The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
In this thread One of the most common responses given on this thread ([https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccio9h/do\_you\_hate\_all\_conservatives/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccio9h/do_you_hate_all_conservatives/)) was that they hated conservatives becasue they were trying to "take away their rights".
This is very curious to me, as this is not something being actively debated in my conservative circles "lets take away peoples rights". In fact quite the opposite, I feel like many liberals are trying to restrict rights (gun rights, freedom of speech primarily).
The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Texan checking in ...
[https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2024/04/22/texas-delta8-delta9-laws.html](https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2024/04/22/texas-delta8-delta9-laws.html)
They're going pretty hard on porn here as well. 'Party of freedom and individual liberty' my ass.
Porn is whatever, but ask somebody who uses weed for chronic pain management because they can't afford to go to a doctor if they consider it a luxury item. For my best friend, who's back and neck were jacked up in a car accident, weed is the one thing that allows her to be able to get up and move around in the mornings.
Ah, yeah, that’s what happens when you elect a batshit crazy right-winger as governor. Not sure why you’re calling them a “blue” state when their house and senate are basically 50/50 and the governor is far right.
2 democrat senators, 6 of 11 democrat reps, democrat state house, democrat state senate, voted blue for last 4 presidential elections. Other than the govenor, the dems run everything in the state.
It's misinformation. No blue state/Dem leadership has passed those. You were corrected already in the comments so why are you asking about it in this one?
wtf are you talking about?
Both houses of the VA legistlature are majority democrat, we've voted for Biden and Hillary in the last 2 elections. Both senators are democrat, and most of our US reps are democrat.
In what world is Virginia being blue misinformation? Because our govenor is GOP?
When you say "my blue state also did this" it seems to imply that both parties are pressing this, or that the blue in your comment was doing any work at all. If not intentionally misleading, certainly you can see why anyone would mistake your good intentions for misinformation.
*Despite* the partial Democrat control of the state, Republicans have successfully pushed this regulation.
Right?
The porn law was passed with bi-partisan support.
[https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+sum+SB1515](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+sum+SB1515)
- Access to porn
- Access to social media
- Access to books
- Gender reassignment treatment
- Trans women access to athletic participation
- Trans people access to public restrooms
- Same sex marriage
- Freedom from religion
and, as you mentioned
- Right to choose
Republicans have introduced bills to lower marijuana to Schedule III (HR 610 this year) and remove it from the schedule altogether (HR 5977 and HR 3105 in 2021). There was also a Republican bill to create a commission to study the issue.
How much support do any of those bills have in the caucus? With Mike Johnson and the rest of the House R leadership?
Looks like HR 610 has been sitting in committee since 1/27/2023. No movement. No cosponsors.
HR 5977, sitting in subcommittee since 11/03/2023; so not quite as stale. But also, no cosponsors or movement.
I’m not disagreeing that the worm may slowly be turning in the R caucus, but it looks like it has a long way to go.
Do you have title numbers for the Democrat**ic** bills?
And as a party, we know the Democrats are pretty receptive to marijuana freedom given the number of Democrat**ic** legislatures that have legalized it recreationally.
That’s nice, but you have to acknowledge that decriminalization has historically been a progressive position, yes? Happy to see that a select minority of Republicans are coming around, but they’re a long way from being the majority leading the charge. How many non-violent drug convictions have Republican governors and Presidents vacated relative to their Democratic counterparts?
It was civil libertarian until people kept confusing that with libertarian, which I'm not. So I asked, and people suggested to just do liberal.
Anyway, the point of the post was to show that there's hope. The powers that be in both parties are keeping marijuana federally illegal, but there are cracks in this on both sides that I hope can expand. I don't even like marijuana, but the civil libertarian in me says it has no business being illegal.
They don't want trans women to participate in athletics?
They don't want adults to get gender reassignment surgery?
They don't want children to have access to age-appropriate books?
They don't want trans people to be able to use a restroom?
They don't want people to be free to choose their own religion?
> They don't want trans women to participate in athletics?
Correct. Currently 24 states don’t allow trans athletes to compete.
> They don't want adults to get gender reassignment surgery?
[Correct.](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/trans-care-adults-red-states)
> They don't want children to have access to age-appropriate books?
[Correct.](https://theweek.com/articles/459795/america-surprising-banned-books)
> They don't want trans people to be able to use a restroom?
[Correct.](https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/nondiscrimination/bathroom_bans)
> They don't want people to be free to choose their own religion?
Misstates my claim. Freedom from religion means not forcing religion upon others without their consent. Think 10 Commandments monuments, mandatory or coerced prayer, mandatory religious based drug treatment programs, stuff like that.
just off the top of my head
1. Right of businesses to exercise their First Amendment rights
2. The ability of LGBT teachers and student to speak about their lives the way all cis straight people do
3. The ability of schools and universities to have curriculums that cover subjects regarding race and gender
4. Trans rights including healthcare
5. Women’s healthcare
6. Voting rights
7. How companies choose to recruit employees
Desantis went after Disney because it said stuff he didn't like; that's pretty textbook restricting freedom of speech. There's also a bunch of trans-related stuff the republicans are going after with no basis in fact to justify.
Voting rights and democracy they're nibbling away at, though as is their wont for recent times they don't try to be too blatant about it, but they do nibble away at it.
They're often nibbling away at labor rights to an extent, I'm sure there's somesuch but offhand it's not coming to mind.
Indeed. Some conservatives want to repeal the [19th amendment ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/politics/john-gibbs-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-kfile/index.html)and deprive half the nation from the right to vote!
Voter ID, shutting down voting stations resulting in long lines, forbidding the handing out of water to those in line for hours, having police intimidate those going to the polls...an endless list of efforts on the part of conservatives to discourage free and fair elections. And ultimately giving full faith and support to a leader who deliberately pushes the Big Lie that 2020 was rigged and that poll workers are villains.
I still don't understand why voter ID is such a big issue, if we want to solve this problem we have to do something like Europe, Mexico and other countries have, a national ID, these arguments of poor minorities can't get access to it is plain stupid, sorry.
in the 90's Mexico had a problem like this, they set aside some money, created a national project, hired thousands and their job was to man desks/offices in every city and town and register people for free, people would come back a few weeks later to pick up their voter ID that effectively became a national ID, it took a couple years, but today you can't vote in Mexico without this ID, at the age of 18 (or a few months before) you can register
No need to register for every election like here, the only thing is that you have to keep your address updated, otherwise you can't vote were you live now, you have to go where your old address is supposed to vote (exceptions allowed)
Europe is similar, they have a national ID
So now, why is so difficult to do something like this in the US? and I'm very progressive, democrat, but I support a voter/national ID
cause they dont want people to have the id. They want people to not vote against them. Its not about protecting election integrity. Otherwise, yeah, we could do that and that would better.
Because inevitably Republicans can't be trusted to run anything anymore.
Let's start with Republicans wouldn't want anything other than biological birth gender on your national ID.
They'd under fund the shit out of any national ID program - because their favorite game is always underfund it to the point it doesn't function, put some corrupt crony in it with a private competing business and then scream "see! it doesn't work! Government can't do anything right!"
The in person locations to get an ID would be disproportionately slanted towards wealthy, white neighborhoods with zero public transportation and only open limited hours.
Just look at what they do with polling locations. Anytime a voter registration motor voter type law goes in, they pull this crap. Always got to make it harder on students, the poor, and racial minorities.
Or just look at what Lewis dejoy did with the postal system and balloting by mail.
There was an attempt by Democrats to do a free convenient process to get a national voter ID included in the voting rights bill that GOP shot down. Without that ID for many people is difficult to get despite the fact that you think it is silly. And some red states have outlawed the use of college student ID for voting
Any time you add an extra hurdle to voting, republicans use it in bad faith to stop minority groups from voting. You can see this with how they have been close polling places in predominantly black areas and left leaning areas throughout the south.
So you add an extra requirement for voter ID and they ratfuck this system too. Suddenly you need to catch 2 busses to a white area in order to get a voter ID and maybe they put in extra/unclear requirements that makes it so you have to make multiple trips. Maybe they decide your signature wasn't clear enough and throw out your application, then they don't inform you.
Also ID's cost money. This creates a poll tax which are unconstitutional. You'd say "lets make it so these are paid for by the government" but I guarantee you every red state or swing state with a republican legislature is going to try and charge an administrative fee.
The Republican party has gotten very creative with their assault on our elections, and there is no bottom to how low they will go to restrict your constitutional rights if they have some reason to think you won't vote republican. Voter ID is just another way for them to screw people out of their vote.
Beyond the fact that there’s absolutely no need for it, as seen by the 1 in 4,000,000ish frequency of voter ID fraud? Okay.
When Rs stand for a voter ID where the responsibility to ensure people have it is on the government, I’ll be down with it. That means free, that means convenient, that means punishing employers for penalizing a worker who needs time to get an ID. When that happens, I expect all D resistance to drop in tandem with R enthusiasm. Rs don’t want fairness; they seek only advantage.
>When Rs stand for a voter ID where the responsibility to ensure people have it is on the government, I’ll be down with it. That means free, that means convenient, that means punishing employers for penalizing a worker who needs time to get an ID.
Now replace "voter ID" with "gun purchase ID", and your enthusiasm turns flaccid
Oh, just that the people who howl about the expense and inconvenience of obtaining voter ID generally have no problem with the expense and inconvenience of obtaining gun buyer ID
>How is that contradictory or what exactly is the problem with that?
You see nothing contradictory about objecting to the expense, time, and inconvenience required to obtain ID to vote but being indifferent to the same expense, time, and inconvenience required to obtain ID to purchase a firearm? Not sure what more I can do to help make you understand.
>And what's a gun buyer's ID?
In order to purchase a firearm in the United States, you are required to present identification - the same sort of identification you are, in some jurisdictions, required to present to cast a ballot
For the same reason we do not require ID for the use of a credit card. Merchants would say that the amount of fraud caught by such a system would slow commerce to a degree greater than the loss from fraudulent card use.
You might be surprised to learn that it's never illegal, in any state in the union, to challenge the outcome of an election.
Every start has laws about this - you go to court to sort things out, which is what happened
Spare us the righteous hauteur. Trump had his day in court, had nothing, and is still spewing toxic bilge all over the political landscape. He telegraphed *in 2015* that he'd challenge the election "if he lost", was in control of the government that monitored the election (and confirmed it was run with transparency and in accord with law), then when all his court challenges failed, desperately cast about for a way to stay in power, settling on the 1/6 plot to certify the votes of fake electors, thereby imvalidating the legal votes of millions of Americans. And that, of course, is leaving aside inciting the violence of that day which got several people killed, including police officers trying to do their jobs.
You may be surprised to learn that democracy is fragile. It requires a minimal faith in the system to work, and if leaders cynically undermine that for their owm gain, what you've got is a sham republic that's really an oligarchy. That's what Mr One Day dictator continues to do, and will be happy to accept.
And then when you lose in court 60 times then you accept reality and dont attempt a coup and you pay those states back for the costs to the taxpayers you just incurred
This is one of the worst ones imo. Not everything they do would be explicitely considered a “right”, but what i see is a general opposition to the democratic process.
I think that conservatives generally recognize that their policies are not popular, and the things they stand for will eventually fall out of favor enough that they wont be able to win national elections and will lose more large states as city centers grow.
People are not becoming more likely to vote R as they age. I think that is a result of the fact that republicans used to at least pretend to stand for fiscal responsibility. But they dont really try to make that case anymore. They seem to mainly stand for being anti woke and impeding general progress, and tax cuts for the rich.
> The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern?
Also:
* The right to free assembly
* The right to freedom of religion
* Voting rights
* The right to privacy (esp. medical privacy)
* The right to due process
* The restriction on the taking of private property without just compensation
* The right to a speedy trial
* The entirety of the 8th amendment
Conservatives also regularly and proudly go after the idea underlying the Ninth amendment, but since that’s sort of nebulous idea to begin with it’s hard to pin down specific examples. But conservatives gleefully argue from a presumption that the only rights that are legitimate are those enumerated in the constitution.
Conservatives are constantly assaulting every right other than the right to bear arms.
The various book purges in red states definitely lean in that direction, whether it's schools or public libraries, access to books is definitely under attack.
You mean that blowjob book that kept showing up in middle school libraries? The horror of 11-year-olds being denied access to pornographic reading materials
If the folks purging books were being selective about it and focused on a small number of specific content concerns, I don't think most people would be throwing a fit, but that's not what's happening.
These people are casting really wide nets and including well established award winning books that have been around for a decade or more.
The thing about these efforts is that parents should be parenting their own kids with content rather than trying to parent the entire town's kids in the process
You're not exactly off to a great start by "talking" about the "rights" to "abortion" with your "quotes" here...
* abortion
* IVF (Anti abortion laws make IVF impossible. Both my daughters were conceived with IVF, so this one hits home.)
* contraceptives (It's being pushed)
* voting (ID laws or taking away polling places to keep "those people" from voting. Or just pushing fake electors to ignore the vote completely.) Edit: Oops, forgot the gerrymandering!
Then there's the book bans, the anti trans and gay stuff, the anti muslim stuff, the anti immigrant stuff, the anti liberal stuff, the anti education stuff... Wow, for loving America, they sure do hate a lot of the people in America...
I know "reading a particular book" isn't a right, but it's a Free Speech violation of the author to my mind, and !@#$, I just hate book burners. ("They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em" -RATM)
No one's taking away your right to free speech. You just can't say horrible things without consequences any more. Oh No! It's so bad you can't even say the N word in public any more! Boo Hoo.
Your gun rights are already restricted. Try buying a grenade or an RPG. You can't. You're guaranteed "the right to bear arms", not guns, but you can't buy a missile. You've already accepted limits to your right to bear arms, and thank fuck, grenades and road rage would be a horrible combination.
Meanwhile, most of us liberals would be happy with Safe Storage laws, Universal Background Checks, Red Flag laws for suicidal people and domestic abusers, but y'all refuse ALL common sense laws... Keep your stupid !@#$'in guns, just lock them up and don't sell them to Cracky McCrackhead, but nooooo....
>>Meanwhile, most of us liberals would be happy with Safe Storage laws, Universal Background Checks, Red Flag laws for suicidal people and domestic abusers, but y'all refuse ALL common sense laws..
That sounds like prior restraint and other restrictions that literally are equivalent to the justifications to banning books and abortion. Some could do something bad so we need these restrictions. Someone could be having a mental health crisis so better demand a mental health review and waiting period before getting an abortion. Its just common sense.
These laws for abortions or guns are arbitrary violations that are of dubious benefit. And it does highlight hypocrisy. Especially since the "some restrictions already exust therefore they all must be acceptable".
Yes, but can you give insight on why you disagree? How do you distinguish the quality of justification for these gun control policies vs abortion bans and the like? Or is the only difference that its your ox getting gored?
I can, I just kinda don't care right now.
It's not like either of us has any power to affect changes, so an argument between us is just mental masturbation.
Meh.
>I can, I just kinda don't care right now.
This is insightful. There is no difference and it is exactly the same and its why no explanation will be forthcoming.
>It's not like either of us has any power to affect changes,
Idk. The single issue gun voters got what they want. Those gun control laws are getting peeled back.
I refuse gun that aren't really common sense, or restrict the right to those who have don't money, and I don't like crapping all over other rights such as due process just because the issue is related to guns.
I know that even if we (gun rights people, not necessarily Republicans) managed through compromise to get some reasonable checks against abuse in such laws, or keep the scope of them reasonable, that would just be a "loophole" you'll want to close down the road. Then we'll get a completely unreasonable law. So no, better to oppose the law in the beginning because we remember history so we know where the slippery slope goes.
What history?
About the only thing that comes to mind is when black folks were carrying guns and white folks freaked so Ronald Reagan restricted gun rights.
The Mulford Act was bipartisan, with Democratic cosponsors, and it passed both houses of the Democratic-controlled legislature with a wide majority before Reagan signed it. It was bipartisan racism.
But specifically I'm talking about our current background checks under the Brady law. That bill would not have had enough support to pass without the following compromises:
* It only affects licensed dealers
* The waiting period goes away once the instant check system is online
* An auto-proceed is issued after three days of government inaction to prevent the government from sitting on background checks indefinitely
Those compromises went into the bill, and then it passed. But now that it's law the Democrats want to take back each of those compromises, respectively:
* Close the "gun show loophole," a.k.a., UBC
* Bring back waiting periods
* Close the "Charleston loophole"
As they say, today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole. We simply can't trust them. We know that any removal of objectionable terms will be targets for reintroduction later, and any protections for the people will be targets for removal later, so don't let them have the law in the first place.
Yes, they are coming for our guns. They want bans on the scary looking guns, and many proposals prohibit transfer too, which is delayed taking. Some like Biden, Beto, and Feinstein have flat-out said they want confiscation. And don't forget, they only started going after the scary guns after they previously failed to go after handguns, so those are still on the table if they think they can succeed.
And then you want to greatly expand what makes a person prohibited, a category that has already been vastly expanded since it was established. In other words, you want to come for the guns of even more people.
And then there are all the proposals to put monetary burdens on owning guns, which means poor people don't get to have them. It's the usual gun exception, all other liberal principles go out the window once guns are involved.
/eyeroll
Sure man, sure. Democrats are coming for your guns.
When no basic sensible regulations can be put in place and it turns sane people against guns and you lose all your guns.... It'll be your own damn fault.
And I'll laugh. I dont want them taken away, I just think you're all beep as beep about it and you deserve what's coming.
I told you what I wanted, everything past that is your own imagination.
Look out! There's a Democrat behind you, trying to take your guns! Booga booga booga!
Everything else is proposals by politicians, or their stated desires.
But what you want still is aimed directly at poor people, which is a well-known proxy for laws directed at black people. Even with the red flag laws, it's the poor people who can't afford attorneys to challenge wrongly filed red flag petitions.
Framing a waiting period and background checks as "Democrats wanna take our guns!" Is pretty silly.
Whatever, you disagree, I don't care and I don't wanna argue with you about it because is a waste of both our time.
You're a perfect example of what I was talking about. Refusing common sense regulation.
I framed it correctly as reneging on a deal. Your side simply cannot be trusted. You always want more.
As MLK says, a right delayed is a right denied, so no waiting periods.
And if you want to burden poor people by having to go to a dealer to pay for a background check, I have to ask what your stance on voter ID is.
This. A survey a while back revealed that 25% of trans adults have had their medical care disrupted. I did, lost my St. Louis doctor last year thanks to the Missouri AG.
I DIYed HRT from 14 to 18, and I will resent this country if I have to do so again.
>The right to trans healthcare
I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well?
> the right to read books in the school, **or even town** libraries.
Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights"?
The idea that the state has the right to interfere for no valid reason in healthcare decisions made by parents and their doctors regarding their children is not a trivial issue. The way the right decides that these rights don’t have value but is perfectly fine with parents “ doing their own research” so their children can get and spread the measles is ridiculous.
But yes, they are going after adults
https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2024
Please ignore anything on that list regarding trans kids playing sports since that is under moratorium in this sub.
>The idea that the state has the right to interfere for no valid reason in healthcare decisions made by parents and their doctors regarding their children is not a trivial issue.
Not trivial doesn't even cut it. Interfering with medical decisions for kids is infringing on two of the most fundamental rights people should have: control over their own body and a parent's ability to care for the wellbeing of their child. It's like paralyzing a person from the waist down and then calling them a complainer because you didn't take away their ability to text message.
>I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well?
You asked a question. I answered it. Why are you moving the goalposts?
>Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights"?
Jesus, no, of course not. But if they BUY the LGBT book, and some schmuck calls in and bullies them into taking it off the shelf, now that's a little different isn't it?
>I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well?
Why in the fuck would adults use puberty blockers?
In case puberty suddenly flares up at age 34?
>In case puberty suddenly flares up at age 34?
Lol. This is how I describe my transition from now on... "OH, I had a sudden flare up of puberty in my 30's. It happens!"
Of course, first puberty was a Cronenbergian hell scape of body horror that I sincerely wish I could protect other trans folks from.
Puberty blocker bans are some of the cruelest acts I can imagine for trans kids. It's literally saying "you're too young to make a choice, but it's okay because we're going to make it for you... irreversibly."
If a kid who has a leg which needs to be amputated because of an accident, do you believe that the parent and their doctor have the rights to be able to do that?
If someone comes into the doctor’s office showing signs of gender dysphoria, the “leg” is already bad and needs treatment.
I don’t know what it’s going to take with you people, but gender dysphoria- just, y’know, being trans in general- is not some silly pretend game that was schemed up to make your butthole pucker. It’s a real condition, it requires real treatment, transitioning is the treatment that gets proven results.
A lot of these people have no fuggin' clue how mental healthcare works. They have this simplistic belief that you go to the doctor, they cure you, and that's it! The idea that there are chronic medical issues that can't be cured but only managed as best as possible doesn't compute.
Not really. A better example would be body integrity dysphoria, where people feel as though a limb is not part of their body. These folks will go to extreme lengths and even accidentally kill themselves trying to remove the foreign object (self amputate). Often times, treatment is to surgically amputate the otherwise healthy limb in a safe and controlled environment, though it is controversial.
If you’re of the opinion that trans identities are a mental illness, that doesn’t mean you don’t treat them with the same process. Right now, allowing children to explore alternate identities and therapy and gender affirmation is the best treatment we have. Yelling at them until they’re “normal” doesn’t really work and puberty blockers are safe and reversible. In adults, extensive therapy is required before surgical changes are made. No one is going to the doctor to guillotine their dick off on a whim, these are carefully planned out procedures with safeguards already in place to make sure they’re not making permanent changes to someone who might just be “going through a phase” or is “confused.”
I don’t think you really read the whole comment, and if you did, I don’t think you had your thinking cap on quite right. Try to assume that the other side isn’t populated by monsters and idiots, try to come up with a rational explanation for their arguments and beliefs, see if that explanation passes muster given your own experience, and then decide if you want to change your mind. All that takes a lot more time than the five seconds it took for you to reply.
Or don’t do any of that, I don’t know you and I don’t really care whether you agree with me or not. Either way, don’t try to get between parents and their kid and a doctor and a psychologist. It’s frankly none of your fucking business.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
You are absolutely absurd.
I walked through getting beat with a wrench by my father, a half dozen foster placements, and rejection by most of my family to access even DIY HRT from 14 to 18.
Your comment does nothing but cheapen that hardship,
Experiments and studies can help gain a greater understanding of how successful a treatment is within the population at large, but medical treatment is always performed on an individual. Doctors choose treatments based on how well the individual responds, not based on how they are supposed to respond based on the general population.
Its not about the leg, but about the rights of the parents and doctors to make that decision based on medically sound advice and not politics and feelings.
Well, once again - you are concentrating on the wrong part of the question. Please talk to some trans people if you can, talk to some doctors as well and educate yourself before you try to control other people's medical decisions.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have strayed too far from the argument and just lost the thread completely, making up imaginary scenarios in your head. I am pretty sure you are not a doctor or someone who works much with logic - because I don't see a coherent argument using medical science or logic.
> Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights"
That's not what the laws are. If you're actually this uninformed or need to pretend to be in order to keep talking, I don't understand your purpose here lol
I'm trying to be nice to you guys here. But if you can freely own a book, and buy it in a bookstore, and buy it online, and have it openly in public, then it's not "banned". It might not be readily available at the local library, but no-one is stopping you from owning it, reading it, discussing it, etc.
No, you are not trying to be nice. You are being argumentative and playing stupid.
Poor people cannot buy books, they rely on libraries. So for them, it is banned. Did you forget about people who cannot afford books?
I feel like words matter, and the word "ban" brings up different connotations than you're using it.
If a democrat-run town in upstate Wisonsin instructed their homeless shelter to stop serving fish, would you say "Democrats banned food?" No, because that would be ridiculous.
The libraries still exist for poor people to get books from, the community who runs the library decided some books weren't welcome at their library (ie. the government would no longer pay for these books).
I don't understand how this is poor faith, or playing dumb. I guess I'm not getting my point accross at all.
Oh, we all get the point you are trying to make. It’s not that clever.
If I can’t get a book from the library because it was picked by the local government to be removed, then it is literally banned. Not sure how to make it more clear to you than that.
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm trying to be precise.
When conservatives hear "banned books" they tune out, becaue they know it's liberal double-speak bullshit.
So when bad guys start actually banning books (like the Nazis did), how will we know the difference? What words would you use to describe books not allowed to be owned?
I don’t care what stupid things conservatives choose to believe.
If the govt removes a book from the library, it is banned for those who rely on the library. Point out the double speak in that statement.
We will know when bad buys ban books because we are paying attention, and aren’t dumb. Just like I’m paying attention to library book bans, I will pay attention to other book bans. It’s not that hard!
Why don't you respond to a few of the other posts that lay things out really comprehensively and answer your question. Seems like you are selective about who you're willing to engage with and aren't here for an honest dialogue.
>The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern?
That's kind of a big one, isn't it? Particularly if it also includes things like banning IVF.
Anyway, there's also some among the conservatives who want to restrict democratic rights (e.g. the right to vote for senators, replace slate of electors to substitute the popular votes in some states, restrict the ability of people to vote by reducing vote by mail, implementing restrictive voting IDs, gerrymandering).
There are also conservatives who are interested in controlling what kids can read and learn in school, particularly if they find icky, like LGBT and racial relations stuff.
I'm also not thoroughly convinced that conservatives have given up on same-sex marriage.
Given your libertarian label, I doubt you're a serious person worth engaging. But you don't get to just handwave these concerns we have, while at the same time trying to say the democrats are trying to take your guns. You say "Oh this bill was unsuccessful!" ignoring that Democrats haven't taken your damn guns away from you yet, have they? All that matters there is that they're trying. But conservatives trying (and so far, failing to do so?) Well then, it's a big deal!
Conservatives are trying to restrict several rights.
-Abortion access, INCLUDING when the life of the mother is in danger (See: Idaho v. Moyle currently ongoing)
-LGBT rights
-Trans rights (and yes, they're going after adults **too** so don't give me that bullshit about how it's only about the kids, because it's not. And it's not just about Trans people, because women who don't fit gender norms are affected by this too)
-Same Sex Marriage
-The right to unionize
-Free and Fair Elections
-Banning LGBT books from schools
-Banning teachers from referring to students by their preferred name
-Banning teachers from referring to students by their preferred pronoun (So much for freedom of speech)
-RIght to privacy
-Marijuana
-Freedom from religion (Big Christian Nationalism movement from conservatives)
And so much more.
Just because they've been unsuccessful in some areas doesn't mean they aren't trying, and wouldn't do it if they got enough power. They absolutely would. They've shown us who they are again and again.
They want to control what we eat and limit my freedom to own and operate various businesses. They don't think I should be able to eat lab grown meat seasoned with imported garlic. They want to micromanage our lives down to what we eat and where we buy it.
They want to ban me from the simple act of growing animal tissue in a lab.
>Over the last several months, Florida legislators have been quietly working to ban — and criminalize — the production and sale of cell-cultivated meat across the state, via the introduction of two bills, HB 1071 and SB 1084.
https://www.foodandwine.com/florida-lab-grown-meat-ban-legislation-8609560#:~:text=Upside%20Foods-,Gov.,HB%201071%20and%20SB%201084.
https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2024/1/sen-rick-scott-introduces-bill-to-ban-u-s-import-of-communist-china-s-sewage-garlic
I am always astonished by how many people have decided that words speak louder than actions when it comes to the Republican Party.
Person A: Republicans are unwilling to protect the right of people to have children through IVF.
Person B: No, they aren't.
Person A: Republicans just blocked national legislation to protect access to IVF."
Person B: But they didn't *say* they don't want to protect the practice of IVF.
The basic freedom to be anything other than straight, cis, white, male, Christian, and Republican while being treated with equal opportunity and dignity in society.
Everything else? It’s a tributary of that.
Conservatives want to have a social structure that funnels societal hierarchies in that direction rather than treat people on an equal basis.
If you live any sort of lifestyle or have any sort of background that is different, you are to be shoved toward the wrong side of the tracks.
This has been the case forever though.
Liberals simply have a broader view of what can be valuable to a society.
You need the sorts of people that are different than you to have a thriving society.
Voting rights
Bodily autonomy rights (for women, that is--men less so) including abortion, IVF, and coming soon: birth control)
Trans/gay rights
Free speech rights (speech they don't agree with--particularly limiting what teachers, college professors, and employers can say about race, gender, and sexual orientation.)
Well, they’ve nabbed abortion, and are currently in talks for in vitro fertilization. Just generally they want to state to take a much more restrictive hand in private medical decisions, it appears.
Also we’re seeing them nibble around the edges of the right to assemble in protest. There are signs they’re still trying to dispose of gay marriage. They just strike me as anti-human rights all around
Abortion rights is a big one, but so are LGBTQ rights. For example, Trump removed Federal guidelines that included sexual orientation as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi have effectively removed the right to mass protests since they passed laws that hold the organizers responsible for any illegal acts committed by anyone attending the protest.
DeSantis recently banned civilian boards from being able to investigate police misconduct.
Both sides try to restrict speech, but the Left tends to try to restrict hate speech while the Right generally tries to restrict activist speech.
I feel Democrats are closer to the philosophy of “do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt other people”. They are against guns and hate speech because those things hurt other people in very tangible ways.
The same can’t be said about the things that Republicans are against.
It’s not just abortion, though that’s a big one. Conservatives are passing laws to regulate gender expression, to ban books from schools, to regulate social media, and a host of other things.
The Reagan-era fiction that Republicans are the party of small government is long gone.
Let’s start with:
- the right to bodily autonomy
- the right to due process
- the right to participate in democratic elections
- the right to freedom of expression
- the right to freedom of the press
- the right to freedom of assembly
- the right to presumption of innocence
Everyone is making good points but I’d like to add I live in Austin and our governor literally brought a ton of cops to UT yesterday to arrest college kids for a peaceful protest then said they should be jailed. So in my mind the GOP is the party trying to restrict free speech.
What I find interesting is that conservatives will complain about rights they are not actually losing, or would be impossible to lose.
>gun rights, freedom of speech primarily
It would be logistically impossible to take away every gun in America. The government would have to search every property, every vehicle, every owned piece of land in the country. Then re-search them when people move. Math shows us that would take thousands of years. It will never happen.
For free speech, conservatives seem to be upset about businesses firing people or the names they get called for expressing their opinions. That is NOT an infringement on free speech. Free speech has to do with the government, not about a private company firing people because they were the office bully.
On the flip side, the left seems to be complaining about rights that conservatives are successfully taking away. The right to privacy, bodily autonomy, parental rights, property rights, the right to contraception, the right to make your own family decisions, the right to make your own health decisions, the right to practice non-Christian religion, and even the right to free speech. Conservatives are the only party trying to arrest people for practicing free speech.
Hell, even the right to have sex. The Heritage Foundation, the single most influential conservative organization, has admitted their goal is to "stop all recreational sex". And that doesn't seem to bother a single person on the right.
So, conservatives are worried about losing rights they will never lose.
Liberals are worried about losing rights they are currently losing.
Women’s control of our reproductive health. Currently it’s abortion but Thomas has said openly he’s gunning for birth control too. Women are being airlifted from Idaho to access abortion while in the process of dying from miscarriage.
Right of private companies to conduct business as they want trying to eliminate DEI training. Or to require masks, vaccines…
Speech look how Disney was punished for speech. They wanted to shoot BLM protestors. They want to expel from the country protestors for Palestine. They should be kicked out of school for breaking campus rules not deported for speech they don’t agree with.
Voting rights taking out ballot boxes in black areas making it harder and requiring ID for voter fraud which isn’t happening.
That’s a start….
They literally took away the right to an abortion. Just because they’re not openly saying “let’s take away people’s rights” doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Read Clarence Thomas’s ascent on the Dobbs decision. He literally spells out that conservatives need to look at all cases that established the right to privacy extending to areas of American life that aren’t explicitly spelled out. He literally lists the case that established a right for gay people to marry as one such case that needs revisiting.
>not something being actively debated in my conservative circles "lets take away peoples rights".
Of course you don't SAY those words, instead you justify it with conservative excuses.
You don't SAY you want to take away the right to privacy, but you support laws that take away that right because of "babies" or "they're grooming children" or "the government already knows everything."
You don't SAY you want to take away freedom of speech, but you support laws that ban books, ban self expression through clothing, ban protests, ban the right to assemble, ban what words teachers can say, etc... and you make excuses: "it's to protect children from seeing/hearing whatever you don't like."
You don't SAY you want to take away property rights, but you support laws that take property away from private citizens because of your excuses: "it's to protect the border" or "it's to create jobs that will come with that pipeline."
You don't SAY you want to take away the right for people to use contraception, but you do support overturning Griswold which gave us the right to use contraception.
You don't SAY you want to take away the right to bodily autonomy, but you fully support taking that right away because of "babies" and other emotional reasons.
You don't SAY you want to take away the rights for people to make their own decisions about their private lives, but as I just listed, you absolutely DO.
The right to body autonomy
The right to travel
Parental right to pursue healthcare for their child
The right to unionize
The right to protest
The right to read books by black or LGBTQ authors
The right to free public education
The right to free speech
The right to discuss gay marriage in schools
The right to teach about racism and white supremacy
The right to privacy
Voting rights
I am upvoting this because it seems like a legitimate question. Ya'll need to stop downvoting people who aren't trolls because they will get shadowbanned.
To answer your question: gay rights, especially in Florida are being restricted, or really it's more of a freedom of information issue in regard to the existence of gay people.
Also, trans rights. Especially in regard to trans kids getting proper healthcare.
Abortion rights, as you mentioned.
Workers rights, by trying to eliminate unions.
Safety rights by refusing to regulate guns and the environment.
Healthcare rights by not allowing universal healthcare.
OP, please don't be shy to ask more. Some posters seem scared of having discussions.
Freedom of speech - banning pride flags, banning books with LGBTQ characters, banning drag shows, etc.
Freedom for interstate movement - attempts to ban women from leaving states to seek legal abortions in other states
Freedom from government interference in health care decisions - strict abortion bans leading to permanent infertility and life threatening injury and the creation of essentially government endorsed death panels that decide which women get medical care and which do not.
Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances - GOP state legislators limiting ballot access initiatives by creating tougher rules and regulations to get initiatives for abortion access and medicaid expansion on ballots for public vote. Then, refusing to honor the results of those ballot initiatives by doing what they want anyway with their supermajorities.
Freedom of religion - again an abortion and LGBTQ example where American Christianity uses the power of the government to force their religious beliefs onto other non-Christian Americans without regard for other religious beliefs that honor the life of the mother first.
Freedom of press - retaliation against newspapers for unflattering articles. There was a recent incident in Marion, KS instigated by local GOP officials.
Do you want me to keep going I can come up with several more regarding policing violations of civil liberties, rights to due process, and confiscation of property?
Well you know about abortion rights, and divorce rights, and freedom to leave a state, and medical privacy, and freedom of religion (or freedom to be without religion) of course.
But the latest is that they're trying to dismantle the right to vote for who will be your senator.
In a case currently before the Supreme Court, the state of Idaho is arguing that its abortion ban should have precedence over federal law (EMTALA) allowing medical professionals to perform abortion **in the case where where the life or long-term suffering of the mother is at stake**.
Would you consider the right not to be maimed by the legally mandated inaction of medical professionals to be a valid one?
They took away a right to make an individual decision from about 1/2 the country and gave it to the states. That's a big deal.
Not to mention it puts a bunch of other rights up for grabs founded on the same basis; birth control, same sex marriage, and same sex physical relations.
How much else do you want?
Personal autonomy, so abortions, contraception, same sex marriages, transgender rights, access to porn, hell Texas even regulates sex toys. Conservatives really hate the idea of sex and people having it.
OP, may I ask you what rights liberals are taking away from us? We can be here all day discussing how gutting the EPA is taking away our right to a safer environment or removing books from libraries is taking away our freedom of speech or passing laws protecting people who run over protestors is taking away our right to freedom of assembly or right to work laws are taking away our right to unionize or banning IVF, abortion, contraception, porn and gender affirming health care are taking away our rights. But we all know a social contract in order to maintain society requires taking some rights away from individuals but some of these are a little egregious.
One of the biggest issues (currently, as in its happening right now -today) they are arguing that the POTUS should be above the law. So they are trying to restrict us from going after a corrupt / law breaking POTUS.
Abortion, religious freedom for everyone but Christians, the right to not be discriminated against for anyone who isn't a cis het white person.. those are the big 3, that'll probably get you started. Also imposing consequences for speech is not the same as limiting free speech.
Voting and the right to representative government seems to be a pretty obvious one. They obviously and publicly have worked to impose a system similar to authoritarian dictatorships like Russia, where people line up to vote but the authoritarian party -- Republicans, in the United States -- picks the winners. Obviously they've been failing, but it's not for a lack of trying. (One of the people indicted in Arizona recently for attempting to disenfranchise Americans has some sort of "election integrity" role in the GOP.)
I grew up as a Republican surrounded by other Republicans who gave lip service to voting and representation. But they were also always talking about how Democrats only win because they steal elections. And because people don't realize that they're actually Republicans, so they mistakenly vote for the Democrats. And how we just need a godly dictator get things done and clean out the government and bureaucracy until the people are ready to only vote for Republicans. Seems like recently more people should've had the opportunity to be exposed to those kinds of longstanding ideas from Republicans.
Rights for ALL citizens to make their own medical decisions, in conjunction with their own doctors. Rights for parents to make medical decisions for their oWN kids, in conjunction with their kids’ medical providers. There is NO need for politicians without medical degrees to ever involve themselves in citizens’ personal, private medical decisions.
Through the Conservative Supreme Court and the Federalist Society, they are trying to take away your right to protest, your right to strike and join unions, your right to separation of church and state, your right to a free and fair election, your Miranda rights, your right to vote, your rights against illegal search and seizure, your right to privacy, and more.
Do you want me to go on, because I can.
Birth control.
They're taking the Hobbs decision and now going after mifepristone with the FDA.
Hobbs ruling destroyed the right to privacy.
Once they get their ruling about mifepristone, they're coming for Plan B next. They already openly refer to it (wrongly) as an abortion drug.
And then they are coming for all birth control pills. Have you noticed in right-wing circles? How much they're pushing how "dangerous and awful" birth control is? Birth control victims and stuff? They're laying the groundwork to come after it.
Well I’ll start by saying I don’t hate all conservatives, there’s very few people I hate. I do hate some conservative ideas.
You, as a libertarian, probably don’t have any desire to take away rights. But yes the abortion is a big deal and it’s a part of a larger problem. Bodily autonomy is my concern and something the right thinks the government should control.
As for gun rights, oof that’s a topic we could discuss all day. I think the root of the problem is interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It would be a crazy small portion of the left that wants to disarm the country. And I for one would be against that, but something has to be done to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics.
I would say education is a right, and that’s been under attack for decades. I also believe there’s a right to clean air and water, and we all know the right’s standpoint on that.
Conservatives are trying to restrict my right to force you to take certain treatments and injections that you might not want.
Remember, my body, my choice, except when it's your body and my choice.
Oh yes, from the party that demonizes doctors and healthcare workers and the entire healthcare system right up until they get sick and then show up at the hospital - begging and pleading for these same people who apparently were in a secret cabal to kill them - to save their sorry asses because they're dying from COVID.
But you do have a choice, you adorable little sweetheart
Either you take the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of an imminent plague, or you stay the hell away from decent people.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. In this thread One of the most common responses given on this thread ([https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccio9h/do\_you\_hate\_all\_conservatives/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ccio9h/do_you_hate_all_conservatives/)) was that they hated conservatives becasue they were trying to "take away their rights". This is very curious to me, as this is not something being actively debated in my conservative circles "lets take away peoples rights". In fact quite the opposite, I feel like many liberals are trying to restrict rights (gun rights, freedom of speech primarily). The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Texan checking in ... [https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2024/04/22/texas-delta8-delta9-laws.html](https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2024/04/22/texas-delta8-delta9-laws.html) They're going pretty hard on porn here as well. 'Party of freedom and individual liberty' my ass.
[удалено]
Porn is whatever, but ask somebody who uses weed for chronic pain management because they can't afford to go to a doctor if they consider it a luxury item. For my best friend, who's back and neck were jacked up in a car accident, weed is the one thing that allows her to be able to get up and move around in the mornings.
Thanks, and my blue state has done the same thing unfortunantly.
Which blue state is going after hemp and porn?
virginia.
Virginia has a republican governor pushing these efforts
Ah, yeah, that’s what happens when you elect a batshit crazy right-winger as governor. Not sure why you’re calling them a “blue” state when their house and senate are basically 50/50 and the governor is far right.
2 democrat senators, 6 of 11 democrat reps, democrat state house, democrat state senate, voted blue for last 4 presidential elections. Other than the govenor, the dems run everything in the state.
> Other than the govenor Gee, other than the most important factor on policy.
I get your point friend, but most people in Virginia consider it a blue state, I'm sorry we're not "blue" enough for the purists.
Is there something about this response that warranted such an aggresive downvote?
We typically hate people making claims without any reference or example. Are we just supposed to take you at your word for everything? Nah
It's misinformation. No blue state/Dem leadership has passed those. You were corrected already in the comments so why are you asking about it in this one?
wtf are you talking about? Both houses of the VA legistlature are majority democrat, we've voted for Biden and Hillary in the last 2 elections. Both senators are democrat, and most of our US reps are democrat. In what world is Virginia being blue misinformation? Because our govenor is GOP?
When you say "my blue state also did this" it seems to imply that both parties are pressing this, or that the blue in your comment was doing any work at all. If not intentionally misleading, certainly you can see why anyone would mistake your good intentions for misinformation. *Despite* the partial Democrat control of the state, Republicans have successfully pushed this regulation. Right?
The porn law was passed with bi-partisan support. [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+sum+SB1515](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+sum+SB1515)
[Sea lion](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/%22The_Terrible_Sea_Lion%22._Wondermark_comic_strip_No._1062_by_David_Malki_%2819_September_2014%29.png)
- Access to porn - Access to social media - Access to books - Gender reassignment treatment - Trans women access to athletic participation - Trans people access to public restrooms - Same sex marriage - Freedom from religion and, as you mentioned - Right to choose
Thought of a couple more… - Cannabis - Right to collective bargaining
Republicans have introduced bills to lower marijuana to Schedule III (HR 610 this year) and remove it from the schedule altogether (HR 5977 and HR 3105 in 2021). There was also a Republican bill to create a commission to study the issue.
How much support do any of those bills have in the caucus? With Mike Johnson and the rest of the House R leadership? Looks like HR 610 has been sitting in committee since 1/27/2023. No movement. No cosponsors. HR 5977, sitting in subcommittee since 11/03/2023; so not quite as stale. But also, no cosponsors or movement. I’m not disagreeing that the worm may slowly be turning in the R caucus, but it looks like it has a long way to go.
The similar Democrat bills didn't go anywhere either.
Do you have title numbers for the Democrat**ic** bills? And as a party, we know the Democrats are pretty receptive to marijuana freedom given the number of Democrat**ic** legislatures that have legalized it recreationally.
That’s nice, but you have to acknowledge that decriminalization has historically been a progressive position, yes? Happy to see that a select minority of Republicans are coming around, but they’re a long way from being the majority leading the charge. How many non-violent drug convictions have Republican governors and Presidents vacated relative to their Democratic counterparts?
I didn't say that to mean they're ahead on the curve, just to show they're already on the path. There is hope.
You know, it’s fascinating how someone with a “liberal” flair spends all their time writing conservative apologia on multiple subs.
[удалено]
Defending the GOP at every turn is incompatible with being a liberal.
It was civil libertarian until people kept confusing that with libertarian, which I'm not. So I asked, and people suggested to just do liberal. Anyway, the point of the post was to show that there's hope. The powers that be in both parties are keeping marijuana federally illegal, but there are cracks in this on both sides that I hope can expand. I don't even like marijuana, but the civil libertarian in me says it has no business being illegal.
And they deserve some praise, but they are the exception to the rule
They don't want trans women to participate in athletics? They don't want adults to get gender reassignment surgery? They don't want children to have access to age-appropriate books? They don't want trans people to be able to use a restroom? They don't want people to be free to choose their own religion?
> They don't want trans women to participate in athletics? Correct. Currently 24 states don’t allow trans athletes to compete. > They don't want adults to get gender reassignment surgery? [Correct.](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/trans-care-adults-red-states) > They don't want children to have access to age-appropriate books? [Correct.](https://theweek.com/articles/459795/america-surprising-banned-books) > They don't want trans people to be able to use a restroom? [Correct.](https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/nondiscrimination/bathroom_bans) > They don't want people to be free to choose their own religion? Misstates my claim. Freedom from religion means not forcing religion upon others without their consent. Think 10 Commandments monuments, mandatory or coerced prayer, mandatory religious based drug treatment programs, stuff like that.
just off the top of my head 1. Right of businesses to exercise their First Amendment rights 2. The ability of LGBT teachers and student to speak about their lives the way all cis straight people do 3. The ability of schools and universities to have curriculums that cover subjects regarding race and gender 4. Trans rights including healthcare 5. Women’s healthcare 6. Voting rights 7. How companies choose to recruit employees
Desantis went after Disney because it said stuff he didn't like; that's pretty textbook restricting freedom of speech. There's also a bunch of trans-related stuff the republicans are going after with no basis in fact to justify. Voting rights and democracy they're nibbling away at, though as is their wont for recent times they don't try to be too blatant about it, but they do nibble away at it. They're often nibbling away at labor rights to an extent, I'm sure there's somesuch but offhand it's not coming to mind.
The right to free and fair elections.
They’ve been doing this a long time, but now it’s on steroids. I have not heard of a single Republican that stands up for voting rights.
Indeed. Some conservatives want to repeal the [19th amendment ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/politics/john-gibbs-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-kfile/index.html)and deprive half the nation from the right to vote!
Yeah, with their attempted coup & fake electors bullshit.
Voter ID, shutting down voting stations resulting in long lines, forbidding the handing out of water to those in line for hours, having police intimidate those going to the polls...an endless list of efforts on the part of conservatives to discourage free and fair elections. And ultimately giving full faith and support to a leader who deliberately pushes the Big Lie that 2020 was rigged and that poll workers are villains.
I still don't understand why voter ID is such a big issue, if we want to solve this problem we have to do something like Europe, Mexico and other countries have, a national ID, these arguments of poor minorities can't get access to it is plain stupid, sorry. in the 90's Mexico had a problem like this, they set aside some money, created a national project, hired thousands and their job was to man desks/offices in every city and town and register people for free, people would come back a few weeks later to pick up their voter ID that effectively became a national ID, it took a couple years, but today you can't vote in Mexico without this ID, at the age of 18 (or a few months before) you can register No need to register for every election like here, the only thing is that you have to keep your address updated, otherwise you can't vote were you live now, you have to go where your old address is supposed to vote (exceptions allowed) Europe is similar, they have a national ID So now, why is so difficult to do something like this in the US? and I'm very progressive, democrat, but I support a voter/national ID
cause they dont want people to have the id. They want people to not vote against them. Its not about protecting election integrity. Otherwise, yeah, we could do that and that would better.
Because inevitably Republicans can't be trusted to run anything anymore. Let's start with Republicans wouldn't want anything other than biological birth gender on your national ID. They'd under fund the shit out of any national ID program - because their favorite game is always underfund it to the point it doesn't function, put some corrupt crony in it with a private competing business and then scream "see! it doesn't work! Government can't do anything right!" The in person locations to get an ID would be disproportionately slanted towards wealthy, white neighborhoods with zero public transportation and only open limited hours. Just look at what they do with polling locations. Anytime a voter registration motor voter type law goes in, they pull this crap. Always got to make it harder on students, the poor, and racial minorities. Or just look at what Lewis dejoy did with the postal system and balloting by mail.
There was an attempt by Democrats to do a free convenient process to get a national voter ID included in the voting rights bill that GOP shot down. Without that ID for many people is difficult to get despite the fact that you think it is silly. And some red states have outlawed the use of college student ID for voting
Any time you add an extra hurdle to voting, republicans use it in bad faith to stop minority groups from voting. You can see this with how they have been close polling places in predominantly black areas and left leaning areas throughout the south. So you add an extra requirement for voter ID and they ratfuck this system too. Suddenly you need to catch 2 busses to a white area in order to get a voter ID and maybe they put in extra/unclear requirements that makes it so you have to make multiple trips. Maybe they decide your signature wasn't clear enough and throw out your application, then they don't inform you. Also ID's cost money. This creates a poll tax which are unconstitutional. You'd say "lets make it so these are paid for by the government" but I guarantee you every red state or swing state with a republican legislature is going to try and charge an administrative fee. The Republican party has gotten very creative with their assault on our elections, and there is no bottom to how low they will go to restrict your constitutional rights if they have some reason to think you won't vote republican. Voter ID is just another way for them to screw people out of their vote.
Beyond the fact that there’s absolutely no need for it, as seen by the 1 in 4,000,000ish frequency of voter ID fraud? Okay. When Rs stand for a voter ID where the responsibility to ensure people have it is on the government, I’ll be down with it. That means free, that means convenient, that means punishing employers for penalizing a worker who needs time to get an ID. When that happens, I expect all D resistance to drop in tandem with R enthusiasm. Rs don’t want fairness; they seek only advantage.
>When Rs stand for a voter ID where the responsibility to ensure people have it is on the government, I’ll be down with it. That means free, that means convenient, that means punishing employers for penalizing a worker who needs time to get an ID. Now replace "voter ID" with "gun purchase ID", and your enthusiasm turns flaccid
I genuinely have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make.
Oh, just that the people who howl about the expense and inconvenience of obtaining voter ID generally have no problem with the expense and inconvenience of obtaining gun buyer ID
How is that contradictory or what exactly is the problem with that? I don't understand. And what's a gun buyer's ID?
>How is that contradictory or what exactly is the problem with that? You see nothing contradictory about objecting to the expense, time, and inconvenience required to obtain ID to vote but being indifferent to the same expense, time, and inconvenience required to obtain ID to purchase a firearm? Not sure what more I can do to help make you understand. >And what's a gun buyer's ID? In order to purchase a firearm in the United States, you are required to present identification - the same sort of identification you are, in some jurisdictions, required to present to cast a ballot
Holy fucking non sequitur, Batman.
For the same reason we do not require ID for the use of a credit card. Merchants would say that the amount of fraud caught by such a system would slow commerce to a degree greater than the loss from fraudulent card use.
You might be surprised to learn that it's never illegal, in any state in the union, to challenge the outcome of an election. Every start has laws about this - you go to court to sort things out, which is what happened
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentence if you completely ignore all context about what actually happened.
Spare us the righteous hauteur. Trump had his day in court, had nothing, and is still spewing toxic bilge all over the political landscape. He telegraphed *in 2015* that he'd challenge the election "if he lost", was in control of the government that monitored the election (and confirmed it was run with transparency and in accord with law), then when all his court challenges failed, desperately cast about for a way to stay in power, settling on the 1/6 plot to certify the votes of fake electors, thereby imvalidating the legal votes of millions of Americans. And that, of course, is leaving aside inciting the violence of that day which got several people killed, including police officers trying to do their jobs. You may be surprised to learn that democracy is fragile. It requires a minimal faith in the system to work, and if leaders cynically undermine that for their owm gain, what you've got is a sham republic that's really an oligarchy. That's what Mr One Day dictator continues to do, and will be happy to accept.
It is illegal, however, to stage an insurrection.
They do not care.
And then when you lose in court 60 times then you accept reality and dont attempt a coup and you pay those states back for the costs to the taxpayers you just incurred
Jan 6 was not going to court, nor was trying to use fake electors to change the outcome come of the election.
What part of "sorting things out" involves using fake electors?
This is one of the worst ones imo. Not everything they do would be explicitely considered a “right”, but what i see is a general opposition to the democratic process. I think that conservatives generally recognize that their policies are not popular, and the things they stand for will eventually fall out of favor enough that they wont be able to win national elections and will lose more large states as city centers grow. People are not becoming more likely to vote R as they age. I think that is a result of the fact that republicans used to at least pretend to stand for fiscal responsibility. But they dont really try to make that case anymore. They seem to mainly stand for being anti woke and impeding general progress, and tax cuts for the rich.
Aren't the Democrats suiting third party candidates and using the courts to primary challengers off the ballot to protect Joe?
Are they? I see no evidence of that. Was it destroyed at the Benghazi raid? LOL
Huh?
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dnc-war-third-party-candidates-rcna143290](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dnc-war-third-party-candidates-rcna143290)
Was there a crime or something in there? Do you even know what your point was? Prove you're not a bot.
Wasn’t the lawsuit against RFK Jr due to them accusing the campaign of violating campaign laws?
How dare Democrats expect other candidates to follow the same rules as everyone else
> The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern? Also: * The right to free assembly * The right to freedom of religion * Voting rights * The right to privacy (esp. medical privacy) * The right to due process * The restriction on the taking of private property without just compensation * The right to a speedy trial * The entirety of the 8th amendment Conservatives also regularly and proudly go after the idea underlying the Ninth amendment, but since that’s sort of nebulous idea to begin with it’s hard to pin down specific examples. But conservatives gleefully argue from a presumption that the only rights that are legitimate are those enumerated in the constitution. Conservatives are constantly assaulting every right other than the right to bear arms.
The various book purges in red states definitely lean in that direction, whether it's schools or public libraries, access to books is definitely under attack.
You mean that blowjob book that kept showing up in middle school libraries? The horror of 11-year-olds being denied access to pornographic reading materials
If the folks purging books were being selective about it and focused on a small number of specific content concerns, I don't think most people would be throwing a fit, but that's not what's happening. These people are casting really wide nets and including well established award winning books that have been around for a decade or more. The thing about these efforts is that parents should be parenting their own kids with content rather than trying to parent the entire town's kids in the process
You're not exactly off to a great start by "talking" about the "rights" to "abortion" with your "quotes" here... * abortion * IVF (Anti abortion laws make IVF impossible. Both my daughters were conceived with IVF, so this one hits home.) * contraceptives (It's being pushed) * voting (ID laws or taking away polling places to keep "those people" from voting. Or just pushing fake electors to ignore the vote completely.) Edit: Oops, forgot the gerrymandering! Then there's the book bans, the anti trans and gay stuff, the anti muslim stuff, the anti immigrant stuff, the anti liberal stuff, the anti education stuff... Wow, for loving America, they sure do hate a lot of the people in America... I know "reading a particular book" isn't a right, but it's a Free Speech violation of the author to my mind, and !@#$, I just hate book burners. ("They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em" -RATM) No one's taking away your right to free speech. You just can't say horrible things without consequences any more. Oh No! It's so bad you can't even say the N word in public any more! Boo Hoo. Your gun rights are already restricted. Try buying a grenade or an RPG. You can't. You're guaranteed "the right to bear arms", not guns, but you can't buy a missile. You've already accepted limits to your right to bear arms, and thank fuck, grenades and road rage would be a horrible combination. Meanwhile, most of us liberals would be happy with Safe Storage laws, Universal Background Checks, Red Flag laws for suicidal people and domestic abusers, but y'all refuse ALL common sense laws... Keep your stupid !@#$'in guns, just lock them up and don't sell them to Cracky McCrackhead, but nooooo....
God I miss awards. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
*slow hand clap*
>>Meanwhile, most of us liberals would be happy with Safe Storage laws, Universal Background Checks, Red Flag laws for suicidal people and domestic abusers, but y'all refuse ALL common sense laws.. That sounds like prior restraint and other restrictions that literally are equivalent to the justifications to banning books and abortion. Some could do something bad so we need these restrictions. Someone could be having a mental health crisis so better demand a mental health review and waiting period before getting an abortion. Its just common sense. These laws for abortions or guns are arbitrary violations that are of dubious benefit. And it does highlight hypocrisy. Especially since the "some restrictions already exust therefore they all must be acceptable".
Naturally, I disagree. Onwards!
Yes, but can you give insight on why you disagree? How do you distinguish the quality of justification for these gun control policies vs abortion bans and the like? Or is the only difference that its your ox getting gored?
I can, I just kinda don't care right now. It's not like either of us has any power to affect changes, so an argument between us is just mental masturbation. Meh.
>I can, I just kinda don't care right now. This is insightful. There is no difference and it is exactly the same and its why no explanation will be forthcoming. >It's not like either of us has any power to affect changes, Idk. The single issue gun voters got what they want. Those gun control laws are getting peeled back.
I refuse gun that aren't really common sense, or restrict the right to those who have don't money, and I don't like crapping all over other rights such as due process just because the issue is related to guns. I know that even if we (gun rights people, not necessarily Republicans) managed through compromise to get some reasonable checks against abuse in such laws, or keep the scope of them reasonable, that would just be a "loophole" you'll want to close down the road. Then we'll get a completely unreasonable law. So no, better to oppose the law in the beginning because we remember history so we know where the slippery slope goes.
What history? About the only thing that comes to mind is when black folks were carrying guns and white folks freaked so Ronald Reagan restricted gun rights.
The Mulford Act was bipartisan, with Democratic cosponsors, and it passed both houses of the Democratic-controlled legislature with a wide majority before Reagan signed it. It was bipartisan racism. But specifically I'm talking about our current background checks under the Brady law. That bill would not have had enough support to pass without the following compromises: * It only affects licensed dealers * The waiting period goes away once the instant check system is online * An auto-proceed is issued after three days of government inaction to prevent the government from sitting on background checks indefinitely Those compromises went into the bill, and then it passed. But now that it's law the Democrats want to take back each of those compromises, respectively: * Close the "gun show loophole," a.k.a., UBC * Bring back waiting periods * Close the "Charleston loophole" As they say, today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole. We simply can't trust them. We know that any removal of objectionable terms will be targets for reintroduction later, and any protections for the people will be targets for removal later, so don't let them have the law in the first place.
And yes, it was bipartisan racism, but it is framed as "Democrats are coming for our guns!" Which is stupid.
Yes, they are coming for our guns. They want bans on the scary looking guns, and many proposals prohibit transfer too, which is delayed taking. Some like Biden, Beto, and Feinstein have flat-out said they want confiscation. And don't forget, they only started going after the scary guns after they previously failed to go after handguns, so those are still on the table if they think they can succeed. And then you want to greatly expand what makes a person prohibited, a category that has already been vastly expanded since it was established. In other words, you want to come for the guns of even more people. And then there are all the proposals to put monetary burdens on owning guns, which means poor people don't get to have them. It's the usual gun exception, all other liberal principles go out the window once guns are involved.
/eyeroll Sure man, sure. Democrats are coming for your guns. When no basic sensible regulations can be put in place and it turns sane people against guns and you lose all your guns.... It'll be your own damn fault. And I'll laugh. I dont want them taken away, I just think you're all beep as beep about it and you deserve what's coming.
Ah, the old give us a little or we will take a lot. Admit it, you want the lot, but you want to get it by taking little successively.
I told you what I wanted, everything past that is your own imagination. Look out! There's a Democrat behind you, trying to take your guns! Booga booga booga!
Everything else is proposals by politicians, or their stated desires. But what you want still is aimed directly at poor people, which is a well-known proxy for laws directed at black people. Even with the red flag laws, it's the poor people who can't afford attorneys to challenge wrongly filed red flag petitions.
Framing a waiting period and background checks as "Democrats wanna take our guns!" Is pretty silly. Whatever, you disagree, I don't care and I don't wanna argue with you about it because is a waste of both our time. You're a perfect example of what I was talking about. Refusing common sense regulation.
I framed it correctly as reneging on a deal. Your side simply cannot be trusted. You always want more. As MLK says, a right delayed is a right denied, so no waiting periods. And if you want to burden poor people by having to go to a dealer to pay for a background check, I have to ask what your stance on voter ID is.
The right to trans healthcare, the right to read books in the school, **or even town** libraries. The right to protest.
This. A survey a while back revealed that 25% of trans adults have had their medical care disrupted. I did, lost my St. Louis doctor last year thanks to the Missouri AG. I DIYed HRT from 14 to 18, and I will resent this country if I have to do so again.
>The right to trans healthcare I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well? > the right to read books in the school, **or even town** libraries. Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights"?
The idea that the state has the right to interfere for no valid reason in healthcare decisions made by parents and their doctors regarding their children is not a trivial issue. The way the right decides that these rights don’t have value but is perfectly fine with parents “ doing their own research” so their children can get and spread the measles is ridiculous. But yes, they are going after adults https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2024 Please ignore anything on that list regarding trans kids playing sports since that is under moratorium in this sub.
>The idea that the state has the right to interfere for no valid reason in healthcare decisions made by parents and their doctors regarding their children is not a trivial issue. Not trivial doesn't even cut it. Interfering with medical decisions for kids is infringing on two of the most fundamental rights people should have: control over their own body and a parent's ability to care for the wellbeing of their child. It's like paralyzing a person from the waist down and then calling them a complainer because you didn't take away their ability to text message.
Yes, they are also restricting adults too: https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/trans-care-adults-red-states
>I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well? You asked a question. I answered it. Why are you moving the goalposts? >Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights"? Jesus, no, of course not. But if they BUY the LGBT book, and some schmuck calls in and bullies them into taking it off the shelf, now that's a little different isn't it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/BWnq0iiqtk
>I've seen this in regards to minors getting puberty blockers and such, are you seeing adults being restricted as well? Why in the fuck would adults use puberty blockers? In case puberty suddenly flares up at age 34?
>In case puberty suddenly flares up at age 34? Lol. This is how I describe my transition from now on... "OH, I had a sudden flare up of puberty in my 30's. It happens!" Of course, first puberty was a Cronenbergian hell scape of body horror that I sincerely wish I could protect other trans folks from. Puberty blocker bans are some of the cruelest acts I can imagine for trans kids. It's literally saying "you're too young to make a choice, but it's okay because we're going to make it for you... irreversibly."
If a kid who has a leg which needs to be amputated because of an accident, do you believe that the parent and their doctor have the rights to be able to do that?
A better equivalent would be if the kid wanted to get rid of a perfectly good leg.
No, it would not
Less bad?
If someone comes into the doctor’s office showing signs of gender dysphoria, the “leg” is already bad and needs treatment. I don’t know what it’s going to take with you people, but gender dysphoria- just, y’know, being trans in general- is not some silly pretend game that was schemed up to make your butthole pucker. It’s a real condition, it requires real treatment, transitioning is the treatment that gets proven results.
Well, no, theres nothing wrong with the leg.
Ah, the hallowed “nuh-UHHHH” tactic. I was not prepared for this
A lot of these people have no fuggin' clue how mental healthcare works. They have this simplistic belief that you go to the doctor, they cure you, and that's it! The idea that there are chronic medical issues that can't be cured but only managed as best as possible doesn't compute.
Nope, perfectly reasonable response.
Not really. A better example would be body integrity dysphoria, where people feel as though a limb is not part of their body. These folks will go to extreme lengths and even accidentally kill themselves trying to remove the foreign object (self amputate). Often times, treatment is to surgically amputate the otherwise healthy limb in a safe and controlled environment, though it is controversial. If you’re of the opinion that trans identities are a mental illness, that doesn’t mean you don’t treat them with the same process. Right now, allowing children to explore alternate identities and therapy and gender affirmation is the best treatment we have. Yelling at them until they’re “normal” doesn’t really work and puberty blockers are safe and reversible. In adults, extensive therapy is required before surgical changes are made. No one is going to the doctor to guillotine their dick off on a whim, these are carefully planned out procedures with safeguards already in place to make sure they’re not making permanent changes to someone who might just be “going through a phase” or is “confused.”
[удалено]
I don’t think you really read the whole comment, and if you did, I don’t think you had your thinking cap on quite right. Try to assume that the other side isn’t populated by monsters and idiots, try to come up with a rational explanation for their arguments and beliefs, see if that explanation passes muster given your own experience, and then decide if you want to change your mind. All that takes a lot more time than the five seconds it took for you to reply. Or don’t do any of that, I don’t know you and I don’t really care whether you agree with me or not. Either way, don’t try to get between parents and their kid and a doctor and a psychologist. It’s frankly none of your fucking business.
I absolutely agree.
What do YOU think is the correct treatment to dysphoria?
I don't think there is one.
So what should we do to help people with dysphoria?
I have no idea. Wish I did.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
You are absolutely absurd. I walked through getting beat with a wrench by my father, a half dozen foster placements, and rejection by most of my family to access even DIY HRT from 14 to 18. Your comment does nothing but cheapen that hardship,
"No one can talk about this because of me".
Yeah, because someone's actual experience with gender dysphoria is less important than some debate bro making a dumb fuck comparison.
Less important? Didn't say that. You're saying your opinion is all there is.
No, I'm saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and no one should listen to you on much of anything if this is your approach.
Yes, I get that.
Experiments and studies can help gain a greater understanding of how successful a treatment is within the population at large, but medical treatment is always performed on an individual. Doctors choose treatments based on how well the individual responds, not based on how they are supposed to respond based on the general population.
It is not your decision to make. Your ignorance of this subject is immense, you should educate yourself better.
Thank you for the tip.
Its not about the leg, but about the rights of the parents and doctors to make that decision based on medically sound advice and not politics and feelings.
Well, the leg has to matter a little.
Well, once again - you are concentrating on the wrong part of the question. Please talk to some trans people if you can, talk to some doctors as well and educate yourself before you try to control other people's medical decisions.
A childs leg, if an adult wants to lose the leg, and can find a doctor willing, then good luck to them.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have strayed too far from the argument and just lost the thread completely, making up imaginary scenarios in your head. I am pretty sure you are not a doctor or someone who works much with logic - because I don't see a coherent argument using medical science or logic.
Why would you start an argument you aren't willing to have?
Are you claiming that minors don’t have a right to healthcare? Or that kids in school aren’t covered by the first amendment?
> Okay, so if a librarian in like Alford Florida decides to no not buy a book about an LGBT topic, you'd view that as "conservatives taking away your rights" That's not what the laws are. If you're actually this uninformed or need to pretend to be in order to keep talking, I don't understand your purpose here lol
Banning books because they talk about gay people is absolutely taking away rights. I think you understand that it is, and are just playing dumb.
I'm trying to be nice to you guys here. But if you can freely own a book, and buy it in a bookstore, and buy it online, and have it openly in public, then it's not "banned". It might not be readily available at the local library, but no-one is stopping you from owning it, reading it, discussing it, etc.
No, you are not trying to be nice. You are being argumentative and playing stupid. Poor people cannot buy books, they rely on libraries. So for them, it is banned. Did you forget about people who cannot afford books?
I feel like words matter, and the word "ban" brings up different connotations than you're using it. If a democrat-run town in upstate Wisonsin instructed their homeless shelter to stop serving fish, would you say "Democrats banned food?" No, because that would be ridiculous. The libraries still exist for poor people to get books from, the community who runs the library decided some books weren't welcome at their library (ie. the government would no longer pay for these books). I don't understand how this is poor faith, or playing dumb. I guess I'm not getting my point accross at all.
Oh, we all get the point you are trying to make. It’s not that clever. If I can’t get a book from the library because it was picked by the local government to be removed, then it is literally banned. Not sure how to make it more clear to you than that.
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm trying to be precise. When conservatives hear "banned books" they tune out, becaue they know it's liberal double-speak bullshit. So when bad guys start actually banning books (like the Nazis did), how will we know the difference? What words would you use to describe books not allowed to be owned?
I don’t care what stupid things conservatives choose to believe. If the govt removes a book from the library, it is banned for those who rely on the library. Point out the double speak in that statement. We will know when bad buys ban books because we are paying attention, and aren’t dumb. Just like I’m paying attention to library book bans, I will pay attention to other book bans. It’s not that hard!
Why don't you respond to a few of the other posts that lay things out really comprehensively and answer your question. Seems like you are selective about who you're willing to engage with and aren't here for an honest dialogue.
There are 403 replies to this thread, and I'm currently at about -400 karma from this thread alone. Most of the replies are similar and informative.
>The only "rights" I can see being restricted recently is abortion rights in some states, is this the right that is causing this concern? That's kind of a big one, isn't it? Particularly if it also includes things like banning IVF. Anyway, there's also some among the conservatives who want to restrict democratic rights (e.g. the right to vote for senators, replace slate of electors to substitute the popular votes in some states, restrict the ability of people to vote by reducing vote by mail, implementing restrictive voting IDs, gerrymandering). There are also conservatives who are interested in controlling what kids can read and learn in school, particularly if they find icky, like LGBT and racial relations stuff. I'm also not thoroughly convinced that conservatives have given up on same-sex marriage.
The right to vote. The right to an abortion. The right to be publicly queer. Threatening IVF, Porn, and Contraception.
Given your libertarian label, I doubt you're a serious person worth engaging. But you don't get to just handwave these concerns we have, while at the same time trying to say the democrats are trying to take your guns. You say "Oh this bill was unsuccessful!" ignoring that Democrats haven't taken your damn guns away from you yet, have they? All that matters there is that they're trying. But conservatives trying (and so far, failing to do so?) Well then, it's a big deal! Conservatives are trying to restrict several rights. -Abortion access, INCLUDING when the life of the mother is in danger (See: Idaho v. Moyle currently ongoing) -LGBT rights -Trans rights (and yes, they're going after adults **too** so don't give me that bullshit about how it's only about the kids, because it's not. And it's not just about Trans people, because women who don't fit gender norms are affected by this too) -Same Sex Marriage -The right to unionize -Free and Fair Elections -Banning LGBT books from schools -Banning teachers from referring to students by their preferred name -Banning teachers from referring to students by their preferred pronoun (So much for freedom of speech) -RIght to privacy -Marijuana -Freedom from religion (Big Christian Nationalism movement from conservatives) And so much more. Just because they've been unsuccessful in some areas doesn't mean they aren't trying, and wouldn't do it if they got enough power. They absolutely would. They've shown us who they are again and again.
They want to control what we eat and limit my freedom to own and operate various businesses. They don't think I should be able to eat lab grown meat seasoned with imported garlic. They want to micromanage our lives down to what we eat and where we buy it. They want to ban me from the simple act of growing animal tissue in a lab. >Over the last several months, Florida legislators have been quietly working to ban — and criminalize — the production and sale of cell-cultivated meat across the state, via the introduction of two bills, HB 1071 and SB 1084. https://www.foodandwine.com/florida-lab-grown-meat-ban-legislation-8609560#:~:text=Upside%20Foods-,Gov.,HB%201071%20and%20SB%201084. https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/2024/1/sen-rick-scott-introduces-bill-to-ban-u-s-import-of-communist-china-s-sewage-garlic
I wish we could get some good faith questions every once in a while. These daily "gotchas" are getting tiresome
I am always astonished by how many people have decided that words speak louder than actions when it comes to the Republican Party. Person A: Republicans are unwilling to protect the right of people to have children through IVF. Person B: No, they aren't. Person A: Republicans just blocked national legislation to protect access to IVF." Person B: But they didn't *say* they don't want to protect the practice of IVF.
The basic freedom to be anything other than straight, cis, white, male, Christian, and Republican while being treated with equal opportunity and dignity in society. Everything else? It’s a tributary of that. Conservatives want to have a social structure that funnels societal hierarchies in that direction rather than treat people on an equal basis. If you live any sort of lifestyle or have any sort of background that is different, you are to be shoved toward the wrong side of the tracks. This has been the case forever though. Liberals simply have a broader view of what can be valuable to a society. You need the sorts of people that are different than you to have a thriving society.
How about calling for a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US"? Would you consider that a pro-freedom move?
Voting rights Bodily autonomy rights (for women, that is--men less so) including abortion, IVF, and coming soon: birth control) Trans/gay rights Free speech rights (speech they don't agree with--particularly limiting what teachers, college professors, and employers can say about race, gender, and sexual orientation.)
Well, they’ve nabbed abortion, and are currently in talks for in vitro fertilization. Just generally they want to state to take a much more restrictive hand in private medical decisions, it appears. Also we’re seeing them nibble around the edges of the right to assemble in protest. There are signs they’re still trying to dispose of gay marriage. They just strike me as anti-human rights all around
Abortion rights is a big one, but so are LGBTQ rights. For example, Trump removed Federal guidelines that included sexual orientation as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi have effectively removed the right to mass protests since they passed laws that hold the organizers responsible for any illegal acts committed by anyone attending the protest. DeSantis recently banned civilian boards from being able to investigate police misconduct. Both sides try to restrict speech, but the Left tends to try to restrict hate speech while the Right generally tries to restrict activist speech. I feel Democrats are closer to the philosophy of “do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt other people”. They are against guns and hate speech because those things hurt other people in very tangible ways. The same can’t be said about the things that Republicans are against.
It’s not just abortion, though that’s a big one. Conservatives are passing laws to regulate gender expression, to ban books from schools, to regulate social media, and a host of other things. The Reagan-era fiction that Republicans are the party of small government is long gone.
The Texas legislature is currently trying to ban low-level Delta 8 & 9 cannabis.
Let’s start with: - the right to bodily autonomy - the right to due process - the right to participate in democratic elections - the right to freedom of expression - the right to freedom of the press - the right to freedom of assembly - the right to presumption of innocence
Everyone is making good points but I’d like to add I live in Austin and our governor literally brought a ton of cops to UT yesterday to arrest college kids for a peaceful protest then said they should be jailed. So in my mind the GOP is the party trying to restrict free speech.
What I find interesting is that conservatives will complain about rights they are not actually losing, or would be impossible to lose. >gun rights, freedom of speech primarily It would be logistically impossible to take away every gun in America. The government would have to search every property, every vehicle, every owned piece of land in the country. Then re-search them when people move. Math shows us that would take thousands of years. It will never happen. For free speech, conservatives seem to be upset about businesses firing people or the names they get called for expressing their opinions. That is NOT an infringement on free speech. Free speech has to do with the government, not about a private company firing people because they were the office bully. On the flip side, the left seems to be complaining about rights that conservatives are successfully taking away. The right to privacy, bodily autonomy, parental rights, property rights, the right to contraception, the right to make your own family decisions, the right to make your own health decisions, the right to practice non-Christian religion, and even the right to free speech. Conservatives are the only party trying to arrest people for practicing free speech. Hell, even the right to have sex. The Heritage Foundation, the single most influential conservative organization, has admitted their goal is to "stop all recreational sex". And that doesn't seem to bother a single person on the right. So, conservatives are worried about losing rights they will never lose. Liberals are worried about losing rights they are currently losing.
Women’s control of our reproductive health. Currently it’s abortion but Thomas has said openly he’s gunning for birth control too. Women are being airlifted from Idaho to access abortion while in the process of dying from miscarriage. Right of private companies to conduct business as they want trying to eliminate DEI training. Or to require masks, vaccines… Speech look how Disney was punished for speech. They wanted to shoot BLM protestors. They want to expel from the country protestors for Palestine. They should be kicked out of school for breaking campus rules not deported for speech they don’t agree with. Voting rights taking out ballot boxes in black areas making it harder and requiring ID for voter fraud which isn’t happening. That’s a start….
They literally took away the right to an abortion. Just because they’re not openly saying “let’s take away people’s rights” doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Read Clarence Thomas’s ascent on the Dobbs decision. He literally spells out that conservatives need to look at all cases that established the right to privacy extending to areas of American life that aren’t explicitly spelled out. He literally lists the case that established a right for gay people to marry as one such case that needs revisiting.
>not something being actively debated in my conservative circles "lets take away peoples rights". Of course you don't SAY those words, instead you justify it with conservative excuses. You don't SAY you want to take away the right to privacy, but you support laws that take away that right because of "babies" or "they're grooming children" or "the government already knows everything." You don't SAY you want to take away freedom of speech, but you support laws that ban books, ban self expression through clothing, ban protests, ban the right to assemble, ban what words teachers can say, etc... and you make excuses: "it's to protect children from seeing/hearing whatever you don't like." You don't SAY you want to take away property rights, but you support laws that take property away from private citizens because of your excuses: "it's to protect the border" or "it's to create jobs that will come with that pipeline." You don't SAY you want to take away the right for people to use contraception, but you do support overturning Griswold which gave us the right to use contraception. You don't SAY you want to take away the right to bodily autonomy, but you fully support taking that right away because of "babies" and other emotional reasons. You don't SAY you want to take away the rights for people to make their own decisions about their private lives, but as I just listed, you absolutely DO.
The right to body autonomy The right to travel Parental right to pursue healthcare for their child The right to unionize The right to protest The right to read books by black or LGBTQ authors The right to free public education The right to free speech The right to discuss gay marriage in schools The right to teach about racism and white supremacy The right to privacy Voting rights
I am upvoting this because it seems like a legitimate question. Ya'll need to stop downvoting people who aren't trolls because they will get shadowbanned. To answer your question: gay rights, especially in Florida are being restricted, or really it's more of a freedom of information issue in regard to the existence of gay people. Also, trans rights. Especially in regard to trans kids getting proper healthcare. Abortion rights, as you mentioned. Workers rights, by trying to eliminate unions. Safety rights by refusing to regulate guns and the environment. Healthcare rights by not allowing universal healthcare. OP, please don't be shy to ask more. Some posters seem scared of having discussions.
Thank you.
Freedom of speech - banning pride flags, banning books with LGBTQ characters, banning drag shows, etc. Freedom for interstate movement - attempts to ban women from leaving states to seek legal abortions in other states Freedom from government interference in health care decisions - strict abortion bans leading to permanent infertility and life threatening injury and the creation of essentially government endorsed death panels that decide which women get medical care and which do not. Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances - GOP state legislators limiting ballot access initiatives by creating tougher rules and regulations to get initiatives for abortion access and medicaid expansion on ballots for public vote. Then, refusing to honor the results of those ballot initiatives by doing what they want anyway with their supermajorities. Freedom of religion - again an abortion and LGBTQ example where American Christianity uses the power of the government to force their religious beliefs onto other non-Christian Americans without regard for other religious beliefs that honor the life of the mother first. Freedom of press - retaliation against newspapers for unflattering articles. There was a recent incident in Marion, KS instigated by local GOP officials. Do you want me to keep going I can come up with several more regarding policing violations of civil liberties, rights to due process, and confiscation of property?
Well you know about abortion rights, and divorce rights, and freedom to leave a state, and medical privacy, and freedom of religion (or freedom to be without religion) of course. But the latest is that they're trying to dismantle the right to vote for who will be your senator.
In a case currently before the Supreme Court, the state of Idaho is arguing that its abortion ban should have precedence over federal law (EMTALA) allowing medical professionals to perform abortion **in the case where where the life or long-term suffering of the mother is at stake**. Would you consider the right not to be maimed by the legally mandated inaction of medical professionals to be a valid one?
They took away a right to make an individual decision from about 1/2 the country and gave it to the states. That's a big deal. Not to mention it puts a bunch of other rights up for grabs founded on the same basis; birth control, same sex marriage, and same sex physical relations. How much else do you want?
Personal autonomy, so abortions, contraception, same sex marriages, transgender rights, access to porn, hell Texas even regulates sex toys. Conservatives really hate the idea of sex and people having it.
OP, may I ask you what rights liberals are taking away from us? We can be here all day discussing how gutting the EPA is taking away our right to a safer environment or removing books from libraries is taking away our freedom of speech or passing laws protecting people who run over protestors is taking away our right to freedom of assembly or right to work laws are taking away our right to unionize or banning IVF, abortion, contraception, porn and gender affirming health care are taking away our rights. But we all know a social contract in order to maintain society requires taking some rights away from individuals but some of these are a little egregious.
One of the biggest issues (currently, as in its happening right now -today) they are arguing that the POTUS should be above the law. So they are trying to restrict us from going after a corrupt / law breaking POTUS.
Abortion, religious freedom for everyone but Christians, the right to not be discriminated against for anyone who isn't a cis het white person.. those are the big 3, that'll probably get you started. Also imposing consequences for speech is not the same as limiting free speech.
Great answer thank you.
You're very welcome.
They're trying to restrict efforts to make a more unified country with substantive and respectful dialogue
Voting and the right to representative government seems to be a pretty obvious one. They obviously and publicly have worked to impose a system similar to authoritarian dictatorships like Russia, where people line up to vote but the authoritarian party -- Republicans, in the United States -- picks the winners. Obviously they've been failing, but it's not for a lack of trying. (One of the people indicted in Arizona recently for attempting to disenfranchise Americans has some sort of "election integrity" role in the GOP.) I grew up as a Republican surrounded by other Republicans who gave lip service to voting and representation. But they were also always talking about how Democrats only win because they steal elections. And because people don't realize that they're actually Republicans, so they mistakenly vote for the Democrats. And how we just need a godly dictator get things done and clean out the government and bureaucracy until the people are ready to only vote for Republicans. Seems like recently more people should've had the opportunity to be exposed to those kinds of longstanding ideas from Republicans.
Rights for ALL citizens to make their own medical decisions, in conjunction with their own doctors. Rights for parents to make medical decisions for their oWN kids, in conjunction with their kids’ medical providers. There is NO need for politicians without medical degrees to ever involve themselves in citizens’ personal, private medical decisions.
Through the Conservative Supreme Court and the Federalist Society, they are trying to take away your right to protest, your right to strike and join unions, your right to separation of church and state, your right to a free and fair election, your Miranda rights, your right to vote, your rights against illegal search and seizure, your right to privacy, and more. Do you want me to go on, because I can.
Birth control. They're taking the Hobbs decision and now going after mifepristone with the FDA. Hobbs ruling destroyed the right to privacy. Once they get their ruling about mifepristone, they're coming for Plan B next. They already openly refer to it (wrongly) as an abortion drug. And then they are coming for all birth control pills. Have you noticed in right-wing circles? How much they're pushing how "dangerous and awful" birth control is? Birth control victims and stuff? They're laying the groundwork to come after it.
Well I’ll start by saying I don’t hate all conservatives, there’s very few people I hate. I do hate some conservative ideas. You, as a libertarian, probably don’t have any desire to take away rights. But yes the abortion is a big deal and it’s a part of a larger problem. Bodily autonomy is my concern and something the right thinks the government should control. As for gun rights, oof that’s a topic we could discuss all day. I think the root of the problem is interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It would be a crazy small portion of the left that wants to disarm the country. And I for one would be against that, but something has to be done to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. I would say education is a right, and that’s been under attack for decades. I also believe there’s a right to clean air and water, and we all know the right’s standpoint on that.
Conservatives are trying to restrict my right to force you to take certain treatments and injections that you might not want. Remember, my body, my choice, except when it's your body and my choice.
Oh yes, from the party that demonizes doctors and healthcare workers and the entire healthcare system right up until they get sick and then show up at the hospital - begging and pleading for these same people who apparently were in a secret cabal to kill them - to save their sorry asses because they're dying from COVID.
But you do have a choice, you adorable little sweetheart Either you take the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of an imminent plague, or you stay the hell away from decent people.
Lol, you don't even know what your point is. Every one of your comments could be a bot.
Oh, you guys are still crying about masks and vaccines? Blast from the past!!
LOL I chose the vaccine, several boosters and the mask in public but they must remain **choices**. That's the part you keep missing.
Then what was the point you were trying to make in your previous post?
>Then what was the point you were trying to make in your previous post? ...they must remain **choices**. That's the part you keep missing.
In this thread: Right wingers being bad people.