Buelldozer 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

          There's a large, and growing fast, number of current and former Republicans who self describe as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Our party has abandoned us on both front.

          [–]AadeeMoien 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Make a new party, call it something fun like the Thrifty Party.

          [–]KazamaSmokers 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          yeah, and Lincoln Chafee is just running away with that Presidential race.

          [–]BasicGymBro 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Every other person at my uni identifies exactly like this, including myself. Pubs need to get with the times imo... But i am biased i suppose.

          [–]Samuelgin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          yup. that's exactly it. that's sometimes just considered libertarian though

          [–]ApatheticBear 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Thank you, i was going to say the same thing. There certainly are a lot of generalizations, but the newer conservative generation tends to be pro civil liberties. And overall freedom for that matter.

          [–]southern_boy 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I suppose that describes me...

          I want the best good for the most Americans at the least cost and can never understand that the same folk who claim to loathe government interference would fight tooth + nail to insert the federal government into the most intimate relationships of their fellow citizens... oh well.

          [–]BestPseudonym 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

          That's called libertarianism.

          [–]driveLikeYouStoleIt 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Fun fact: "Libertarianism" has been co-opted by the right in the USA where it was originally a leftist ideology.

          In the rest of the world, libertarianism is still synonymous with Anarchism or anti-authoritarian socialism.

          [–]AadeeMoien 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Libertarian-Socialism, the most misunderstood political philosophy in the US.

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            [–]dblan9 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

            As a liberal I fear the day conservatives as a whole ditch the religious right and embrace social equality. Fiscal conservatism is a slam dunk sell.

            [–]MrHibbityJibb 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Thing is that they're not fiscally Conservative. A fiscal Conservative has no problem raising taxes if that's what's needed for solvency. What Republicans call "Conservatism" is just shorthand for whatever platform they have in a given cycle, regardless of its impact on deficits, debt, etc.

            [–]CrossCheckPanda 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Dunno why you got downvoted. Swing voters tend to identify with conservatives on finance and liberals on basically everything else. If conservatives could shut the hell up on social issues they'd have a majority pretty easy

            [–]timboh -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Agree 100%. I'm all for equal rights but the fiscal issues are what I am conservative about which swings me that way.

            [–]Siduri71 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Laces out!

            [–]CrossCheckPanda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Yeah. I live in the south (though in a city) The bulk of Republicans I know either support gay marriage or understand that they/government should stay out of it even if it's wrong by their standards (which really isn't that bad)

            I've even heard preachers saying that while the Bible condemns gay marriage, gays have suffered much prejudice on the name of Jesus - and those actions are also condemned.

            Anyways I truly think the tide has shifted. I haven't heard anyone (not on television) argue against legalization if gay marriage in a very long time.

            [–]aimlessfocus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Laces out Dan!!!!!!

            [–]ftrooper22 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Rahahahahaheeely

            [–]bergie321 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            fiscally conservative, while socially liberal

            So Democrat?

            [–]PraetorianXVIII 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Personal close friend of Ray Finkle here. Can confirm

            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

              [–]AnythingApplied 39ポイント40ポイント  (3子コメント)

              Every political active person usually disagrees with some Supreme court rulings, like Citizens United... in this case even 4 out of the 9 supreme court justices disagreed with this latest ruling. It wasn't exactly a decisive win.

              [–]LawrenceGardiner 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

              IMHO is the right decision here, but I see what you mean. Short memories and bias with blinkers on.

              [–]iBleeedorange 74ポイント75ポイント  (30子コメント)

              Just had the pleasure of sitting through yet another office conversation about it. My eyes have practically rolled out of my head.

              [–]daddyfatsax 59ポイント60ポイント  (17子コメント)

              http://i.imgur.com/JDujBrd.gif

              [–]youraveragewhitebro 12ポイント13ポイント  (16子コメント)

              Is that the actress that played Jane in Breaking Bad?

              [–]snizlefoot 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

              She also stared in "Don't Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23" a very good show.

              [–]Twitch92 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Well when you say the title like that, it doesn't rhyme.

              [–]deadhead94 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              How the fuck are you supposed to make that sequence of words rhyme?

              [–]pcyr9999 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              starred

              FTFY

              [–]PapaDave130 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I don't know why, but I get be feeling it might be Krysten Ritter.

              [–]bloodytemplar 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Yes. Krysten Ritter.

              [–]ryseing 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Watch Don't Trust the B**** in Apt 23.

              [–]brandon520 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Who are you censoring for?

              [–]daddyfatsax 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Yep.

              [–]AOE_94 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Yes

              [–]SupportstheOP 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Yessum

              [–]bw13187 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Yes, Krysten Ritter.

              Attention whoever did all this downvoting. 90% of these posts were within like a couple minutes of each other, everyone probably thought they were the first once. Except for papadave.

              So suck my dick.

              [–]Twitch92 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              You can suck my downvote.

              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                [–]mtbr311 23ポイント24ポイント  (7子コメント)

                IMO politics shouldn't be talked about in the office. I imagine most bosses would agree.

                [–]iBleeedorange 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Boss is on vacation, normally it wouldn't be talked about if he was here.

                [–]purplehayes 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                My boss came into the office next to mine yesterday and announced to my co-worker that Rush Limbaugh says that you can legally marry a horse now or have multiple wives.

                They know better than to come into my office, I'm the office "libtard".

                [–]_MouseRat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Ohhh that word. That word grinds my gears to no end.

                [–]anatomizethat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Just the mention of Limbaugh's name elevates my blood pressure by 50%.

                [–]taidana -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

                why not?

                [–]SordidDreams 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Because nothing drives a wedge between people like talking about politics, and the last thing you want is for people who have to work together every day to hate each other.

                [–]Natolx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Depends on where you work. I working a research lab and we have people who disagree strongly, but talk about politics and sometimes people gasp question whether their views are correct. Its no coincidence that a job where you have to skeptical of everything(even your own data) results in that kind of environment

                [–]mar10wright 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Gaaaay

                [–]benihana 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I work at a place that's really progressively liberal. It's just as bad there - people legitimately believe this means the end of conservative america

                [–]Efpophis 36ポイント37ポイント  (4子コメント)

                So what do you think the liberals thought about Heller vs DC and MacDonald vs Chicago? I know the much-loved ACLU thinks they got those wrong.

                I'm not taking a position on the recent scotus ruling, mind you - just pointing out that both sides of the aisle do the same thing, not just conservatives.

                [–]Bay1Bri 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

                You can think a particular decision is bad, but that doesn't mean that it is fair to say the SCOTUS is bad, or broken or anything like that (which some people have been saying). I don't like the Citizens United decision. Hell, the Supreme Court has overturned previous rulings in at least one instance. Ultimately, the people still have the final say in governance, since the SC can only interpret the Constitution, which is written by the Congress, which answers to the people.

                [–]stiljo24 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                You can think a particular decision is bad, but that doesn't mean that it is fair to say the SCOTUS is bad, or broken or anything like that (which some people have been saying).

                This is true, if you stop there. I personally have a bit of unease about the way we achieved marriage equality, and do think the SCOTUS is corrupted if not broken.

                But, at least this was one where they got it right from a moral standpoint, as opposed to countless other questionable judgments made to protect the powerful.

                If this particular judgment is where you draw the line on activism in the court system, you are almost certainly out of touch and/or a homophobe. But it is possible to be happy with the ends and not the means.

                [–]benihana 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                When it happens on issues I don't support, it's judicial legislation. When I agree with it, the system works.

                [–]Viol33 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                The thing that pissed me off about Heller was that the opinion of the court was just Scalia rambling on about the commas in the second amendment, while Stevens pointed out that many of the proposed amendments from individual states at the time the second amendment was written included specific language about the use of weapons for non-military purposes, including self-defense. Madison put the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there for a reason, and he left out "for defense of themselves" and "for the killing of game" for a reason.

                I personally think people should be able to have weapons for purposes of self-defense and hunting, but this is an instance where Scalia is inconsistent with his framers' intent schtick.

                [–]Rhodie114 16ポイント17ポイント  (7子コメント)

                I never understood why homophobia became so common on the political right. I'm fairly conservative, and it totally goes against my entire philosophy.

                It's like this, I'd like to see smaller government, with less interference in areas that don't require oversight. Isn't your choice of spouse clearly one of those areas where you should be free of interference? It blows my mind how people can cry out against a "Nanny State" when the Fed steps in on matters where they are needed, but when they decide they aren't going to be legislating a lifestyle suddenly they're shitting on the Constitution.

                [–]cors8 29ポイント30ポイント  (0子コメント)

                It's because they got hijacked by the religious right.

                [–]_rymu_ 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                What do you mean "became so common"? That was the default stance of a majority of politicians 10-15 years ago.

                [–]dontbothermeimatwork 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Did you miss the part where religious people dominate your constituency?

                [–]leshake 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I'm sure the south never appeared as racist as it was until black people wanted equal rights.

                [–]Galemp 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Government small enough to fit in your vagina.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  [–]WhySoHungary 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Being conservative doesn't mean you're against civil liberties.

                  [–]_Eggs_ 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  For the last time, the SCOTUS decision is only meant to interpret that century-old constitution of ours. It has nothing to do with being "out of touch", as they weren't MAKING policy, they were interpreting it.

                  Ideally, a super-gay married man would vote against it if it weren't in the constitution.

                  [–]Gooch_Scoop 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Like Clarence Thomas, whose own interracial marriage he claims he would have voted against under the interpretation of the law he used to dissent during this case.

                  [–]Artyom33 -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  It wasn't in the constitution. 'Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision had "nothing to do with the Constitution." "If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," he wrote. "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."' See here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

                  [–]triangle60 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented, said that. I'm sure the justices in the majority, and plenty of other people, would disagree.

                  [–]_Eggs_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I agree with you, I'm just explaining why OP is wrong.

                  [–]NotRAClST2 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Clintons and Obama were against gay marriage.

                  [–]M3wThr33 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Past tense. Did you know people can change their mind as they grow?

                  [–]Dehno34 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  You mean, when it gets them votes.

                  [–]Wittmeister 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I believe gays should be afforded same rights whether it's called marriage or civil union..etc, however I don't believe that 5/9 Supreme Court justices were justified in their conclusion. Read the dissents, there's many valid points made there that shatter the majority IMO.

                  [–]talley89 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Actually most conservatives could care less. You are thinking of the bible thumpers.

                  [–]friskybadger 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  So Conservative=Anti-Gay? I am on reddit I suppose...

                  [–]Mylozen 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  If it quacks like a duck...

                  [–]NapoleonTheCat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I'm fiscally conservative and am very pro same sex marriage and cannabis legalization. To be fair though I am smart enough to form my own opinions on matters using facts and logic as my base rather than a fantasy novel (choose whichever one you want).

                  [–]Uglycannibal 13ポイント14ポイント  (11子コメント)

                  Oh no, people come to different conclusions based on the same information and some people have opinions I disagree with! Better be a smug asshole and call them out of touch, that'll show em

                  [–]Detachable-Penis 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Oh no, people come to different conclusions based on the same information and some people have opinions I disagree with! Better be a smug asshole and call them out of touch, that'll show em

                  I honestly can't tell if you're referring to OP or the people OP is talking about, which is hilarious.

                  [–]johnzaku 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  It really, really is.

                  [–]XHF 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  it's obviously about op.

                  [–]thebachmann 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Lpt: You don't need to quote the entire comment you're replying to.

                  [–]reed311 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Just like we did with segregationists. We will call people like this out of touch. Our children will read about this in history books one day and say "Were there REALLY people who opposed gay marriage". They will be seen as fools, just as the segregationists were.

                  [–]nightpanda893 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Having opinions I disagree with is a little different than forcing your opinions on a minority with no substantive reason effectively relegating them to second class citizenship. I don't understand why homophobia is stuck in this area of being a respected opinion. No one would call someone smug and get upvoted for it here for agreeing with an issue of basic racial civil rights.

                  [–]RagingTyrant74 10ポイント11ポイント  (58子コメント)

                  This is a completely misdirected criticism of conservatives. One can be for gay marriage (which I think is indisputably something some conservatives need to get on the times with) but still oppose the decision. Because the supreme court is a lifetime appointment of only 9 people it completely lacks the democratic legitimacy that is traditionally held by the legislature. Many conservatives (and liberals should be even more so because of their apparent worry of power not being in the hands of the people) are concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent where the court can decide cases in such a way that it essentially subverts the democratic authority of congress. What we really need to focus on is reforming the way the legislature operates to bring IT up to the current century instead of relying on an oligarchy of 9 judges to do it. Until that can happen our country remains in peril. Don't let the good outcome of this decision in particular blind you to the real problem at hand.

                  [–]Grumbleduke7749 26ポイント27ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  the court can decide cases in such a way that it essentially subverts the democratic authority of congress

                  This is what SCOTUS was designed to do: decide on the constitutionality of laws, even if said laws were democratically passed. This "dangerous precedent" has been in place since the nation's founding.

                  Look at segregation: that was passed with democratic authority in the South, but SCOTUS (eventually) ruled that those laws were in violation to the Constitution.

                  [–]johnzaku 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  thank you, yes.

                  [–]goateguy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Exactly! To all the people complaining about needing to get rid of the Supreme Court need to remember that it has been this way since the beginning.

                  [–]RagingTyrant74 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  If they really believed in the equal protection argument as applied to marriage then they should have applied it to polygamy and incestual marriage too right? Not necessarily, and this is why it needs to be voted on in the legislature with the proper authority of the people behind it.

                  [–]ControversialShallot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Polygamy and incestual marriage are fine imho. Whatever makes consenting adults happy.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]jimmyharbrah 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    It is a question of federalism. When the majority oppresses a protected "liberty" as the constitution currently understands that term, what is a court to do?

                    I often pose it to conservatives in terms of gun ownership. If a legislative body bans all firearms, it would certainly be a violation of substantive due process. I imagine many conservatives would support that decision--regarding gun control--despite their belief in our federal system.

                    [–]triangle60 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Gun Ownership has a specific provision in the constitution. There is a large group of people who think that the "current understanding" of the constitution, specifically of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment, is irrelevant and is used as a crutch to implement social policy.

                    [–]toomuchcream 22ポイント23ポイント  (26子コメント)

                    I don't disagree with you, but it's annoying that gay marriage, not any of the other hundreds of decisions, was the final straw for a lot of conservatives.

                    [–]jwoodall04 5ポイント6ポイント  (21子コメント)

                    Final straw for what?

                    [–]toomuchcream 11ポイント12ポイント  (13子コメント)

                    In supporting the Supreme Court and that branch of government. The majority of conservatives lean toward preserving traditions in a lot of situations, especially anything that has to do with what a bunch of old white men decided in the late 18th century. So op arguing that conservatives are now disheartened with the Supreme Court (while also seeming to imply that liberals aren't) is pretty annoying because there has never been such a "conservative outcry" against the Supreme Court before and it just conveniently happens right after gay marriage.

                    [–]ESPN_outsider 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

                    The supreme court is there to interpret the constitution, not create laws that can't be vetoed or voted on.

                    [–]clockwerkman 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    SCOTUS didn't create a new law, they invalidated several, which is well within their rights if those laws violate the constitution. They made a ruling that says gay marriage is protected under the 14th amendment, that is all.

                    [–]goateguy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Exactly! And I have plenty of family members that seem to think otherwise.

                    [–]triangle60 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    The argument is that there was never this protection in this constitution to begin with, so they functionally did create a new law by adding a new protection. That's the idea anyways.

                    [–]clockwerkman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    SCOTUS ruled that marriage counts as a legally binding contract (which it is), and as such no law can infringe on it according to the 14th amendment. If anyone wants to debate that, they are debating the interpretation of the constitution, which is in and of itself SCOTUS's job.

                    [–]LOLmodel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Luckily, they didn't create a law with this ruling.

                    [–]mrmojoz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Do you think they created a new law here?

                    EDIT: Well you said this:

                    It concerns me that justices have the ability to create laws

                    So yes you do. You are dumb.

                    [–]je_kay24 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    They don't. They interpret laws and state whether they are valid or invalid by the Constitution.

                    It reviewed laws banning gay marriage and declared that they are unconstitutional as per the 14th Amendment.

                    [–]toomuchcream 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    Not sure how saying gay marriage is protected under the 14th amendment is creating a new law. Maybe you could explain what I'm missing?

                    [–]triangle60 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Substantive due process under the 14th amendment can be thought of as a list of protections. They are not at all explicit. Some people think that justices like to keep adding to that list of protections. The idea is that adding to that list, rather than interpolating, is adding a new law. Then the argument is that here, they did not interpolate.

                    [–]ESPN_outsider 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Marriage is not defined in the constitution and it was not previously considered an inalienable right. Regardless about how I feel that people need to stop worrying about what others do in their private lives, there are still many people in this country that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those people were left out of this decision as were you and I.

                    State and federal law just changed based only what 5 non-democratically elected people believed. Did it change for the better this time? I believe so. Do I trust that they will always do the right thing? Absolutely not.

                    I believe in checks and balances. Not politically charged, unvetoable, unrepealable decrees disguised as judgement from 9 appointed people with lifetime terms. This should be a democracy. We are a republic. That decision was oligarchy.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]headzoo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Meaning SCOTUS has made plenty of rulings that could be seen as undemocratic, but for whatever reason their ruling on gay marriage has crossed the line for a lot of people.

                        Not that I believe it's true. This is hardly the first ruling to have a large segment of the population up in arms.

                        [–]thenewtbaron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        or even the first decision in regards to marriage law, which struck down the laws in many states.

                        [–]iambecomedownvote 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                        "Final" straw for the legions of conservatives who've been saying this for decades. Final in the sense that this is the first Supreme Court decision he was ever aware of.

                        [–]toomuchcream 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        Don't even pretend like liberals and conservatives aren't both quiet when the decision is in their favor and loud when it isn't. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on disliking the whole concept.

                        [–]ajustice83 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        It's 2000. Bush wins electoral college with a 500,000 vote deficit nationwide.

                        "Bush didn't win! The system is broken!"

                        Now it's 2004. Bush wins again. However, if John Kerry had won the state of Ohio, he would have won with a 4.5 million vote deficit nation wide.

                        Suddenly the left didn't care too much about changing the electoral system when it would benefit them.

                        [–]ITworksGuys -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Liberals were pissed on the death penalty decision. This guy probably wasn't aware of it.

                        [–]aidenpryde3025 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        Conservatives have been complaining about the activist court for a very long time.

                        [–]I_LOVE_TWINCEST -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        They weren't complaining when the activist court made corporations people.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]biskitwheels 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          Should basic rights be voted on by the people? I think it's more a constitutional right. Abolition, reproductive rights, women's suffrage, all came from the courts, right?

                          The majority doesn't have the right to define the rights of the minority. Courts are a good outlet for this process, in my opinion

                          [–]RagingTyrant74 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Basic rights aren't voted on because they're in the constitution. Guess what? Marriage isn't in the constitution and the whole concept of state issued marriage licences were essentially to make sure they could enforce inter-racial marriage laws.

                          [–]Foxtrot-150 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                          Abolition and women's suffrage were also attained through constitutional amendments and Civil Rights Act. Which were passed by Congress, who are democratically elected officials. This is the way laws are meant to be written.

                          [–]thenewtbaron 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          but marriage rights were voted on by the supreme court as well. Loving vs virginia, specifically.

                          They aren't creating a law, what they are saying is that Gay people have the right to vote and it invalidates the anti-gay marriage laws. much like the above mentioned case.

                          [–]headzoo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          SCOTUS has the job of clarifying and upholding the laws created by congress. Which is the way the system is meant to work. They didn't create new laws. They decided gay marriage was already protected by existing laws/rights. Laws created by democratically elected officials.

                          [–]alaskaj1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          And no new laws were written. It has previously been decided that marriage is a basic civil right of man. The 14th amendment guarantees the rights of all citizens shall not be infringed, nothing is mentioned about their personal preferences or appearance, simply all citizens.

                          If you want to delve deeper into the issue on another front, the 1st amendment guarantees rights to free exercise of religion. There are religions that accept same sex marriages as part of their religion, denying permits to get married therefore violated their first amendment rights as well.

                          So no new laws, just the enforcement of existing amendments to the US Constitution.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                            [–]loggic 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            That is literally the exact purpose of the Supreme Court, to be able to act as a check against the legislative and executive branches.

                            checks and balances

                            plural noun

                            1. limits imposed on all branches of a government by vesting in each branch the right to amend or void those acts of another that fall within its purview.

                            The Supreme Court has ruled many times in ways that contradict the will of the majority and/or legislative branch. This decision was only ground breaking due to its content, the process used and power wielded was the same as it has been throughout history. The check to this kind of SCOTUS ruling is to amend the constitution. There is nothing more "perilous" here than any other controversial decision the SCOTUS has made.

                            [–]thenewtbaron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            heck, it isn't even that ground breaking.

                            This is just a re-tread of the Loving vs Virginia decision.

                            are gays and blacks considered human beings? yes .
                            are they allowed to marry as per the 14th amendment? yes.
                            Do certain states say they can and other they can't? yes.
                            are they not being allowed to marry because of other's religion and beliefs? yes.

                            [–]BoilerMaker11 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            The supreme court is also there to make decisions that Congress won't, via interpretation of the Constitution and not "well, my personal beliefs are for or against X".

                            "Separate but equal" being abolished wasn't something that was voted on in different districts and states, or something representatives voted on in Congress. It was a Supreme Court decision. Because it needed to be done. Because it was the goddamned 20th century, and backward ass beliefs need to go to the wayside.

                            This current situation with gay marriage is no different. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal" and "the Constitution allows for equal protections for all Americans" is not something up for debate, for the people to decide, for the states to decide, etc. Those ruling are, objectively, the correct decisions despite how much old-timey, "traditional" people want to fight against it.

                            [–]OhDearYouAreDead 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Thank you for wording it like this. Really opened up my eyes to another line of thought.

                            [–]bw13187 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Conservatives have no problem with judicial review when its something they favor. It's clear what they're really upset over, here.

                            コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                              [–]frigidjudge 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

                              The same Supreme Court just reaffirmed the rights of police officers to go search your property even if you deny them access and without you having committed a crime.

                              [–]SlawKing 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

                              Source?

                              [–]grkirchhoff 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Wait, WHAT? Really? Can you link me the case?

                              [–]beaverpride 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Paraphrase much? Before you rile people up at least get it right.

                              [–]killerdead77 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Im out of touch youre out of time but im out of my head when youre not around.

                              [–]MrHibbityJibb 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Since this comment thread is abuzz with the difference between social and fiscal Conservatism, allow me to expand on one often-overlooked point:

                              Fiscal Conservatism isn't necessarily anti-taxation. It's just about maintaining solvency. Sometimes that means higher taxes and sometimes that means lower taxes. What we refer to as "Fiscal Conservatism" today has little bearing on government solvency, and a lot to do with simple opposition to taxes.

                              [–]julbull73 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I don't care honestly.

                              What I'm interested in is when someone tries to sue a church for not allowing them to marry there. ..

                              That's a SCOTUS dream case there.

                              With huge implications.

                              [–]Webonics 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              When you're right of the Supreme Court that said "Money is speech", I mean, you're out of touch right.

                              [–]Piisthree 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Should read "The supreme court and vast majority of the U.S. population...."

                              [–]Merari01 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              They said the exact same things in the "60s during desegregation as they do today.

                              Boohoo they're such victims. Boohoo their way of life is being destroyed.

                              Here's a tip: If your way of life depends on treating others as subhuman, you may just be an asshole.

                              [–]reboticon 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              So how does this effect polygamy? I haven't really heard that mentioned, probably because there are't a lot of polygamists, but wouldn't this ruling also apply to them?

                              [–]Death2DrunkSasquatch 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              It doesn't.

                              Allowing same-sex couples the right to get married gives them access to existing rules and benefits designed for two-person unions.

                              Polygamy would place a huge burden on the State because we would essentially need to build a system of federal benefits for pairings larger than two from the ground up. Polygamists can get married, but only to one other person. Just like everyone else.

                              [–]reboticon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Couldn't you flip that and say ' Gays could get married, but only to someone of the opposite sex?'

                              I started searching because I am now very curious, here is what Roberts said on it -

                              Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.

                              [–]sunsetsweremocked- 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, I prefer being right to having teenagers think that I'm cool.

                              [–]teaoverlord -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              The Supreme Court is nine people and they make bad decisions a lot. Obviously they were right this time, but it's not exactly an "everybody else must be wrong" situation.

                              [–]SOLIDninja 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              ITT

                              [–]delirad -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Well the good thing about it is that we can now see which one of our Facebook friends are actually cunt, their stealth mechanism breaks if "offended" enough.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)