The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I personally would not.
*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.*
Depends on what exactly it is she believes. There are some right wing beliefs I can agree to disagree with, there are other types of right wing beliefs I find morally repulsive
Maybe I’m a hypocrite but if a woman believed in trickle down economics and was poor so she’s voting against her own best interest it would be a no go. If she was above that $250k at which voting red is in your best interest I could look past it depending on her other views. I’d much rather someone vote against their best financially interest when they’re independently wealthy.
Conservatives don't even believe in trickle down economics, there hasn't been a solid economic reason to go conservative since Eisenhower.
But to be realistic, doesn't it matter where you live more than anything? If you guys live in New York, is her voting conservative actually gonna matter? If you live in Nebraska, would you voting progressive matter?
That's not strictly about tax policy. It's supernatural thinking that giving more money to the rich will help anyone but the rich.
It's a farce that doesn't happen, never has, and never will. And every credible economics textbook with data shows that's the case, and if it doesn't, guess what: it's actually propaganda.
Depends on what you mean. It’s not debatable that income tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short term through increased consumer demand, and that some tax cuts can boost long-term growth
The issue is that people see any tax policy they don’t like and reflexively call it “trickle down” to avoid discussing it
What? I’m not sure you understand what trickle down means in this context. If the government gives big tax breaks to businesses and none to the people, they’re thought process is since the businesses got tax breaks then surely they’ll help out their workers. It trickles down to the peons on the bottom. Now…how often does that actually happen?
Depends on the specific tax cut. You’re trying to generalize it as if all business tax cuts have the same effect. This is the exact problem I mentioned above, and it’s annoying how prevalent that problem is
It has to do with "What funds the government?"
If the consumer funds it, it's "trickle down". If the supply-side funds it, it's not.
I don't know how old you are, but I suggest you ask someone about "Reaganomics" and "wealth disparity after Reagan" and see how that has harmed the country for decades and continues to harm the country.
>If the consumer funds it, its “trickle down”
That doesn’t make any sense. All income tax, FICA tax, and sales tax is trickle down?
>I suggest you ask someone about “Reaganomics”
Not very old, but I do have a masters degree in tax economics, and you’re doing exactly what I described above. You’re looking at a vague tax policy, bringing up an economic effect from later on, and with no correlation between the two, asserting that one caused the other. You’re talking in vague terms so you don’t have to think about the specifics
It would be like me coming up with a random name for a wide array of varying tax policy, let’s say “Bidenomics”, and telling you that this vague term is to blame for high inflation and our current wealth inequality
> That doesn’t make any sense. All income tax, FICA tax, and sales tax is trickle down?
Kind of, except for income tax. But it's exactly why consumption taxes in lieu of income taxes and capital gains are completely unfair: because they're "trickle down". I just put the effect (higher tax burden for middle class) in front of the cause (tax breaks for rich and corporations) for simplicity.
>> It's a farce that doesn't happen, never has, and never will.
The farce is that it helps the economy and benefits people. It certainly gives it a short term boost, which then falls to the middle class to prop back up. Let's look at the last tax cut on corporations and the middle class. Yay! Tax cut! That did little for the economy, added to the deficit dramatically, and guess what... the cut on the middle class has already sunset. This is the farce that republicans push: because of their policies, the vast majority of people do not benefit from an increased economy. And now, they're using this deficit they racked up to try to shirk out on their responsibilities to fund the government for spending already incurred including debts by the previous administration, in an attempt to negotiate more (gasp) tax cuts for the rich.
When does it actually trickle down?
It doesn't. This is the farce.
> I do have a masters degree in tax economics
Excellent! Mind if I bend your ear then? I'm speaking primarily from memory here, so my numbers might be a little off, but I'm pretty sure they're close enough.
Let's divide the economy as Pre-reagan, and post-reagan. Reagan is about the when supply side economics gained any acceptance (again, from memory), due to his charismatic speeches about how government is the enemy and chokes us from being free. This is during the cold war, too, and after a large period of economic, technical, and middle class growth. And this is where the US began tearing down the US institutions, deregulating, and implementing tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Pre-reagan (and post ww2), we had pretty high corporate rates, right? It even went up to 90% at the highest brackets, for corporations that stockpiled money and didn't funnel it back into the company. These were not "supply side" economics.
Post reagan, the tax rates plummeted, primarily for corporations. That meant funding the government needed to fall on others, and that fell on to the blossoming middle class... or it meant the government had to remove its institutions created for helping the citizens. It also meant that corporations could stockpile money, buy back shares, etc.
Pre-reagan, the average percentage of wealth the top 10% held was what? Post-reagan (today) is what? We know that money went to the top 10%, but what was the result? How much does the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartile own in wealth today, compared to pre-reagan? An easy number is where is the median, where above that line wealth is equal to below that line? The numbers I can find are: (10%:50-90%:<50%) 42:42:15 in 1989, and 50:37:13 in 2016. Yes, that says the rich got over 20% richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor got even poorer. When the economy increased, at every step, due to deregulation and lower taxes (i.e.: trickle down economics), the rich got significantly richer, and everyone else got poorer.
With trickle down economics, I conclude that when the economy gets better it does *not* help the citizens, only the rich 10%. And the disparity continues even among "the rich", where the top 1% overshadow the rest of the 99%.
Pre-reagan, taxes on corporations were regularly raised to deal with necessary government institutions. Post-reagan, taxes on corporations were cut and instead the institutions were dissolved or defunded, resulting in 1) more poverty, 2) smaller middle class, 3) larger wealth disparity between rich and middle class, and 4) fewer resources for vulnerable people such as mentally ill, handicapped, and developmentally disabled. This instead "trickled down" to local economies, including homeless shelters, and led to abuses of mentally ill that were turned out into the street due to dissolved federal institutions and much worse ability for local cities to handle.
> you’re doing exactly what I described above. You’re looking at a vague tax policy, bringing up an economic effect from later on, and with no correlation between the two, asserting that one caused the other. You’re talking in vague terms so you don’t have to think about the specifics
The term "trickle down economics" is vague and that is literally what we're discussing. You can't dismiss discussion of a term simply because it's vague, because it represents a trend of tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and saddling others with funding the government. It has specifics, and I can simply state "every corporate tax cut" and the majority of "corporate deregulation" as specifics.
Does your degree discuss any of this? It is what I, and millions of others have witnessed. Calling a decades-long trend "vague" to avoid examining trends correlated to tax policies is not something I'd expect from an intellectual. I'm certain this *had to be discussed* in your classes at some point, just like keynesian economics and neoliberal policies would be discussed.
The pre/post Reagan binary is an extremely inaccurate characterization of both economic and political history. But setting that aside, by your definitions the U.S. has long been the least 'trickle-down' country in the developed world. Even after Reagan, the U.S. corporate tax dwarfed other countries, and our income tax was about the most progressive in the world. The Europe that everyone wants to emulate put much more of the tax burden on the middle class, by design.
>Post-reagan, taxes on corporations were cut and instead the institutions were dissolved or defunded,
What institutions? What government entitlements do you think we spend *less* on now? You're describing an alternate history where tax revenues fell and the government couldn't afford to do all the good things it needed to do.
>Calling a decades-long trend "vague" to avoid examining trends correlated to tax policies is not something I'd expect from an intellectual.
Correlating every outcome over decades to a (mischaracterizarion of) tax policy is not exactly the scientific approach either. This explanation quickly falls apart when looking at other countries, actual data, or just trying to form cohesive economic premises. In reality both the keynesian and neoliberal economics you mention acknowledge the exact same economic principles that supply-side policies are targeted at.
Let's look at the last one. Trump and his ilk said it would lead to those corporations expanding their businesses leading to more jobs at higher wages......and what we saw was a dramatic rise in stock buybacks.
Why are you acting like we **only** saw buybacks from the bill? We saw a dramatic decrease in 2017 buybacks, and then a rise in 2018 and 2019, but the overall trend isn’t out of the ordinary. Also, it’s undeniable that wages have risen pretty quickly since 2018
Why do you think you can make definitive claims about a bill when all of its changes haven’t even happened yet? Economic impacts don’t happen immediately
Not only, just a very large number. Companies like Norfolk Southern and the company that made baby food could have used that free money from the government to improve their equipment...but chose to enrich the shareholders...
I do not doubt that some used the free money from the government to improve their equipment, but the idea that the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" and ultimately result in a better life for all with plenty of high paying jobs was just a smoke screen to get ordinary working class voters to support this bill.
Well the people who agree with trickle down economics thinks that the businesses benefits from giving employees higher wages.
Also the idea of “giving rich people money = bad for everyone else” is wrong and illogical. The government gives hundreds of thousands to large companies all the time because they will circulate that money through the economy and be able to pay it off quickly (it’s called cash injections). Econ and tax policies are way more complicated than your making it out to be
> Also the idea of “giving rich people money = bad for everyone else” is wrong and illogical.
How? Where did that money come from? The shrinking middle class, which doesn't have a lot of extra cash rolling around.
When Nixon, and later Reagan severely cut the corporate tax rate from 70% at the highest bracket (It's around 25% now), the richest 10% got 20% richer over the next 20 years AND are virtually the only ones that benefitted from the economy increasing. Everyone else is barely holding on and don't give a shit if the economy increases. The lowest 50% -- half of all US citizens -- actually are worth less today than they were when Reagan was elected. **Most people don't even know our economy has been increasing because of these decades-long trending tax policies.** Ask anyone how the economy is, and they'll likely say it's in the toilet, because for the non-rich, it's in the toilet due to trickle down economics the republicans have been pushing for decades.
> The government gives hundreds of thousands to large companies all the time because they will circulate that money through the economy and be able to pay it off quickly (it’s called cash injections).
That's called a "loan", and we're not talking about loans. I'm not even talking about grants for specific research, either. I'm talking about trickle down economics, which means: deregulation, corporate tax cuts, dissolving institutions, and saddling *everyone but the rich* with funding the government who are not equipped to do so.
> Tax policy is complicated...
Writing and understanding tax policy *is* complicated, but there are some overall policy directions that can be summarized. Believing that "giving the wealthy tax breaks will benefit everyone beneath them," particularly when you yourself are not wealthy nor wealth adjacent, is shallow and ignorant at best. Policy that further favors those with advantage (the wealthy) over those with disadvantage (the working class) is morally repugnant.
Again, it completely depends on the policy, you’re generalizing it. You shouldn’t just write off tax policy because it benefits the wealthy
For example, it’s pretty well documented among economists that full expensing of investment, whether it’s something like R&D or capital accumulation, is one of the most effective tax policies for long term growth. However, these cuts would be directly targeted at the wealthy, since they’re the owners of businesses. That doesn’t mean it isn’t smart tax policy though
That’s just not true at all. Every situation is unique, tax law has to try and have guidance for every conceivable situation
For as long as our tax code is, look up how many pages of treasury regs we have, which are used to fill in the gaps and gray areas the code leaves
People can classify things as “trickle down economics” all day, but it’s not that simple
Many years ago, I would've said yes.
Today, though? Absolutely not. Two of my friends are trans, so you'd be voting for people who literally want to hurt my friends. Even if I didn't have a personal stake in the matter, though, I have mirror neurons and the capacity for empathy. Voting Republican is not "just politics" and I absolutely would not just "agree to disagree".
Exactly. Your politics are a reflection of your values and your sanity.
A plurality of people I have met who are right wingers, either
a) Are from a cultural background that is extremely toxic and it'd be a lot of work and a relationship minefield trying to deprogram them.
b) Not particularly bright and/or are gullible to the hateful propaganda of the fascists and have fallen for their hate.
Or c) Rather selfish and just don't want to pay taxes and apparently don't care about the harm that is done to minorities while conservatives are in power and willing to throw them under a bus for the sake of a tax break.
None of those are particularly flattering characteristics to have in a person I'd want to spend my life with.
A is the only one I may give a chance because you can't determine the circumstances of your birth. But progress towards at the very least tollerance would be a must.
That's largely within the umbrella of A but I suppose more specifically at a micro level? With A I was referring to like how you have in the south an embedded nutso evangelical and racist lost cause culture but that can be zoomed into with crazy conservative families.
Probably not. Like it's kind of important that my partner and I share good values. When your young, it'd probably a lot less important though. Like I'm talk 23 - 24 and under. I myself never really cared but also being conservative wasn't as polarized like over a decade ago. Like my best friend was very anti taxes conservative. We had an arguement about it but neither one of us cared that much because we were both broke as shit. I'd say now a days if I meet a conservative, I'd kinda already assume they don't consider a portion of the population people, so I just don't feel like putting in effort.
> I myself never really cared but also being conservative wasn't as polarized like over a decade ago
Has anything \*really\* changed in the past decade though? They've been pretty consistent for a long while now.
We went through a period where the white supremacists were hiding in basements and mainstream conservatives had to couch their bigotry in dog whistles. Trump gave them permission to wear their bigotry on their sleeve and be proud of it. Trump put literal white supremacists on his cabinet and his base fucking loved him for it.
Yes, I had a republican girlfriend in college but it wasn't something I even knew about her for a long time. Wasn't at the forefront of my thoughts back then.
I very much doubt I could pursue a meaningful friendship with a Republican/conservative these days, so a relationship or marriage is certainly not a possibility.
I have republican friends who are big Trump fans and have even been known to say that super cringe "let's go Brandon" crap. But even if we disagree, we are able to have civil conversations about the topic and hear each other's perspective with respect. And to be honest most of the time we talk about non-political stuff like hobbies, travel, families, work - at can go an entire weekend hanging out and never bring up anything political at all. I'd say it's a meaningful friendship. It's doable.
Hell. No.
Shared values are important in any relationship. If you want to feed children and she wants to let them suffer because they feel the parents aren't doing enough, it's gonna cause problems. If you don't want to see folks suffering and she enjoys watching others suffer, it's not gonna work.
I think that was true before trump. Maybe if someone was only fiscally conservative, but the current GOP doesn’t even seem to value fiscal responsibility anymore. They’re becoming the party of “big government” and, at least in FL, they’re attacking businesses for exercising their first amendment rights…
Hard dissagree. Ideology is rooted in values. They aren't conservative because they think people are better off under conservative policies. That's just window dressing. They are conservative because they want the right people punished and they don't care who gets hurt to make it happen.
You're making people into cartoon villains - when conservatives see this sentiment repeated constantly, it simply reinforces the belief that liberals don't even *understand* conservative positions.
People *actually do* believe that policies you don't like are better for everyone. If you can convince them they're dumb and wrong, great - but if you truly can't understand *how* a person could even think that..... then you might just not understand.
I won't claim the American left is right on all counts, but too many times I've shown a person how their policy goal conflicts with their reasons for wanting the goal, and they
Change the subject.
Turn it around with both sides nonsense.
End the conversation like a spoiled child.
Anything but say, anything even aproaching: "huh, I'll think about that."
Their politics is too deeply embedded in their ego for them to be honest about their motives, and after years of carefully eliminating the other possibilities, the only conclusion left, the only defensible argument that makes their stances make any kind of sense, is cruelty.
That's the through line. Cruelty. They can have compassion for someone in their direct line of sight and for close friends and family, but it stops there.
Anything farther out than that and it's all about hurting people they think need to suffer.
> but too many times I've shown a person how their policy goal conflicts with their reasons for wanting the goal
Or they may simply not agree with you... or even in the scenario of someone being stubborn and illogical, they're just being stubborn and illogical, because people very rarely change their minds about many of these issues, right or left. I'd say "Why won't this person change their mind" is a *very* different question than "Why does this person believe what they do."
Maybe I think I've "shown" plenty of people how certain progressive policies don't actually accomplish the goals they want them to or have negative consequences for the people they're trying to be empathetic toward. But me asserting that doesn't make it their motivation lol. When they don't agree I don't say they must just actually *want* those negative consequences.
Maybe you've met some terrible, cruel, conservatives, and 100% you've seen plenty online - but it's a crazy leap to think that the only way people can arrive at it is cruelty. I've met no shortage of vapid, uninformed progressives with nothing but the most superficial justifications for their positions - but it doesn't make me think no one can hold progressive views without being dumb or uninformed.
In the context of the OP, I've got close friends all across the political spectrum, and while it's easy to think of extreme values that would be so abhorrent as to undermine any relationship, drawing that line at "conservative" and dismissing anyone choosing that label as *motivated* by cruelty is miscategorizing and misunderstanding the vast majority of them.
No,
I don’t think it’s healthy for couples to agree on everything but I wouldn’t marry someone who’s values and perspective were vastly different than my own
And this could legitimately have happened without her changing her stances at all.
Because the Republican Party has lost its' damn mind, and run away from the thinking Republicans that used to inhabit the party.
Even though I almost always disagreed with George Will, I knew he genuinely thought about issues and didn't just act reactionarily. And much like your wife, George Will no longer considers himself a Republican (though he hasn't, of course, moved to considering himself a Democrat ).
>blue pilled
Do you think blue pill means Democrat and red pill means Republican?
Blue pill means you stay in the matrix and never see reality.
Red pill means you finally woke up and see reality isn't what you thought it was.
She was red pilled
That term merely means "seeing the truth of the world" which crazy people always claim they do, but we know better. Stating that you're the opposite, and "living in fantasy" is not the retort you think it is.
Call it "the dark red pill" if you must. But calling it "blue pilled" is kind of ... dumb. Not that you're dumb, but that's a dumb expression to use and ripe for ridicule.
Not really, the only people who define it that way are the 10 people who are actually “iNcELs” and left wingers trying to paint everyone they don’t like as…definitions still have meaning
I could date or marry a conservative woman, depending on her beliefs, political activism, and personality. A loudmouth QAnon kook is a still a loudmouth kook, and I wouldn’t date such a person of any political stripe.
Someone who I disagree with on tax policy or government spending or foreign policy, that’s totally fine. I have been and I assume always will be pro choice, but I have heard / read pro life positions that I don’t agree with but can respect.
I generally think that this massive social sorting by political party that’s going on is a bad thing.
Yeahhh...I doubt a right wing woman would want to marry *me*, given that I'm a woman. I guess it would be slightly better than marrying a right wing man, as I'd hope she might not think women deserve less rights than a dead body.
Either way though, the answer is no. I can't imagine we'd have much in common.
I should have been clearer with my language.
I should have asked “ would you marry a right winger?”
But i didn’t expect my post to get so much traction…
I would be fine with a tolerant, intellectual conservative
I could not tolerate a MAGAt
My family has a similar problem, My brother is a Trumper, his wife is a reasonable Democrat. She can barely tolerate being with him
Nope. Also just a funny anecdote: there's this girl in my area I keep seeing on tinder. I would always swipe left because her profile had some right wing anti-vax sheeple bullshit talk. Over time as she would pop up again and again I noticed less and less of it on her profile and today I saw her again and it's just minimal text with her hobbies listed. And she's objectively gorgeous. Nobody wants to date an asshole lol.
No, for a few reasons.
One, I'm married and bigimy is illegal.
Two, I'm a straight woman.
Three, most importantly, your ethics and political views are intrinsically connected. I can't see myself as capable of maintaining a healthy relationship of any kind if we fundamentally disagree on what is right and wrong, or what is actual physical reality.
Like? What kind of conservative? If she's just got some right wing perspectives on things like foreign policy and the economy then we may be able to make it work. If we're talking about like Christian nationalism, hates LGBTQ, abortion is murder type conservative then no, we cannot bridge that gap. That's too much.
I was the most left-leaning person I knew until I met my now-wife. I would not marry a right wing woman because in my mind if you’re okay with part of their batshittery, you’re okay with *ALL* of it
It’s not so much a rule as a result of practicalities. It’s nice to have common values with a partner, but it’s essential to want the same things out of life. If she were socially conservative, we probably wouldn’t have similar goals.
Which part of the right-wing? I'm already an atheist, so that shuts down some avenues. Trump-supporter, I'd annoy her too much by breaking down why support of Trump mutually exclusive with the principles of the country. McCain type republican? Maybe?
Anyone I would get into a relationship with and/or marry would not be ‘the ruling class says politics mean everything and we fight if you don’t agree’ type of people, and I would strongly assume people getting married/being in relationships with other people don’t have this as their first/top 30 list of qualities, so if you have to ask this question, then no; keep up the good fight, ever settle, and remember, opposites don’t attract, they constantly fight with each other because only one team can be on the right side of history. Thank you for your service
I did. Granted, I wasn't as leftwing as I am now when we met (my flair today is probably even a bit outdated). I don't regret it though. I love her and our family with everything I have, but we have butted heads at times. It does help that her rightwing views are on like... how we should be taxed and not on things like human rights. She hasn't been a fan of a lot of the newer Republicans though so maybe she isn't considered rightwing now?
I will say that I wonder if we would get to where we currently are if my political affiliation now was my political affiliation now. I like to think we would but it's possible our politics would be turnoffs for eachother.
I’m a gay man, so no.
and I have a homophobic family so I’m only getting married when I’m able move out and can cut ties, with no lingering unfinished business related to them.
No. The core distinction between Right and Left is Hierarchy vs Egalitarianism. I couldn't marry someone who thought some people were inherently meant to rule over others.
I have dated numerous conservative women in my life. I enjoy the spirited debate that opposing viewpoints can offer, and its the differences that make relationships interesting. Maybe I can convince her that some of my perspectives are correct, and I'm sure she can do the same. You meet in the middle as long as there's trust (and you both still want to get laid at some point).
I would not date a Trumpist. They don't actually have a personal viewpoint. They're just parroting what they're told. There's nothing intellectual or interesting about that.
Well, no because I'm a straight woman. :)
But I also wouldn't marry a right wing man. My partner was left leaning libertarian when I met him. He's now a full on liberal who will likely never vote Republican again in his life.
I'm Bi, Furry, and Autistic so that already cuts out most of them to begin with. Also, a ton of people I follow and many of my friends are some flavor of queer including a not insignificant number of trans. So I have to say, marrying anyone right wing is right out because I respect my own and my friends basic human rights too much. Because even if the right winger isn't into all the nonsense the Republicans are doing, they would still be voting for the people doing it.
This is one of those questions better asked in a poll if you ask me. But yes I would. In general having a partner with different believes is really not that bad. Just be respectful to one another and in general things will be fine. Of course if their believes impact your daily live than maybe no.
Absolutely not
Most of my family is right wing, I'm not adding to that by marrying another one.
I intentionally sought out someone that matched my values.
No. But I go by my nieces and nephews because they are young and dating. They want nothing to do with a right winger. It's essentially fascist at this point and they won't admit it.
I mean yes. It makes it easy since I’m right and my girlfriend is right wing as well (not super conservative more like center right and she’s Muslim like me)
Would I consider marrying someone else outside of my religion and ethnicity/political stance most likely no, it just complicates things. Adding that fact both our families come from the same town.
Oh, so your S.O. being a “Nazi”, wouldn’t be a problem for you, huh? Wow. Ok… 😳
Pretty sure wanting to be certain that your partner supports freedom & human rights (for everyone), is NOT indicative of “serious mental problems”.
Ok, so 3 things:
1. Quotations are a thing. They don’t mean nothing.
2. Checked out Florida, or Texas, lately? Getting pretty “Nazi”-ish, down there, even by Nazi <—(no quotations) standards.
3. You… DON’T KNOW?!? I’m gonna stick with my original “Wow. Ok… 😳”
I’m not white dude. Anyway I don’t believe in free will. Racism is a byproduct of upbringing and background. And she has to fit in the scale of hot/crazy
Being racist isn't a deal breaker to a lot of liberals. This becomes apparent when you realize there are still a lot of racist liberals. Liberals just prefer to work with racists who couch their racism in dog whistles. The blatant racism against black folk turns them off a bit.
[The Alt-Right Playbook: The Cost of Doing Business](https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/696475064150999040/the-first-new-alt-right-playbook-since-just-after)
> American racial discourse has four principle (white) characters.
> On the far right end, you’ve got the guy white people picture when they hear the word “racist”: your klansman, your neo-Nazi skinhead, your suit-and-tie ethnonationalist. This guy knows he’s a racist and he’s proud of it.
> Next to the white supremacist, you’ve got the white collaborator; the politician, public figure, or businessman who does not agree with the white supremacist “on paper” but will seek out their votes, attention, or money.
> Next to the collaborator, you’ve got the white moderate: people who ostensibly believe in racial justice as an end goal, and are somewhat committed to bringing it about, but only with the cooperation of the white collaborator. It wouldn’t be fair to do it without their consent, you see, and thus the white moderate spends a lot less time opposing collaborators than “appealing to their better natures.” They tend to operate on behalf of people of color rather than with them.
> Plainly put, the “Cost of Doing Business” maneuver is this group [collaborators] using this group [racists] to attack this group [moderates] using people of color as their weapon of choice. It is white supremacy in the form of three groups of white people fighting amongst themselves.
> Finally, on the far opposite end, you’ve got the honest-to-goodness anti-racist. Where the racist will support white supremacy, and the collaborator uphold white supremacy, and the moderate seek to reform white supremacy, only the anti-racist is trying to get rid of it. And even they are not free from racial bias! And, if you tell one of them “you are not free from racial bias,” it’s not guaranteed they will react well! It’s just, if you’re trying to fight white supremacy, they’re the white folks you have the best odds with.
Wife was more of a Dem when I married her (though more from tribe conforming rather than principles alignment) Leans right now - not about to get divorced. Doesn't really affect marriage much either; not like there's that much of a need to argue about politics.
If I were single today? Probably yes, as long as it is secular right wing. Religious right wing would cause too many conflicts with my secular self, especially kid raising.
Depends on what about her beliefs and values places her in the right wing.
I’d be able to deal with socially moderate at most. Conservative, definitely not. Fiscally conservative, probably yeah.
And it all sort of hinges on how involved they were politically. Generally my life is pretty much devoid of political conversation outside of elections so if they aren’t actively engaged and treated people kindly it wouldn’t bother me too much.
I’ve lived with many conservative or right wing people before. I grew up surrounded by them. I’m friends with several. We have so much more in common than otherwise and specific policies aren’t a thing that comes up often if at all.
I doubt I would now. During the late stages of the Bush Admin-early Obama admin, I was dating a conservative Christian girl. We actually had some fun, we worked for awhile, and then we just didn’t. Our lifestyles and what we wanted for the future just weren’t simpatico. Maybe some couples can make it work, but I could now probably never marry a self-identified right wing girl. Also, I’m happy with my current partner. She’s Australian and mostly voted for Labor.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I personally would not. *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.*
I married a moderate conservative who moved to the left (i cant take credit, lol). It would depend on what is meant by “right-wing.”
Absolutely not.
Depends on what exactly it is she believes. There are some right wing beliefs I can agree to disagree with, there are other types of right wing beliefs I find morally repulsive
She believes in trickle down economics?
I’d able to tolerate that about as much as like belief in the supernatural
Maybe I’m a hypocrite but if a woman believed in trickle down economics and was poor so she’s voting against her own best interest it would be a no go. If she was above that $250k at which voting red is in your best interest I could look past it depending on her other views. I’d much rather someone vote against their best financially interest when they’re independently wealthy.
Conservatives don't even believe in trickle down economics, there hasn't been a solid economic reason to go conservative since Eisenhower. But to be realistic, doesn't it matter where you live more than anything? If you guys live in New York, is her voting conservative actually gonna matter? If you live in Nebraska, would you voting progressive matter?
Then she's delusional and that's something to avoid
That’s kind of a strawman though, isn’t it? Tax policy is complicated, it’s not black and white
That's not strictly about tax policy. It's supernatural thinking that giving more money to the rich will help anyone but the rich. It's a farce that doesn't happen, never has, and never will. And every credible economics textbook with data shows that's the case, and if it doesn't, guess what: it's actually propaganda.
It's not supernatural, it's supply side Jesus.
Depends on what you mean. It’s not debatable that income tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short term through increased consumer demand, and that some tax cuts can boost long-term growth The issue is that people see any tax policy they don’t like and reflexively call it “trickle down” to avoid discussing it
What? I’m not sure you understand what trickle down means in this context. If the government gives big tax breaks to businesses and none to the people, they’re thought process is since the businesses got tax breaks then surely they’ll help out their workers. It trickles down to the peons on the bottom. Now…how often does that actually happen?
Depends on the specific tax cut. You’re trying to generalize it as if all business tax cuts have the same effect. This is the exact problem I mentioned above, and it’s annoying how prevalent that problem is
The correct answer is never.
You don’t think there’s any business tax cut that helps employees?
There are plenty that could. Just none that have.
It has to do with "What funds the government?" If the consumer funds it, it's "trickle down". If the supply-side funds it, it's not. I don't know how old you are, but I suggest you ask someone about "Reaganomics" and "wealth disparity after Reagan" and see how that has harmed the country for decades and continues to harm the country.
>If the consumer funds it, its “trickle down” That doesn’t make any sense. All income tax, FICA tax, and sales tax is trickle down? >I suggest you ask someone about “Reaganomics” Not very old, but I do have a masters degree in tax economics, and you’re doing exactly what I described above. You’re looking at a vague tax policy, bringing up an economic effect from later on, and with no correlation between the two, asserting that one caused the other. You’re talking in vague terms so you don’t have to think about the specifics It would be like me coming up with a random name for a wide array of varying tax policy, let’s say “Bidenomics”, and telling you that this vague term is to blame for high inflation and our current wealth inequality
> That doesn’t make any sense. All income tax, FICA tax, and sales tax is trickle down? Kind of, except for income tax. But it's exactly why consumption taxes in lieu of income taxes and capital gains are completely unfair: because they're "trickle down". I just put the effect (higher tax burden for middle class) in front of the cause (tax breaks for rich and corporations) for simplicity. >> It's a farce that doesn't happen, never has, and never will. The farce is that it helps the economy and benefits people. It certainly gives it a short term boost, which then falls to the middle class to prop back up. Let's look at the last tax cut on corporations and the middle class. Yay! Tax cut! That did little for the economy, added to the deficit dramatically, and guess what... the cut on the middle class has already sunset. This is the farce that republicans push: because of their policies, the vast majority of people do not benefit from an increased economy. And now, they're using this deficit they racked up to try to shirk out on their responsibilities to fund the government for spending already incurred including debts by the previous administration, in an attempt to negotiate more (gasp) tax cuts for the rich. When does it actually trickle down? It doesn't. This is the farce. > I do have a masters degree in tax economics Excellent! Mind if I bend your ear then? I'm speaking primarily from memory here, so my numbers might be a little off, but I'm pretty sure they're close enough. Let's divide the economy as Pre-reagan, and post-reagan. Reagan is about the when supply side economics gained any acceptance (again, from memory), due to his charismatic speeches about how government is the enemy and chokes us from being free. This is during the cold war, too, and after a large period of economic, technical, and middle class growth. And this is where the US began tearing down the US institutions, deregulating, and implementing tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Pre-reagan (and post ww2), we had pretty high corporate rates, right? It even went up to 90% at the highest brackets, for corporations that stockpiled money and didn't funnel it back into the company. These were not "supply side" economics. Post reagan, the tax rates plummeted, primarily for corporations. That meant funding the government needed to fall on others, and that fell on to the blossoming middle class... or it meant the government had to remove its institutions created for helping the citizens. It also meant that corporations could stockpile money, buy back shares, etc. Pre-reagan, the average percentage of wealth the top 10% held was what? Post-reagan (today) is what? We know that money went to the top 10%, but what was the result? How much does the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartile own in wealth today, compared to pre-reagan? An easy number is where is the median, where above that line wealth is equal to below that line? The numbers I can find are: (10%:50-90%:<50%) 42:42:15 in 1989, and 50:37:13 in 2016. Yes, that says the rich got over 20% richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor got even poorer. When the economy increased, at every step, due to deregulation and lower taxes (i.e.: trickle down economics), the rich got significantly richer, and everyone else got poorer. With trickle down economics, I conclude that when the economy gets better it does *not* help the citizens, only the rich 10%. And the disparity continues even among "the rich", where the top 1% overshadow the rest of the 99%. Pre-reagan, taxes on corporations were regularly raised to deal with necessary government institutions. Post-reagan, taxes on corporations were cut and instead the institutions were dissolved or defunded, resulting in 1) more poverty, 2) smaller middle class, 3) larger wealth disparity between rich and middle class, and 4) fewer resources for vulnerable people such as mentally ill, handicapped, and developmentally disabled. This instead "trickled down" to local economies, including homeless shelters, and led to abuses of mentally ill that were turned out into the street due to dissolved federal institutions and much worse ability for local cities to handle. > you’re doing exactly what I described above. You’re looking at a vague tax policy, bringing up an economic effect from later on, and with no correlation between the two, asserting that one caused the other. You’re talking in vague terms so you don’t have to think about the specifics The term "trickle down economics" is vague and that is literally what we're discussing. You can't dismiss discussion of a term simply because it's vague, because it represents a trend of tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and saddling others with funding the government. It has specifics, and I can simply state "every corporate tax cut" and the majority of "corporate deregulation" as specifics. Does your degree discuss any of this? It is what I, and millions of others have witnessed. Calling a decades-long trend "vague" to avoid examining trends correlated to tax policies is not something I'd expect from an intellectual. I'm certain this *had to be discussed* in your classes at some point, just like keynesian economics and neoliberal policies would be discussed.
The pre/post Reagan binary is an extremely inaccurate characterization of both economic and political history. But setting that aside, by your definitions the U.S. has long been the least 'trickle-down' country in the developed world. Even after Reagan, the U.S. corporate tax dwarfed other countries, and our income tax was about the most progressive in the world. The Europe that everyone wants to emulate put much more of the tax burden on the middle class, by design. >Post-reagan, taxes on corporations were cut and instead the institutions were dissolved or defunded, What institutions? What government entitlements do you think we spend *less* on now? You're describing an alternate history where tax revenues fell and the government couldn't afford to do all the good things it needed to do. >Calling a decades-long trend "vague" to avoid examining trends correlated to tax policies is not something I'd expect from an intellectual. Correlating every outcome over decades to a (mischaracterizarion of) tax policy is not exactly the scientific approach either. This explanation quickly falls apart when looking at other countries, actual data, or just trying to form cohesive economic premises. In reality both the keynesian and neoliberal economics you mention acknowledge the exact same economic principles that supply-side policies are targeted at.
>The issue is that people see any tax policy they don’t like and reflexively call it “trickle down” to avoid discussing it No stupid lies.
Let's look at the last one. Trump and his ilk said it would lead to those corporations expanding their businesses leading to more jobs at higher wages......and what we saw was a dramatic rise in stock buybacks.
Why are you acting like we **only** saw buybacks from the bill? We saw a dramatic decrease in 2017 buybacks, and then a rise in 2018 and 2019, but the overall trend isn’t out of the ordinary. Also, it’s undeniable that wages have risen pretty quickly since 2018 Why do you think you can make definitive claims about a bill when all of its changes haven’t even happened yet? Economic impacts don’t happen immediately
Not only, just a very large number. Companies like Norfolk Southern and the company that made baby food could have used that free money from the government to improve their equipment...but chose to enrich the shareholders...
But why don’t you think that they did both? How do you know they didn’t use any money to improve their equipment?
I do not doubt that some used the free money from the government to improve their equipment, but the idea that the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" and ultimately result in a better life for all with plenty of high paying jobs was just a smoke screen to get ordinary working class voters to support this bill.
Well the people who agree with trickle down economics thinks that the businesses benefits from giving employees higher wages. Also the idea of “giving rich people money = bad for everyone else” is wrong and illogical. The government gives hundreds of thousands to large companies all the time because they will circulate that money through the economy and be able to pay it off quickly (it’s called cash injections). Econ and tax policies are way more complicated than your making it out to be
> Also the idea of “giving rich people money = bad for everyone else” is wrong and illogical. How? Where did that money come from? The shrinking middle class, which doesn't have a lot of extra cash rolling around. When Nixon, and later Reagan severely cut the corporate tax rate from 70% at the highest bracket (It's around 25% now), the richest 10% got 20% richer over the next 20 years AND are virtually the only ones that benefitted from the economy increasing. Everyone else is barely holding on and don't give a shit if the economy increases. The lowest 50% -- half of all US citizens -- actually are worth less today than they were when Reagan was elected. **Most people don't even know our economy has been increasing because of these decades-long trending tax policies.** Ask anyone how the economy is, and they'll likely say it's in the toilet, because for the non-rich, it's in the toilet due to trickle down economics the republicans have been pushing for decades. > The government gives hundreds of thousands to large companies all the time because they will circulate that money through the economy and be able to pay it off quickly (it’s called cash injections). That's called a "loan", and we're not talking about loans. I'm not even talking about grants for specific research, either. I'm talking about trickle down economics, which means: deregulation, corporate tax cuts, dissolving institutions, and saddling *everyone but the rich* with funding the government who are not equipped to do so.
> Tax policy is complicated... Writing and understanding tax policy *is* complicated, but there are some overall policy directions that can be summarized. Believing that "giving the wealthy tax breaks will benefit everyone beneath them," particularly when you yourself are not wealthy nor wealth adjacent, is shallow and ignorant at best. Policy that further favors those with advantage (the wealthy) over those with disadvantage (the working class) is morally repugnant.
Again, it completely depends on the policy, you’re generalizing it. You shouldn’t just write off tax policy because it benefits the wealthy For example, it’s pretty well documented among economists that full expensing of investment, whether it’s something like R&D or capital accumulation, is one of the most effective tax policies for long term growth. However, these cuts would be directly targeted at the wealthy, since they’re the owners of businesses. That doesn’t mean it isn’t smart tax policy though
if your tax policy isnt black and white it was written to the advantage of the rich at your expense.
That’s just not true at all. Every situation is unique, tax law has to try and have guidance for every conceivable situation For as long as our tax code is, look up how many pages of treasury regs we have, which are used to fill in the gaps and gray areas the code leaves People can classify things as “trickle down economics” all day, but it’s not that simple
some of us dont live in the US and have sane tax codes.
I would argue that the US tax code is sane, like pretty much all other countries
Kick that bitch to the curb!
intellectually and morally repulsive
Are they crazy hyperconservative?
Yes.
Then no, I don't associate with hard-core left or right wingers
Yes, but as long as she lives in reality. I wouldn't date a Trump supporter.
No
Nope
Depends on what she believes. If she is a social conservative than absolutely not.
Many years ago, I would've said yes. Today, though? Absolutely not. Two of my friends are trans, so you'd be voting for people who literally want to hurt my friends. Even if I didn't have a personal stake in the matter, though, I have mirror neurons and the capacity for empathy. Voting Republican is not "just politics" and I absolutely would not just "agree to disagree".
Exactly. Your politics are a reflection of your values and your sanity. A plurality of people I have met who are right wingers, either a) Are from a cultural background that is extremely toxic and it'd be a lot of work and a relationship minefield trying to deprogram them. b) Not particularly bright and/or are gullible to the hateful propaganda of the fascists and have fallen for their hate. Or c) Rather selfish and just don't want to pay taxes and apparently don't care about the harm that is done to minorities while conservatives are in power and willing to throw them under a bus for the sake of a tax break. None of those are particularly flattering characteristics to have in a person I'd want to spend my life with. A is the only one I may give a chance because you can't determine the circumstances of your birth. But progress towards at the very least tollerance would be a must.
[удалено]
A and B are not right exclusive, but there's definitely a significant skew.
Let's not for get D) young people who are brainwashed by their conservative family or community and can't think for themselves
That's largely within the umbrella of A but I suppose more specifically at a micro level? With A I was referring to like how you have in the south an embedded nutso evangelical and racist lost cause culture but that can be zoomed into with crazy conservative families.
Probably not. Like it's kind of important that my partner and I share good values. When your young, it'd probably a lot less important though. Like I'm talk 23 - 24 and under. I myself never really cared but also being conservative wasn't as polarized like over a decade ago. Like my best friend was very anti taxes conservative. We had an arguement about it but neither one of us cared that much because we were both broke as shit. I'd say now a days if I meet a conservative, I'd kinda already assume they don't consider a portion of the population people, so I just don't feel like putting in effort.
> I myself never really cared but also being conservative wasn't as polarized like over a decade ago Has anything \*really\* changed in the past decade though? They've been pretty consistent for a long while now.
We went through a period where the white supremacists were hiding in basements and mainstream conservatives had to couch their bigotry in dog whistles. Trump gave them permission to wear their bigotry on their sleeve and be proud of it. Trump put literal white supremacists on his cabinet and his base fucking loved him for it.
Yes, I had a republican girlfriend in college but it wasn't something I even knew about her for a long time. Wasn't at the forefront of my thoughts back then.
Really weird that you specify woman in the title. I wouldn't marry someone who I don't share values with.
I very much doubt I could pursue a meaningful friendship with a Republican/conservative these days, so a relationship or marriage is certainly not a possibility.
I have republican friends who are big Trump fans and have even been known to say that super cringe "let's go Brandon" crap. But even if we disagree, we are able to have civil conversations about the topic and hear each other's perspective with respect. And to be honest most of the time we talk about non-political stuff like hobbies, travel, families, work - at can go an entire weekend hanging out and never bring up anything political at all. I'd say it's a meaningful friendship. It's doable.
>I have republican friends who are big Trump fans And your flair is "Progressive". How does that even happen?
Hell. No. Shared values are important in any relationship. If you want to feed children and she wants to let them suffer because they feel the parents aren't doing enough, it's gonna cause problems. If you don't want to see folks suffering and she enjoys watching others suffer, it's not gonna work.
[удалено]
I think that was true before trump. Maybe if someone was only fiscally conservative, but the current GOP doesn’t even seem to value fiscal responsibility anymore. They’re becoming the party of “big government” and, at least in FL, they’re attacking businesses for exercising their first amendment rights…
Hard dissagree. Ideology is rooted in values. They aren't conservative because they think people are better off under conservative policies. That's just window dressing. They are conservative because they want the right people punished and they don't care who gets hurt to make it happen.
You're making people into cartoon villains - when conservatives see this sentiment repeated constantly, it simply reinforces the belief that liberals don't even *understand* conservative positions. People *actually do* believe that policies you don't like are better for everyone. If you can convince them they're dumb and wrong, great - but if you truly can't understand *how* a person could even think that..... then you might just not understand.
I won't claim the American left is right on all counts, but too many times I've shown a person how their policy goal conflicts with their reasons for wanting the goal, and they Change the subject. Turn it around with both sides nonsense. End the conversation like a spoiled child. Anything but say, anything even aproaching: "huh, I'll think about that." Their politics is too deeply embedded in their ego for them to be honest about their motives, and after years of carefully eliminating the other possibilities, the only conclusion left, the only defensible argument that makes their stances make any kind of sense, is cruelty. That's the through line. Cruelty. They can have compassion for someone in their direct line of sight and for close friends and family, but it stops there. Anything farther out than that and it's all about hurting people they think need to suffer.
> but too many times I've shown a person how their policy goal conflicts with their reasons for wanting the goal Or they may simply not agree with you... or even in the scenario of someone being stubborn and illogical, they're just being stubborn and illogical, because people very rarely change their minds about many of these issues, right or left. I'd say "Why won't this person change their mind" is a *very* different question than "Why does this person believe what they do." Maybe I think I've "shown" plenty of people how certain progressive policies don't actually accomplish the goals they want them to or have negative consequences for the people they're trying to be empathetic toward. But me asserting that doesn't make it their motivation lol. When they don't agree I don't say they must just actually *want* those negative consequences. Maybe you've met some terrible, cruel, conservatives, and 100% you've seen plenty online - but it's a crazy leap to think that the only way people can arrive at it is cruelty. I've met no shortage of vapid, uninformed progressives with nothing but the most superficial justifications for their positions - but it doesn't make me think no one can hold progressive views without being dumb or uninformed. In the context of the OP, I've got close friends all across the political spectrum, and while it's easy to think of extreme values that would be so abhorrent as to undermine any relationship, drawing that line at "conservative" and dismissing anyone choosing that label as *motivated* by cruelty is miscategorizing and misunderstanding the vast majority of them.
I’m gay, so no. Now would I marry a right wing gay dude? **Fuuuuuuck** no.
I'm sure both of them are very upset at this news. Including Santos.
Or is it Devolder?
It would probably depend on the degree and type of right-wing opinions that she holds, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely.
No, I don’t think it’s healthy for couples to agree on everything but I wouldn’t marry someone who’s values and perspective were vastly different than my own
My wife voted Republican when I met her 17 years ago. She’s a Democrat now.
And this could legitimately have happened without her changing her stances at all. Because the Republican Party has lost its' damn mind, and run away from the thinking Republicans that used to inhabit the party. Even though I almost always disagreed with George Will, I knew he genuinely thought about issues and didn't just act reactionarily. And much like your wife, George Will no longer considers himself a Republican (though he hasn't, of course, moved to considering himself a Democrat).
Based and blue pilled
>blue pilled Do you think blue pill means Democrat and red pill means Republican? Blue pill means you stay in the matrix and never see reality. Red pill means you finally woke up and see reality isn't what you thought it was. She was red pilled
My fellow American, the matrix analogy no longer applies to modern America.
Are you using blue pill from some other kind of analogy then?
Blue is democrat, that was it I believe.
The alt right claimed the red pill for themselves. It was a trans allegory first, but now? Yeah blue pill means democrat.
That term merely means "seeing the truth of the world" which crazy people always claim they do, but we know better. Stating that you're the opposite, and "living in fantasy" is not the retort you think it is. Call it "the dark red pill" if you must. But calling it "blue pilled" is kind of ... dumb. Not that you're dumb, but that's a dumb expression to use and ripe for ridicule.
I’m not sure Blue pilled is gonna take off as a positive thing. How bout rainbow pilled?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means
Do you know what blue pilled means?
I always thought it meant they took Viagra.
#nailedit
I think they’re trying to redefine it but not sure that’s gonna take
theyre trying to hide theyre previous lack of knowledge on where the term red pilled comes from by pretending theres another meaning.
We have definitions and it’s not like it’s offensive, why do some want to change it…seems silly
Well, “red pilled” was fairly successfully co-opted by incels and toxic MRA’s, and later by MAGA types. So they did manage to redefine it.
no, it means the same thing. theyre just trying to misrepresent what the real world is. its more like Inception than Matrix.
Definitions aren’t static. Language changes. Not sure it will change how they are thinking, but it does change.
Not really, the only people who define it that way are the 10 people who are actually “iNcELs” and left wingers trying to paint everyone they don’t like as…definitions still have meaning
Are you asking me that question in the modern sense or the movie sense?
The modern sense…which is derived from the movie sense by the majority of people who know the term
I could date or marry a conservative woman, depending on her beliefs, political activism, and personality. A loudmouth QAnon kook is a still a loudmouth kook, and I wouldn’t date such a person of any political stripe. Someone who I disagree with on tax policy or government spending or foreign policy, that’s totally fine. I have been and I assume always will be pro choice, but I have heard / read pro life positions that I don’t agree with but can respect. I generally think that this massive social sorting by political party that’s going on is a bad thing.
Does this assume that my sexual orientation is aligned to marrying a woman? If yes, then no. If no, then also no.
Clearly this question is meant for heterosexual men, homosexual women, and bisexual men and women, duh 😅
Yeahhh...I doubt a right wing woman would want to marry *me*, given that I'm a woman. I guess it would be slightly better than marrying a right wing man, as I'd hope she might not think women deserve less rights than a dead body. Either way though, the answer is no. I can't imagine we'd have much in common.
No, LOL, not in a million years
Not a chance in hell.
that would be gay for me
So is this question only for people who are attracted to women? Or do you actually mean “would you marry a right wing person?”?
I should have been clearer with my language. I should have asked “ would you marry a right winger?” But i didn’t expect my post to get so much traction…
I would be fine with a tolerant, intellectual conservative I could not tolerate a MAGAt My family has a similar problem, My brother is a Trumper, his wife is a reasonable Democrat. She can barely tolerate being with him
Definitely not. I wouldn't even date a right wing woman.
Nope. Also just a funny anecdote: there's this girl in my area I keep seeing on tinder. I would always swipe left because her profile had some right wing anti-vax sheeple bullshit talk. Over time as she would pop up again and again I noticed less and less of it on her profile and today I saw her again and it's just minimal text with her hobbies listed. And she's objectively gorgeous. Nobody wants to date an asshole lol.
If she was scientific and thoughtful and disgusted by Trump and his sycophants, sure.
No, for a few reasons. One, I'm married and bigimy is illegal. Two, I'm a straight woman. Three, most importantly, your ethics and political views are intrinsically connected. I can't see myself as capable of maintaining a healthy relationship of any kind if we fundamentally disagree on what is right and wrong, or what is actual physical reality.
Four, a right wing woman would not marry another woman.
Almost certainly not. Unless she was super rich, then I would probably be ok with it lol.
Like? What kind of conservative? If she's just got some right wing perspectives on things like foreign policy and the economy then we may be able to make it work. If we're talking about like Christian nationalism, hates LGBTQ, abortion is murder type conservative then no, we cannot bridge that gap. That's too much.
Fiscal right wing? Sure. Social right wing? Hell no.
I was the most left-leaning person I knew until I met my now-wife. I would not marry a right wing woman because in my mind if you’re okay with part of their batshittery, you’re okay with *ALL* of it
Wouldn't that imply your okay with every batshittery of the left?
No
No.
Why would you?
No
Hard pass.
What does she look like? /s But seriously.......what we talking about here
Well I am straight so I would not marry a woman but I can say I would not marry a conservative man as our values would likely be too out of synch
It’s not so much a rule as a result of practicalities. It’s nice to have common values with a partner, but it’s essential to want the same things out of life. If she were socially conservative, we probably wouldn’t have similar goals.
Nope, been there done that. Can’t take the craziness.
Which part of the right-wing? I'm already an atheist, so that shuts down some avenues. Trump-supporter, I'd annoy her too much by breaking down why support of Trump mutually exclusive with the principles of the country. McCain type republican? Maybe?
Anyone I would get into a relationship with and/or marry would not be ‘the ruling class says politics mean everything and we fight if you don’t agree’ type of people, and I would strongly assume people getting married/being in relationships with other people don’t have this as their first/top 30 list of qualities, so if you have to ask this question, then no; keep up the good fight, ever settle, and remember, opposites don’t attract, they constantly fight with each other because only one team can be on the right side of history. Thank you for your service
I wouldn't not marry a right wing person, but it seems unlikely.
I did. Granted, I wasn't as leftwing as I am now when we met (my flair today is probably even a bit outdated). I don't regret it though. I love her and our family with everything I have, but we have butted heads at times. It does help that her rightwing views are on like... how we should be taxed and not on things like human rights. She hasn't been a fan of a lot of the newer Republicans though so maybe she isn't considered rightwing now? I will say that I wonder if we would get to where we currently are if my political affiliation now was my political affiliation now. I like to think we would but it's possible our politics would be turnoffs for eachother.
No. Hell no. No. Nope.
Never
Do her views hinder your love for her? No right. I would kindly ask you to go fuck yourself
Conservative, maybe. Right wing, no way.
Don't stick your dick in crazy.
I’m a gay man, so no. and I have a homophobic family so I’m only getting married when I’m able move out and can cut ties, with no lingering unfinished business related to them.
I like not arguing with my wife.
No. The core distinction between Right and Left is Hierarchy vs Egalitarianism. I couldn't marry someone who thought some people were inherently meant to rule over others.
It's like the Philips on WCTR in GTA SA. Apparently bedroom work really good for them. Nothing good besides that tho
I have dated numerous conservative women in my life. I enjoy the spirited debate that opposing viewpoints can offer, and its the differences that make relationships interesting. Maybe I can convince her that some of my perspectives are correct, and I'm sure she can do the same. You meet in the middle as long as there's trust (and you both still want to get laid at some point). I would not date a Trumpist. They don't actually have a personal viewpoint. They're just parroting what they're told. There's nothing intellectual or interesting about that.
Well, no because I'm a straight woman. :) But I also wouldn't marry a right wing man. My partner was left leaning libertarian when I met him. He's now a full on liberal who will likely never vote Republican again in his life.
I wouldn’t marry a woman, period.
I'm Bi, Furry, and Autistic so that already cuts out most of them to begin with. Also, a ton of people I follow and many of my friends are some flavor of queer including a not insignificant number of trans. So I have to say, marrying anyone right wing is right out because I respect my own and my friends basic human rights too much. Because even if the right winger isn't into all the nonsense the Republicans are doing, they would still be voting for the people doing it.
Yeah sure. Dated both liberals and conservatives.
The rich kind or the lumpen proletariat kind?
For the same reason I wouldn’t a flat-earther.
This is one of those questions better asked in a poll if you ask me. But yes I would. In general having a partner with different believes is really not that bad. Just be respectful to one another and in general things will be fine. Of course if their believes impact your daily live than maybe no.
Absolutely not Most of my family is right wing, I'm not adding to that by marrying another one. I intentionally sought out someone that matched my values.
No. But I go by my nieces and nephews because they are young and dating. They want nothing to do with a right winger. It's essentially fascist at this point and they won't admit it.
Gross. Fuck no.
I mean yes. It makes it easy since I’m right and my girlfriend is right wing as well (not super conservative more like center right and she’s Muslim like me) Would I consider marrying someone else outside of my religion and ethnicity/political stance most likely no, it just complicates things. Adding that fact both our families come from the same town.
This question was obviously mean do liberals not right wingers. Obviously you would marry a right winger.
No. I won't even hook up with one.
No. I don’t think marrying a person who disagrees politically would work out.
The difficult part is that I would want to introduce her to my friends, but I have friends who are women, racial minorities, and LGBT.
I would only marry the most passionate comrade I can find. Idgaf if they are AMAB, AFAB or whatever.
Depends on what you mean by right wing. One of my biggest non-negotioables is the controversial take of wanting human rights for everyone
So unreasonable, we are… 🙄
Lol this fucking question. Y'all are sheep
> Lol this fucking question. Y'all are sheep I don't get it. Sheep for answering yes or no? Or sheep for being on this op?
Both the questions and the answers
If you say so
If politics control who you will marry you have serious mental problems.
Oh, so your S.O. being a “Nazi”, wouldn’t be a problem for you, huh? Wow. Ok… 😳 Pretty sure wanting to be certain that your partner supports freedom & human rights (for everyone), is NOT indicative of “serious mental problems”.
Having never met a Nazi, have you? So I don't know.
Ok, so 3 things: 1. Quotations are a thing. They don’t mean nothing. 2. Checked out Florida, or Texas, lately? Getting pretty “Nazi”-ish, down there, even by Nazi <—(no quotations) standards. 3. You… DON’T KNOW?!? I’m gonna stick with my original “Wow. Ok… 😳”
Have you been to Florida or Texas and actually met a Nazi?
Alright, that’s enough of you.
Ur values and ur ethical framework don’t define ur dating?
I mean if she is hot? Yes. If she is a racist as well as hot? Only a couple of dates max.
That’s pretty fucked up. Are you a racist? It would be hard to believe that a non racist person would date a racist.
I’m not white dude. Anyway I don’t believe in free will. Racism is a byproduct of upbringing and background. And she has to fit in the scale of hot/crazy
Being racist isn't a deal breaker to a lot of liberals. This becomes apparent when you realize there are still a lot of racist liberals. Liberals just prefer to work with racists who couch their racism in dog whistles. The blatant racism against black folk turns them off a bit. [The Alt-Right Playbook: The Cost of Doing Business](https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/696475064150999040/the-first-new-alt-right-playbook-since-just-after) > American racial discourse has four principle (white) characters. > On the far right end, you’ve got the guy white people picture when they hear the word “racist”: your klansman, your neo-Nazi skinhead, your suit-and-tie ethnonationalist. This guy knows he’s a racist and he’s proud of it. > Next to the white supremacist, you’ve got the white collaborator; the politician, public figure, or businessman who does not agree with the white supremacist “on paper” but will seek out their votes, attention, or money. > Next to the collaborator, you’ve got the white moderate: people who ostensibly believe in racial justice as an end goal, and are somewhat committed to bringing it about, but only with the cooperation of the white collaborator. It wouldn’t be fair to do it without their consent, you see, and thus the white moderate spends a lot less time opposing collaborators than “appealing to their better natures.” They tend to operate on behalf of people of color rather than with them. > Plainly put, the “Cost of Doing Business” maneuver is this group [collaborators] using this group [racists] to attack this group [moderates] using people of color as their weapon of choice. It is white supremacy in the form of three groups of white people fighting amongst themselves. > Finally, on the far opposite end, you’ve got the honest-to-goodness anti-racist. Where the racist will support white supremacy, and the collaborator uphold white supremacy, and the moderate seek to reform white supremacy, only the anti-racist is trying to get rid of it. And even they are not free from racial bias! And, if you tell one of them “you are not free from racial bias,” it’s not guaranteed they will react well! It’s just, if you’re trying to fight white supremacy, they’re the white folks you have the best odds with.
That reminds me of [this](https://youtu.be/ldJQc5mkuHU) Joe Rogan bit (starts at 2:45)
Nope
Are they right-wing enough to believe they shouldn't be allowed to vote? /s for the people that will think this is somehow a srs stance
I mean, it actually is a real thing, even if you aren't serious about it. I've met, but never was in a position to date two women with that attitude.
Republican or right wing right wing, cause Republican yes but trump republican, no.
Maybe. Is she the kind of right winger who believes her husband makes all the decisions? Poof, she’s a liberal.
Nope
No, because I am a heterosexual female. Also I'm already married.
That's a broad brush, but you gotta know the person. Trumper? Definitely not. Libertarian? Yeah, I think so.
Wife was more of a Dem when I married her (though more from tribe conforming rather than principles alignment) Leans right now - not about to get divorced. Doesn't really affect marriage much either; not like there's that much of a need to argue about politics. If I were single today? Probably yes, as long as it is secular right wing. Religious right wing would cause too many conflicts with my secular self, especially kid raising.
Lol no
Hell nah.
Depends on her actual views and whether she's in the MAGA or q cults. Or any cults I suppose...
Depends on what about her beliefs and values places her in the right wing. I’d be able to deal with socially moderate at most. Conservative, definitely not. Fiscally conservative, probably yeah. And it all sort of hinges on how involved they were politically. Generally my life is pretty much devoid of political conversation outside of elections so if they aren’t actively engaged and treated people kindly it wouldn’t bother me too much. I’ve lived with many conservative or right wing people before. I grew up surrounded by them. I’m friends with several. We have so much more in common than otherwise and specific policies aren’t a thing that comes up often if at all.
No, no I don't believe I would.
If she's reasonable and good. Which narrows the options in the right -wing dating pool, but doesn't entirely eliminate it.
I doubt I would now. During the late stages of the Bush Admin-early Obama admin, I was dating a conservative Christian girl. We actually had some fun, we worked for awhile, and then we just didn’t. Our lifestyles and what we wanted for the future just weren’t simpatico. Maybe some couples can make it work, but I could now probably never marry a self-identified right wing girl. Also, I’m happy with my current partner. She’s Australian and mostly voted for Labor.
I would based on being a certain kind of conservative. Conservatives bring a lot to the table, just not currently.