Present day conservatives are just awful people in general in my experience.
Lindsey Graham was on TV being all "never Trump" one week and then fully supportive the next. c.c. almost everyone else in Washington.
I wonder what the tipping point is among Republican voters between those who genuinely support Trump vs those who think the Democratic candidates are so bad for foreign policy, DEI, etc. that they'll vote from Trump in protest.
Who would the Democrats have to nominate to get the libertarians who used to vote Republican to back them instead?
Only on HackerNews would someone try to tell me I was never called a sexist for not liking HRC on her merits. You're only supposed to gaslite women, dude, not other guys. LOL. /s
No, Sanders would never be a unifying figure. Libertarians see him as being essentially equivalent to Trump: a demagogue who makes emotional appeals to build a cult of personality, deeply misunderstands economics, and seeks to use political power in an unbounded and illegitimate ways.
They are noise in the data.
Populism is a marketing tool (to quote Hank Green) and Sanders wielded it as well as trump, but to help people, not punish them. Both have decades of track records demonstrating this fact.
Various surveys have indicated that 20-30% of the US population broadly align with libertarian principles, regardless of party affiliation or nominal identification. This aligns fairly well with the proportion of the electorate that had negative opinions of both Trump and Harris in the last election (even those who took a "lesser of evils" approach and voted for one of them).
99% of people agree with liberal policies: ask anyone if they'd like to pay less for better healthcare coverage.
The underlying principle of HN is that discussions should engender curiosity.
Talking point pissing matches and trying to dunk in replies permeate conversation everywhere else, especially when the people in power are controversial. Please take that energy elsewhere.
If you wanna participate in HN, aim for replies that everyone would find interesting. This isn't a board for interpersonal arguments.
I know lots of conservatives who aren't religious.
I don't think I've seen any conservatives involved in mainstream politics in the past 15 to 20 years. I see people using the word "conservatives" to describe something else entirely, but few actual conservatives.
Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king. The core principles are just rationalizations for the main idea: there should be a king.
American conservatives got swept away by democratic ideals and focused on the rationalizations, but now they’re getting back to their roots.
It's really not.
> Conservatism as an actual movement was formed after the French Revolution when monarchists found that “deus vult” was no longer sufficient justification for wanting a king.
In fact, conservatism in the Anglo-American world has no relationship whatsoever with the French revolution; the sort of reactionary monarchism that informed the royalist factions during the French revolution was already all but dead in the UK and America by the time of the French revolution -- it had already been driven to the fringes by the English civil war and the Glorious Revolution, and in the aftermath of the Whig ascendancy and the American revolution, was utterly gone by the 19th century.
Modern conservatism descends from the non-radical side of the Whig philosophy, as exemplified by Edmund Burke, and is characterized by preferring stability and continuity rather than forceful change, within a context of limited, balanced government, rule of law, and respect for the individual. Many of the people referring to themselves today as "conservatives" are collectivist, authoritarian radicals, and have much more in common with the extreme left than with traditional conservatism.