On what issue(s) do you agree with the "other" political party?

[Metric Mouse]

Alright, I'll bite. As a political outlier, I can't honestly subscribe to either party. My apparently fall into the open end of the horseshoe - far left of far left and far right of far right.

Things I agree with (on the left)

Many people need assistance to survive in America. The government is a great vehicle to do this.
More people should have sovereignty over their bodies and over their reproductive rights.
People of different skin tones are not the enemy.
Poor people are not the enemy.
Climate change is a bad deal.
War is bad.


On the right:

Many people need to take more responsibility for their actions and the consequences those actions have.
Killing babies is bad. Sometimes it still should be done.
Rich people are not the enemy.
Guns are not the enemy.
Punishing people for driving cars or shutting down fossil fuel energy generation only in America will not solve climate change, and doing so may cause many other problems.
The United States military, particularly the Navy, has brought amazing peace to the developed world at large, at a level that was unthinkable prior to the end of WWII. This has improved the lives of peoples in many nations, and scaling it down too much could cause problems for many nations.

[SisterX]

Poor people are the enemy.

Is this a typo? I don't think people on the left consider poor people the enemy....

[Metric Mouse]

Poor people are the enemy.

Is this a typo? I don't think people on the left consider poor people the enemy....

OH. Yes, clearly a typo. Thank you. - Fixed.

[Paul der Krake]

Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.

[Travis]

Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.

Only outliers in their party.  The DoD directly employs 3 million people and supports the jobs of countless others throughout the country through building weapons or supporting the economies near bases.  Even for Democrats who are supposedly all anti-military, I doubt you'll see a politician volunteer his or her base for closure when the next survey comes around.

[accolay]

I think the only talking point I agree with from the Conservative side of politics is about fiscal responsibility. But I feel like it ends with the talking point and they're no more fiscally responsible than anyone else. I feel it's really about not wanting to pay taxes. I think paying taxes is a pretty good deal in America most of the time. YMMV.

I'll add mandatory service requirements to my list. Two years military, or 3 years civil service. The melting pot effect will be good for everyone. And hopefully skinny us us, as a collective.

1

I disagree with mandatory service. I think there's enough people who get in the military voluntarily who hate it. I can't imagine how dysfunctional it could get with people forced to be there.

[Sailor Sam]

But this thread is about what we agree on.

[nereo]

Does any party call for a reduction in military spending? Not tepid stuff like cutting a unit or a submarine here and there, I mean real reduction as in 50% reduction of personnel in the next decade.

There are members of both parties, but as Travis said, it's often seen a political suicide to cut spending because so many voters and industries count on defense spending.
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders both pushed for the extensive kind of cuts you were talking about.  Others, like John Kasiach proposed more modest cuts.

To be fair the US has been relatively constant over the last few 3 decades on military spending (as a % of its GDP). Given that our economy and population are still expanding we could see 'real' reductions simply by freezing the current size and cost for a decade or so. Doubt it will happen, but on paper it works (just not politically).

[nereo]

My biggest objection to requiring government service in the US (even if there is a non-military option) is that it would be a dramatic increase in the federal labor pool.  With ~320MM people, we're talking about millions of annual (temporary) workers.  I'm not sure that's good for the country year-after-year.

Compounding this is what do you do with several million mostly-20-somethings that come in each year for their required service. The majority will be assigned non-career track positions, and since they are required to be there there's no pressure to pay them competitive wages. This is good for keeping the cost of government programs down (cheap labor!) but it gives them a huge advantage over private sector jobs and could create downward pressure on hourly wages and salaries.

Dont get me wrong, I think it would be great if more people worked at least a few years for state and federal governments. I have, nad I"m tired of people who have never been in the federal workforce talking about how 'wasteful' it is. Perhaps this would stoke civic pride and make more people realize that feds are roughly equal to their private industry counterparts.

[accolay]

Doesn't need to be military. Most countries that have a mandatory service requirement (and if we had it here in the US should be tor men and women imho) have a civilian option for those who don't agree with military service. Could be 2 years feeding the homeless or doing some other kind of community service. Even if we didn't have "mandatory" paid military/community service here, I think an option of doing either voluntarily in exchange for a paid college education (one year service = one year paid college etc...) would be a nice option.

I should clarify that I disagree with mandatory military or civilian service. Have a civilian option and  college tuition as a carrot, but I don't think mandatory service military or civilian is the way to go.

[nereo]

Doesn't need to be military. Most countries that have a mandatory service requirement (and if we had it here in the US should be tor men and women imho) have a civilian option for those who don't agree with military service. Could be 2 years feeding the homeless or doing some other kind of community service. Even if we didn't have "mandatory" paid military/community service here, I think an option of doing either voluntarily in exchange for a paid college education (one year service = one year paid college etc...) would be a nice option.

I should clarify that I disagree with mandatory military or civilian service. Have a civilian option and  college tuition as a carrot, but I don't think mandatory service military or civilian is the way to go.

I kinda feel the same way here.  Carrot is good, but no stick (see above).

[StarBright]

Thank you very much for this thread.

I'm basically like a super liberal and couldn't think of a single thing I agreed with the current "other" political party on. So inspired by this thread - I went looking for something and I found something!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2017/02/the_republican_plan_to_kill_fema_might_have_an_upside.html

While I don't agree with the proposal in it's entirety, I don't like that people can just build and build in threatened areas and then get bailed out when disaster inevitably strikes.

I will keep looking for things I agree with!

[Abe]

I'm liberal but agree with a lot of things conservatives ostensibly believe in, but hate it when people subconsciously (or consciously) ignore how it applies to them also:

1. The government often tries to over-reach in regulating people economically and morally. The federal government spends too much on a lot of things with minimal benefit to anyone. This includes spending on dying rural towns that provide no economic benefit to anyone. They also try to regulate things like what marriage is and other nonsense that's not the government's business.

2. Gun bans don't work well due to specifics unique to the US and the logistics of controlling the flow of guns around the country, and I should be allowed to have one if criminals de facto are also allowed.

3. Adults should be more responsible for themselves and shouldn't get social services just for being incompetent or lazy.  However, there are some good reasons why an adult needs monetary assistance in the short term that save us money in the long run, and anyone not living in the wilderness on a subsistence diet who says they are uniquely self-sufficient is a fool.

4.Immigration should be regulated, and you don't get to selectively ignore immigration laws because of your beliefs. That's part of being in a functioning society: you have to follow laws enacted by your representatives, or otherwise get them to change them. That being said, I don't think that just because someone's great-grandparents legally showed up here before my parents legally did, that they're somehow special or more entitled to things in the country. No one is special just because of their ancestry.

5. Going with #4, no one should get an advantage in applications to jobs or higher education because of their ancestry. However, I do think there is a long-term societal benefit to helping poor people (regardless of ancestry) who are otherwise qualified pay for higher education.

[Fish Sweet]

I'm pretty much a bleeding heart liberal in most things, but there's some conservative ideas and concepts I can definitely get behind.  I won't say I agree with the Republican party for shit, because plenty of their... ah, shall we say, major platforms aren't conservative in the slightest either, but hey.

- Less spying & government intervention in people's personal lives.  I'm more moderate about government regulation of businesses.  Between the Patriot Act and cameras on every corner of everything, I'm decidedly uncomfortable with the USA becoming a major surveillance country.  I don't want the government (or the church, or old white men, my mom's dog, or indeed anyone) peeking into anyone's bedrooms and deciding who they should be banging, how they should be worshipping, and how they should be living.  I think government regulations on businesses should be in the interest of protection of employees and the businesses themselves (to prevent sexual harassment and incidents like the Triangle Factory Fire, for example), not so they can nickel and dime and tax small businesses to death, or make the hurtles to starting a new business prohibitively expensive and/or complicated.

- Gun control.  I don't like guns, and grit my teeth every time there's YET ANOTHER mass shooting in the US, and all the gun nuts come rushing out in droves to point fingers at other things and assert that it has nothing to do with the massive proliferation of firearms in the country.  That said, I also don't live in la-la land where a ban is feasible or even possible-- the US loves its guns, there are tons of guns everywhere, and it's a whole cultural thing.  I think gun purchases should be regulated thoroughly to provide maximum gun education and maximum gun accountability-- to be able to trace guns to their owners, and to ensure that every owner goes through a course to educate them on proper gun ownership, usage, and safekeeping.  If we're going to have people toting firearms everywhere they go, I'll be happy knowing that any shots fired can be attributed to the correct owner, and all the gun-toters have been rigorously educated on the use of their stuff.

- Personal responsibility.  Why else be on the MMM forums?  When it comes to general populations, social structures, and government programs and assistance, I'm all for people getting help when they need it.  But when it comes to living your own damn life, ain't nobody going to do that for you, and no complaint about privilege, blame, your shitty childhood, them immigrants, or anything else will change that. 

And let me be clear, the whining comes from all sides, across all lines.  I feel like there's a lot of attribution to "whiny sjws who can't do anything but blame other people for their shit lots in life" and sure, there's plenty of that, but I've also had the dubious pleasure of watching old white rich folks complaining about not being able to call folks "chinks" and how sad and hard their lives are faced with the specter of racism and how "nobody cared before" (spoiler: they did, they just didn't have the power to say anything to you.)  Or a male boss talking about how much money he's losing and how his financial woes have women and immigrants to blame, because you can't pay them less (than men and white people, presumably), and how is his business supposed to stay afloat?

[Mr Dorothy Dollar]

Very gay, very liberal.

However, I recognize that illegal immigration is a problem (all be it a small problem). I just think that addressing the problem is being done in a very poor way (walls are dumb and deporting forces are dumb). We should first revise the quota system set up almost 100 years ago (the world has changed since then) and go to a point merit-based system. Further, enforcing laws dealing with hiring illegal workers should be the top priority as it should be easier to police/detur (business owners have assets to protect). If an illegal immigrant cannot make money in the USA the immigrant will self-deport saving us all money.

I am hopelessly lost as to any other issue that the right either considers a problem or has a decent idea at fixing a problem.