u/Early-Possibility367

I’ve noticed that American conservatives have an extreme aversion to being called “authoritarian“ and “totalitarian.” This strikes me as odd because many conservatives worldwide actively own these labels, or at least are not particularly offended by them.

But American conservatives really hate being called those terms, which I find interesting.

Additionally, why do conservatives react so strongly to the seemingly small amount of Americans who call them fascist.

At least with fascist, I understand why the idea may be offensive. But conservatives essentially have this boiling angry reaction to a term that not many people really use to describe them.

They essentially let them live free in their heads despite them having exceptionally little governmental power.

I don’t know. I think essentially one or two big name polls dropped early in the DJT administration indicating the percentage of Hispanic people who approve of ICE is much lower than that of Trump, and people have been inferring a massive leftward shift in Latinos since then.

I think that’s a huge leap to make personally. It presumes Hispanic Trump voters had no idea ICE would do as they’re doing and I don’t think there’s evidence to back it up.

There’s a theory I’ve seen on social media where they’ll say that America is actually red by default. By this, they mean that they have an ideological red tilt and also that Republicans are the default choice.

But if Republicans become sorely unpopular, that’s when people will elect Democrats nationally.

The main supporting logic is that whenever you see a Democrat win, it’s always at some point where Republicans are massively unpopular. The Democrat may stay 4 years or may stay 8, but a Democrat’s first win, especially Presidentially in the modern era, is almost always in the setting of an exceptionally unpopular Republican.

Jason Pargin, an author, did say it’s because Americans perceive Republicans as friendlier to things they care about on average (eg cars, Christianity), but regardless, do you think it’s true?

I think it is overall true. Ultimately, people, for better or worse, care about things like cars and Christianity, or even Christian nationalism, over things like abortion, LGBT rights, and fighting racism. The polls overall skew towards the left on most issues, but if we narrow that to *most issues that your average American cares about*, the pendulum swings back very sharply to the right, to the point we’re almost fortunate that 60+% of voters aren’t red/leans red.

So Billie Eilish thinks eating meat is immoral. But the truth is a lot of people think a lot of things you or I do is immoral. Pick enough random people off the street and they’ll be able to tell you a bunch of things that you and I do on a daily basis that are immoral. That’s just life.

Billie Eilish just said an opinion. she didn’t disrespect anybody.

Now, I do think a lot of people are sore because many vegans do things like compare meat eaters to people who kick dogs or torture squirrels. But ultimately she didn’t do either of these things, and theres no need to take what she said as a personal attack.

There’s a theory I’ve seen on social media where they’ll say that America is actually red by default. By this, they mean that they have an ideological red tilt and also that Republicans are the default choice.

But if Republicans become sorely unpopular, that’s when people will elect Democrats nationally.

The main supporting logic is that whenever you see a Democrat win, it’s always at some point where Republicans are massively unpopular. The Democrat may stay 4 years or may stay 8, but a Democrat’s first win, especially Presidentially in the modern era, is almost always in the setting of an exceptionally unpopular Republican.

Jason Pargin, an author, did say it’s because Americans perceive Republicans as friendlier to things they care about on average (eg cars, Christianity), but regardless, do you think it’s true?

I think it is overall true. Ultimately, people, for better or worse, care about things like cars and Christianity, or even Christian nationalism, over things like abortion, LGBT rights, and fighting racism. The polls overall skew towards the left on most issues, but if we narrow that to *most issues that your average American cares about*, the pendulum swings back very sharply to the right, to the point we’re almost fortunate that 60+% of voters aren’t red/leans red.

I feel like a lot of people forget that Democrats went to court before the Trump era, and defended the right to use Congressional redistricting committees at all, winning by just 5-4, with liberal justices in favor and without a single Trump justice on the court.

In retrospect, do you feel like this was a mistake, or do you think this was the right decision?

For me, I think in a vacuum, winning this case has hurt the left in a vacuum.

However, the left has been helped by state legislative redistricting committees, which, while they would’ve remained Constitutional either way, would be harder to pass via voter referendum without also doing them for Congressional districts. This is because with the state legislature committees, Democrats could theoretically lose and get gerrymandered Congressionally, but they could also win the state legislature and gerrymander back.

Whereas if you don’t have either committee, winning the state legislature would mean gerrymandering both the state government and Congressional districts indefinitely.

The irony is Democrats could go forward with challenging AZ vs IRC today and get an advantage in multiple states. However, the next Republican move would be to challenge the equal population per district rule which would then give Republicans a sharp advantage, so it’s a risky game.

I see this claim all the time. Someone will be in jail for multiple minor crimes, then commit a major crime, often murder, which the right will then blame on lax sentencing for said prior crimes.

Also, there are many states with three strike laws, though many of these cases of murderous criminals happen in these states as well, because there are actually specifics to the three strikes law.

What I’d say is this. Ultimately, we have law and legal processes we have to follow.

Firstly, with laws, many crimes rightfully have maximum sentences. For instance, in many states, the maximum sentence for striking another adult without causing structural damage would be 6 months to a year. Judges literally cannot go past that in many states, as maximum means maximum.

On top of that, you have the plea deals, which are arguably more contributory. So you get situations where a prosecutor can go through a trial, putting people on the stand, selecting 12 jurors for a chance at a conviction with the possibility of max sentencing or they can get the guaranteed 2 months jail sentence without doing all that.

My point is that, unlike most things, I can kind of understand where Republicans are coming from here, but I also think we cannot treat non murderous criminals, violent or not, as murderers or “about to be” murderers without severely damaging the integrity of our legal system.

To take the example of Iryna Zarutska’s murderer, I can understand why someone thinks more aggressive legal intervention should have happened sooner, but he wasn’t a murderer until he murdered, so I don’t think it was ethical to punish him as such before that.

Not to mention it NC is a red state (legislature wise at least) so idk why the left was blamed for it at all to begin with.

I’m rotating at a Midwestern site that is about 50 miles from the closest city’s downtown, so admittedly, not where most people, nor myself are trying to match. On top of that, employees who don’t live here >>> housing units in this town so they literally have no choice but to commute.

That being said, based on the PGY3s at my current site, the hospitalist job market is popping off. Plenty of them are getting solid week on week off with 270k+ and patient team sizes that are less than our current hospital (20 pts after drop admissions per team).

Plenty of them are getting jobs in or near city centers. And there’s often great PTO.

The only real downside with the jobs they’re getting is that they’re often non teaching hospitals, so they’ll be doing all of their notes daily.

Point being, I don’t doubt there’s some hospitalists having a tough time finding a job, and probably even more finding a job with reasonable terms, but that’s a minority of job seekers. The vast, vast majority of hospitalists still cruise into a comfortable job.

Worst comes to worst, if your site has friendly IM seniors, you could always just ask them for an idea of whag the local market looks like.

Virginia‘s referendum not surviving would be a loss of an ability to gain 4 seats, and that’s a near exact number. Now, if that’s combined with the VRA being overturned, as is expected to happen, that’s where I think you run into issues.

Many Southern states have one or two Democrat seats which we can expect would disappear. I think the amount of seats to be lost in larger red states (eg North Carolina, Texas, Florida) would be the issue.

My best guess here would be that the House would turn leans D/tossup from likely D.

One good thing to keep in mind is that this assumes Republicans don’t go after Reynolds vs Sims (case that requires US House districts to have roughly equal populations), because if they do, then Texas could go 38-0/37-1 with their maps and it turns into a huge mess (and probably likely-solid R).

They primarily use this for illegal immigrants, felons, and homeless people. With illegal immigrants, they say ”don’t advocate for them unless you’d let them inside your home.“ Which just seems odd to me because there would seem to me to be a huge difference between someone you’d let in your home versus your country, just generally speaking.

Using this analogy to felons and homeless makes even less sense to me, as they already have the right to be in the nation itself. They have this right whether we want them too or not so I think it should moot the “don’t support them unless you’d let them in your house.” They already are existing outside of our houses but inside this nation fully lawfully, so it’d make sense to treat them as such.

What am I missing?