first time seeing this community. I think it's really funny there are at least 2 conservative communities on Lemmy and neither of them are safe spaces for conservatives ๐
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
202 points (97.2% liked)
Conservative2
78 readers
1 users here now
Wait! I'm not with THEM! There's an unfortunately loud part of the country that is giving the GOP, conservatives, and Americans a bad name. This comm is for the rest of us, the quiet majority. If there is anything worth conserving, it's our values: Respect, Integrity, and Truth.
This comm is for the posting about US politics from a right, but not alt-right, perspective.
Rules:
- Treat each other with respect. Follow lemmy.today instance rules. Follow your instance rules.
- Social media posts must either include a timestamp in the image or be accompanied by a timestamp in the text of the post. Posts with an inaccurate or missing timestamp will be removed. Relative timestamp (e.g. "5 mins ago") will be removed.
- Only use high quality news sources. They all have bias, but quality and truth are a requirement. News articles must have a non-fictitious, non-anonymized byline. Fox is not a high quality news source.
- Don't post memes, but you can comment with them.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
I saw nothing but disrespect and division coming from the other conservative comms I found when I started using Lemmy. I created this comm because none of them came close to representing me. This will not be a safe place for MAGA.
oh wait are you self identified conservatives here? is it sad that I didn't know you were because you weren't dick riding the clown?
cheers, man. the rest of the world misses those of you who are sane. whatever our differences are I would kill to have the old conservatives back
I regret what my party has become. Watching it eat itself in fear that freedom might mean people will do things you don't like makes my blood boil.
I'm not sure what label really covers the bases of what I believe. I want a lot of the things Democrats want but I want them implemented differently. At the end of the day I think I fall on the red side of the spectrum. I hope someday that when people think "conservative" they stop thinking of red hats, slipping civil rights, and weaponized ignorance.
In nearly half a century of life on this planet, conservatives have ALWAYS been associated with denying civil rights and weaponizing ignorance. The only difference I've seen between modern conservatives and historical conservatives are a shiny new red hat.
I certainly didn't come to be a part of the GOP because I liked the people.
So, if these are the ways they have always been, and you don't agree with it, how did you come to be a part of it? How did you look at a group of people you admit you do not like and decide that that's the group you want to be a part of?
I believe in small government. I want to see individual industries (health, tech, food, etc) self regulate. This would divide the power among the experts. Experts who are ideally data-driven.
Democrats, to my understanding, want to centralize a lot of the power in the government. They don't say it that way, they say they want healthcare, worker's rights, and green climate efforts and use the government as a catch all for the responsibility. Putting it all in one basket, I say, is the backbone to a lot of the corruption.
A slower legislation that worked with trusted experts to govern us comes off more conservative than progressive in my eyes.
Self-regulation is what brought us sweatshops back in the day, and what would allow for a 9,000% markup on insulin now (as a random recent example). Self-regulation is what allows the police and the military to say "we investigated ourselves and didn't find that we did anything wrong" when there was obvious misconduct.
As far as industry experts being data-driven, the only data they're driven by is profits, which will only serve to increase price gouging collusion that already happens. Self-regulation here would only lead to greater exploitation.
As far as Democrats go, you say "to your understanding" which implies that you are only aware of Democrat positions/goals via whatever filter you are hearing them through as opposed to actual research and/or interaction with the candidates. This bias is demonstrated even more when you say that what they are saying isn't actually what they are saying but are using coded language instead (this is conspiracy theory thinking). This also assumes that the proposed policies would be implemented in an authoritarian "take total control and comply or die" way as opposed to using laws to provide incentives that encourage industries to work towards those goals.
I do agree that the one-basket approach is a natural vector for corruption, which is why, regardless of whom is controlling what, or how many different entities are involved, transparency needs to be a part of it. Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to defend the Democratic party per-se, as I have plenty of issues with them myself.
You again mention "trusted experts" being the best ones to govern us, but trusted by who? If you look at the history of harmful stuff being outlawed, you'll find "trusted experts" in almost every case who were willing to argue and testify on the behalf of the harmful industry. Self-regulation and trusted experts are what will bring things like a cartoony Joe Camel hawking menthol cigarettes with asbestos filters to middle school kids.
Lastly, just to be sure I'm understanding properly, you are OK with having people you don't like in power who are actively removing civil rights and liberties (and have been for decades), as long as it means industries can make their own rules to follow?
It's hard not to read certain bits as hostile but I'll ignore that this time.
I want industries to self regulate, not companies. 3rd party regulators ought to be the most prestigious, sought after, highest paying positions in a private sector reserved for those with talent and skill in their field. I understand this has been a problem in the past because of a lack in transparency and choice but I'm not looking to recreate those mistakes. I picture something like small governments within each industry separate from the companies in the space but made up of individuals from the space. It's wildly different from what I hear other people talking about and the only way if trust it is if we transitioned to it slowly. Managing this system might be the only new responsibility I want to give the existing government.
I said what I said the way I said it because I don't like speaking for other people. I get things wrong from time to time and I don't want to misrepresent anybody especially when I'm talking about their priorities.
Trust will always be hard. Every process facilitated by humans will inherently need trust at some level and that will be a weak point. I don't claim to have an answer to this and know it's a hard problem to solve.
Unequivocally no. I've never straight-ticket voted for either party during a local or federal election and I'm not willing to make my gains at the expense of others. This comm exists as a place to question/critique/mock our current administration without having to change parties to do so.
I never said I have all the answers. I'm not 100% confident that this is the way the world should be run. I'm 95% confident that if we try it, it'll be better than what we have.
Everything that you say you want Industries to do, and how you want them to behave, is going to require a government making laws to force them into doing those things. No industry is going to do that of their own free will under a capitalist system.
I think on it from time to time but "how the world should be run" isn't something I want to be an expert in. I don't want to run the world, I just want to live a peaceful life in it. What -isms get us there is less important than if we find something that works.
I just know that the current administration is not on the right track.
well, keep the candle on. the part of me that wants to believe the right can be deradicalized knows that in order for that to happen, they'll need an ideological space to land that isn't a full leftist awakening. pre-2014 meth-binge conservativism would probably feel familiar and safe enough to actually allow that to happen
Imo, your identification as a conservative is more of a tribal reaction than an ideological one. Not saying it's a bad thing - but it might be that you could re-examine what label you apply to yourself with a greater amount of detatchment from the general thought-space you inhabit. I like a lot of the things I hear some conservative people saying, but I still recognize that I am much more blue tribe than red tribe.
Ok, what you conservin?
At this point? Our nation's dignity.
Midterns can not come soon enough
Midterms aren't going to change anything. They've rigged it to high-hell and any losses will be challenged heavily with appeals courts stacked in their favor.
Anybody, stateside or otherwise, that thinks this situation is recoverable via voting or peaceful protests is a fucking idiot.
Funny how few GOP leaders have town halls any more. I cannot imagine why?
The chair of the House GOPโs campaign arm told Republican lawmakers Tuesday to stop holding in-person town halls amid a wave of angry backlash over the cuts undertaken by President Donald Trumpโs administration.
Find all the resources for that take, as you like. Plenty more out there.
can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen snowflake.
"Paid troublemakers"? Clearly not licensed lobbyists. lol It's only OK when we do it.