What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What would life be like if conservatives had their way? (1 Viewer)

Since it was funny, it was definitely intentional. :) Restricting intoxicants is different than banning them. Would you also ban alcohol? I don't see much difference in their level of harm.
Alcohol is objectively worse, but it was about 8,000 years of recorded history in is use and likely well more before that.  Grandfathered in.

 
Yeah, I think it's absolutely inarguable that we would not have gay marriage if the country were monolithically conservative.  

I'm not so sure about the legal weed thing.  That started with a referendum in CO and the GOP governor went along with it.  Republican presidents looked the other way.  I doubt this one plays out much differently.

 
Yeah, I think it's absolutely inarguable that we would not have gay marriage if the country were monolithically conservative.  

I'm not so sure about the legal weed thing.  That started with a referendum in CO and the GOP governor went along with it.  Republican presidents looked the other way.  I doubt this one plays out much differently.
Agree here. For sure on gay marriage. The weed thing is weird because it actually makes a lot of ideological sense for both sides of the aisle. 

 
Completely agree that the “snowflake liberals” of today who want to cancel anything funny would ruin comedy.  And are ruining comedy.
I don’t know if they are ruining comedy. I saw John Mulaney a few weeks ago and it was one of the funniest sets I’ve ever seen. There had to be 15,000 people there. Dave Chapelle came out as a surprise guest and received a massive ovation. He’s still doing his NF specials despite controversy. Liberals didn’t like JoJo Rabbit but I thought it was hilarious and Taika is still successful, just made the new Thor movie. Booksmart was really funny but nobody went to see it. There’s a lot of good TV comedy in recent years which seems to be where comedy is going land for awhile. There doesn’t seem to be an appetite to go the theaters for comedies right now. 
 

All that said, the lefty Twitter liberal isn’t helping comedy. They complain all the time and seem to be looking for a reason to be offended (which seems to be the hallmark of current American politics on both far ends). It’s exhausting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Too much of anything is not good.  There needs to be balance and we currently don't have it in media. 
We need nutty liberals.   They are very creative.   But they need the crabby conservative  so their ideas make money, and they can get paid for their work.

 
Republic of Gilead
You know what we have never had?   A society that went full balls market economy.    You know what we have had again and again.   A leftist totalitarian jack booted thug society.   Gilead is just another version of the same thing.

But somehow leftists miss that.

 
Yeah, I think it's absolutely inarguable that we would not have gay marriage if the country were monolithically conservative.  

I'm not so sure about the legal weed thing.  That started with a referendum in CO and the GOP governor went along with it.  Republican presidents looked the other way.  I doubt this one plays out much differently.
It's a pretty recent phenomenon that more Republicans support legalization than don't. It is still around 50/50 support while it is much higher among Democrats. There still seems to be a lack of support among Republican politicians. Obviously there has always been support among the libertarian minded Republicans, but is still not really a majority opinion among other conservatives. Maybe they would have eventually got there without the left, but it would have just taken longer. I tend to think many of these conservatives have come around simply because it was legalized and they saw that it didn't cause the issues they feared. If it was never legalized then their views probably wouldn't have changed.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/559989879/all-time-high-majority-of-republicans-support-pot-legalization-for-first-time

https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t if they are ruining comedy. I saw John Mulaney a few weeks ago and it was one of the funniest sets I’ve ever seen. There had to be 15,000 people there. Dave Chapelle came out as a surprise guest and received a massive ovation. He’s still doing his NF specials despite controversy. Liberals didn’t like JoJo Rabbit but I thought it was hilarious and Taika is still successful, just made the new Thor movie. Booksmart was really funny but nobody went to see it. There’s a lot of good TV comedy in recent years which seems to be where comedy is going land for awhile. There doesn’t seem to be an appetite to go the theaters for comedies right now. 
 

All that said, the lefty Twitter liberal isn’t helping comedy. They complain all the time and seem to be looking for a reason to be offended (which seems to be the hallmark of current American politics on both far ends). It’s exhausting.
I think they are trying, but the more I listen to comics, the more they as a group seem to be saying F you to the wokeness.  I wish more groups of people would.   I don't think it's effecting what the main comics are saying as a whole, but I 100% it's giving pause to people sharing those people or jokes on SM and to companies when they are deciding what to offer.  

To me it becomes painfully obvious that most people who are yelling about the comics don't take the time to either watch the whole routine, or take the time to listen to the comics off the stage.  I am specifically thinking about Chappelle and Gervais, who I think seem to take the most heat currently (mostly because of trans jokes).  

 
Interesting.  IK's post got me thinking (I just responded to your's quick and then kept reading) about what exactly is "conservative entertainment" and what is it that you think you are missing?     I get the MSM stuff, no disagreement there, but the entertainment part stumped me.  

My mind went back to my exchange with SC when he said that the woke stuff was all over, but this is not the same thing.   I was just curious what specifically you were looking for that you aren't seeing in entertainment.  

 
It's a pretty recent phenomenon that more Republicans support legalization than don't. It is still around 50/50 support while it is much higher among Democrats. There still seems to be a lack of support among Republican politicians. Obviously there has always been support among the libertarian minded Republicans, but is still not really a majority opinion among other conservatives. Maybe they would have eventually got there without the left, but it would have just taken longer. I tend to think many of these conservatives have come around simply because it was legalized and they saw that it didn't cause the issues they feared. If it was never legalized then their views probably wouldn't have changed.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/559989879/all-time-high-majority-of-republicans-support-pot-legalization-for-first-time

https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx
Biden can declassify it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. 

 
Biden can declassify it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. 
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. This isn't a defense of Biden (or Obama or Clinton or anyone else). I'm just trying to run the thought exercise "what if progressives didn't exist for the last 30 years?"

 
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. This isn't a defense of Biden (or Obama or Clinton or anyone else). I'm just trying to run the thought exercise "what if progressives didn't exist for the last 30 years?"
You stated there seems to be a lack of support among Republicans. I was pointing out that it is still classified federally as a schedule 1 and Biden can change that tomorrow.

 
You stated there seems to be a lack of support among Republicans. I was pointing out that it is still classified federally as a schedule 1 and Biden can change that tomorrow.
You still seem to be missing my point. In this hypothetical world the Democrats don't exist. Or at least they hold 0 power. It doesn't matter what Biden does or doesn't do. It only matters what the Republicans would do if the Democrats don't exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You still seem to be missing my point. In this hypothetical world the Democrats don't exist. Or at least they hold 0 power. It doesn't matter what Biden does or doesn't do. It only matters what the Republicans would do if the Democrats don't exist.
This guy gets it.

 
Some other thoughts:

Taxes would be somewhat lower

Entitlement programs would have been severely reduced or eliminated altogether

Military spending might be higher

Reduced foreign aid - mostly targeted to help military allies (eg. Israel)

More spending on enforcing the border and deporting illegal immigrants

 
But if there was nobody fighting to make same-sex legal then it would never have been legalized. And it was the progressives that were fighting for that. If they didn't exist for the past 30 years, the status quo would still exist which is no same-sex marriage.

I am not saying if you removed progressives right now that conservatives would rush out and make same-sex marriage illegal again, I'm saying these things would never have changed without progressives.


You might be right but times do change. We really don`t know since many Dem leaders were against gays getting married as well.

I think most people in the country are for gay marriage and stronger borders. Most of my friends are grew up with only vote dem and they want a stronger border.   If the Dems ever came around on that they would dominate the independents.

 
Interesting topic Cap’n.  It’s got my brains in knots at the moment.  My initial reaction is that a purely Conservative America is not even imaginable given our history and all the racial animosity.

 
Interesting topic Cap’n.  It’s got my brains in knots at the moment.  My initial reaction is that a purely Conservative America is not even imaginable given our history and all the racial animosity.
That could be one answer. Even more race racial tension.

 
Some other thoughts:

Taxes would be somewhat lower

Entitlement programs would have been severely reduced or eliminated altogether

Military spending might be higher

Reduced foreign aid - mostly targeted to help military allies (eg. Israel)

More spending on enforcing the border and deporting illegal immigrants
I'll take a stab at this the way you have. 

- Agreed on the lower taxes.

- Wealth and income disparity would be higher.

- we'd be further behind in renewable energy development with zero concern for global warming.

- Less diversity in entertainment and the managerial workforce.

- more prominent theocratic agenda in government. 

- higher crime due to abortion illegality and wealth gap.

- lower government debt

- even more guns and in younger hands.

 
Wait a second, are we trying to "But Biden " in a "dems didn't exist" thread?  :lol:
lol yeah if we are assuming the Reagan mandate carried on through the 90s, 00s and 10s I don’t think Biden would matter in the slightest. He certainly would not be President. 

I don't know...a return to America circa 2019.
So you are saying everything post Regan to 2018 would have even entirely the same if the GOP dominated elections across the country? The Republicans wouldn’t have wanted to do anything different?

 
So you are saying everything post Regan to 2018 would have even entirely the same if the GOP dominated elections across the country? The Republicans wouldn’t have wanted to do anything different?


You can interpret from my post anything you desire.  That's what's great about these "what if" questions, interpretation is subjective.

 
just watch and listen to what the they say at CPAC coming up.

Besides the usual cast of characters, Viktor Orbán will also be speaking.

His rule over Hungary has includes crackdowns on immigration, press freedom, and an independent judiciary.

 
Captain Cranks said:
- we'd be further behind in renewable energy development with zero concern for global warming.
Maybe learn some history about conservatives and environmentalism/carbon emissions?

Nixon - established the EPA in 1970; signed the first Clean Air Act; signed the Clean Water Act

GHW Bush - signed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990

GWBush -

- In February 2002, President Bush committed the United States to a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012. 

- The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the President signed into law last year, authorized $5 billion over five years in tax incentives to encourage investments in energy efficiency and alternative renewable energy sources.  

- The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency effort that increases the development and use of key technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. 

- Since 2003, the Bush Administration has finalized two sets of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations requiring a combined 15 percent increase in the fuel economy of light trucks.

- Announced in February 2004, SmartWay is a voluntary partnership between various freight industry sectors and the Environmental Protection Agency designed to increase energy efficiency while significantly reducing greenhouse gases (or gas emissions) and air pollution.

- The Natural Gas STAR Program is a flexible, voluntary partnership between EPA and the oil and natural gas industry. Through the Program, EPA works with companies to identify and promote the use of cost-effective technologies and practices to reduce emissions of methane

- Climate Leaders is an EPA partnership that encourages individual companies to develop long-term, comprehensive climate change strategies. 

- In June 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that, for the first time, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would provide targeted incentives to encourage wider use of land management practices that remove carbon from the atmosphere or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

- In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.  The goal of this initiative is to work in partnership with the private sector to accelerate the research and development required for a hydrogen economy.

And more...

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-energy.html

 
Maybe learn some history about conservatives and environmentalism/carbon emissions?

Nixon - established the EPA in 1970; signed the first Clean Air Act; signed the Clean Water Act

GHW Bush - signed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990

GWBush -

- In February 2002, President Bush committed the United States to a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012. 

- The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the President signed into law last year, authorized $5 billion over five years in tax incentives to encourage investments in energy efficiency and alternative renewable energy sources.  

- The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency effort that increases the development and use of key technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. 

- Since 2003, the Bush Administration has finalized two sets of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations requiring a combined 15 percent increase in the fuel economy of light trucks.

- Announced in February 2004, SmartWay is a voluntary partnership between various freight industry sectors and the Environmental Protection Agency designed to increase energy efficiency while significantly reducing greenhouse gases (or gas emissions) and air pollution.

- The Natural Gas STAR Program is a flexible, voluntary partnership between EPA and the oil and natural gas industry. Through the Program, EPA works with companies to identify and promote the use of cost-effective technologies and practices to reduce emissions of methane

- Climate Leaders is an EPA partnership that encourages individual companies to develop long-term, comprehensive climate change strategies. 

- In June 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that, for the first time, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would provide targeted incentives to encourage wider use of land management practices that remove carbon from the atmosphere or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

- In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.  The goal of this initiative is to work in partnership with the private sector to accelerate the research and development required for a hydrogen economy.

And more...

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-energy.html
I think it's fair to say that a society with conservatives in charge would probably have relied more on fossil fuels and less on things like wind and solar.  I'm not sure how big of a difference it would be -- wind and solar have gotten a lot cheaper over the years, but some of that is probably a chicken-and-egg problem where the early adoption of inefficient forms of these energy sources spurred innovation and helped bring costs down and green types deserve credit for their role in that.  But McCain/Palin were really in favor of digging more oil wells as recently as 14 years ago.  

On the other hand, conservatives wouldn't have strangled nuclear power in its crib either.  We would definitely have more nuclear power if conservatives had been in charge.  I have no idea how this would balance on net.

 
ZADO said:
The Archie Bunker show wouldnt have made it past the pilot show in Liberal America lol

Nuff sed
Quite possibly though the shows creator was quite liberal and for many the show was a way to demonize conservatives of the time and as the beginning of the interjection of liberal politics into TV.

 
Maybe learn some history about conservatives and environmentalism/carbon emissions?

Nixon - established the EPA in 1970; signed the first Clean Air Act; signed the Clean Water Act

GHW Bush - signed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990

GWBush -

- In February 2002, President Bush committed the United States to a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012. 

- The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the President signed into law last year, authorized $5 billion over five years in tax incentives to encourage investments in energy efficiency and alternative renewable energy sources.  

- The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency effort that increases the development and use of key technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. 

- Since 2003, the Bush Administration has finalized two sets of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations requiring a combined 15 percent increase in the fuel economy of light trucks.

- Announced in February 2004, SmartWay is a voluntary partnership between various freight industry sectors and the Environmental Protection Agency designed to increase energy efficiency while significantly reducing greenhouse gases (or gas emissions) and air pollution.

- The Natural Gas STAR Program is a flexible, voluntary partnership between EPA and the oil and natural gas industry. Through the Program, EPA works with companies to identify and promote the use of cost-effective technologies and practices to reduce emissions of methane

- Climate Leaders is an EPA partnership that encourages individual companies to develop long-term, comprehensive climate change strategies. 

- In June 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that, for the first time, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would provide targeted incentives to encourage wider use of land management practices that remove carbon from the atmosphere or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

- In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.  The goal of this initiative is to work in partnership with the private sector to accelerate the research and development required for a hydrogen economy.

And more...

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-energy.html
Thanks for the information. Looks like I erroneously projected the tone of conservatives during the Obama and Trump administrations, that of climate change denial, across the GW admin. Is there a reason you needed to deliver it with such arrogance?

 
Captain Cranks said:
And we'd still be using "beautiful, clean coal".
Thanks for the information. Looks like I erroneously projected the tone of conservatives during the Obama and Trump administrations, that of climate change denial, across the GW admin. Is there a reason you needed to deliver it with such arrogance?
Is there a reason your original conclusion was done with such dismissiveness?

 
I think it's fair to say that a society with conservatives in charge would probably have relied more on fossil fuels and less on things like wind and solar.  I'm not sure how big of a difference it would be -- wind and solar have gotten a lot cheaper over the years, but some of that is probably a chicken-and-egg problem where the early adoption of inefficient forms of these energy sources spurred innovation and helped bring costs down and green types deserve credit for their role in that.  But McCain/Palin were really in favor of digging more oil wells as recently as 14 years ago.  

On the other hand, conservatives wouldn't have strangled nuclear power in its crib either.  We would definitely have more nuclear power if conservatives had been in charge.  I have no idea how this would balance on net.
The Republican Party was very much on board with environmental issues. Dems had the majority in the House and Senate but the GOP members overwhelmingly voted for the extension and expansion of 1970 and again in 1990. Even McCain supported cap and trade bills to reduce emissions several times. There were some hardcore environmentalists in the GOP. It all seemed to switch with Obama. He wasn't able to gain any Republican support. Even many Democrats began to back off or even oppose the Obama plan in favor of protecting coal. The key question is why was there this attitude shift around 2008? Was it caused by Obama? Money from coal and oil companies buying votes? Shift in attitudes about the environment or business? 

 
Thanks for the information. Looks like I erroneously projected the tone of conservatives during the Obama and Trump administrations, that of climate change denial, across the GW admin. Is there a reason you needed to deliver it with such arrogance?
It is still a question. If the GOP had full control, how much of those policies would the GOP have rolled back? What spurred the philosophy change? I think sometimes parties choose their position just to be against the other side. If there was no other side to fight against on climate, would the GOP have changed their position? Or would it just have split the Party into 2 divisions?

 
The Republican Party was very much on board with environmental issues. Dems had the majority in the House and Senate but the GOP members overwhelmingly voted for the extension and expansion of 1970 and again in 1990. Even McCain supported cap and trade bills to reduce emissions several times. There were some hardcore environmentalists in the GOP. It all seemed to switch with Obama. He wasn't able to gain any Republican support. Even many Democrats began to back off or even oppose the Obama plan in favor of protecting coal. The key question is why was there this attitude shift around 2008? Was it caused by Obama? Money from coal and oil companies buying votes? Shift in attitudes about the environment or business? 
I think you nailed it in terms of timing.

Without blaming "sides," IMO there was a huge shift in U.S. politics beginning with the failure of the Grand Bargain between Boehner and Obama on balancing the budget/national debt. Probably equal parts Tea Party radical influence and Obama's arrogance/elections have consequences mentality.

The policies of both parties have become increasingly extreme reactions to each other over the past decade. It's a feedback loop.

So taking the contemporary "conservative" values/policies of Trump, Cruz, etc. as a starting point....vs. how things would have evolved for 30 years if the Reagans, Bushes and Jack Kemps of the world would have governed if left on their own...are almost like night and day in terms of outcomes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is still a question. If the GOP had full control, how much of those policies would the GOP have rolled back? What spurred the philosophy change? I think sometimes parties choose their position just to be against the other side. If there was no other side to fight against on climate, would the GOP have changed their position? Or would it just have split the Party into 2 divisions?
Pew Research

Interesting data going back to 2009. It seems Republican concern was pretty flatlined around 25% for the last 12 years.  61% of Republicans think stricter environmental laws cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. I think it's fair to assume the Republican party wouldn't have pushed legislation with that backdrop.

 
Pew Research

Interesting data going back to 2009. It seems Republican concern was pretty flatlined around 25% for the last 12 years.  61% of Republicans think stricter environmental laws cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. I think it's fair to assume the Republican party wouldn't have pushed legislation with that backdrop.
But that is a major change from the early 90s at least. The 1990 update to the Clean Air Act passed with 33 No votes out of the 522 members of Congress that voted. President Bush was pushing it as part of his agenda. When, why and how did deep concern for the environment become a mostly Democratic issue? I also firmly believe that present day opinions on many issues for either party are partly driven by the fact that the opinion is in opposition to the other party. If we remove that opposition and gamesmanship, I think the development of positions would be altered. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But that is a major change from the early 90s at least. The Clean Air Act passed with 33 No votes out of the 522 members of Congress that passed. President Bush was pushing it as part of his agenda. When, why and how did deep concern for the environment become a mostly Democratic issue? I also firmly believe that present day opinions on many issues for either party are partly driven by the fact that the opinion is on opposition to the other party. If we remove that opposition and gamesmanship, I think the development of positions would be altered. 
Fair point. In Ezra Klein's book Why We're Polarized, he cites research that shows the vast majority of people vote 'in opposition of' rather than 'in favor of'. I assumed that referred to candidates, but it's very likely trickled down to individual positions. We can certainly assign that to behaviors we see today.  

Regarding your last sentence, without the opposition factor, we'd be left with the scientific community vs. the fossil fuel industry and economic impacts of regulation. We can never know how it would have played out, but I have my doubts that the scientific community's alarms would have been enough to make this a majority concern for Republicans.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top