Hacker News Reader

Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

The funny thing is, I see merit in both parties. I like conservatism when it comes to the 1st and 2nd amendment protection, freedom of religion, etc, but I hate how the right treats the environment as a resource to be wasted, used, and abused. I think the libertarian stance on drugs is a little too extreme (I think drugs should be legal, but that they also shouldn't necessarily be easily accessible - people should still have to jump through a few hoops to get them). Rinse and repeat of a lot of issues.

If it were possible to transcend parties and vote just for candidates that represented my nuanced beliefs, I would switch in a heartbeat. Instead I'm forced to prioritize which issues are most important to me, and then plug my nose and vote for the party that best represents just those (even though said party comes with a lot of undesirable baggage).

View on HN

Have you considered voting Libertarian for federal positions and a mix of Democrats and Republicans for state and local positions (depending on size of city/state and specific concerns)?

> I like conservatism when it comes to the 1st and 2nd amendment protection

With a president that openly labels the press the enemy of the people?

> If it were possible to transcend parties and vote just for candidates that represented my nuanced beliefs, I would switch in a heartbeat.

It's impossible. Everyone will have their nuanced beliefs and no candidate will match perfectly except in rare circumstances.

You’re equating the president with conservatism?

Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population? Or does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative?

Similarly I presume the rise of Boris Johnson with Brexit is a reflection of the British people, regardless of whether he has his conservative credentials in order.

> Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population?

For a sufficiently loose definition of “reflection”, yes. For a sufficiently tight definition of “reflection”, no.

> does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative

One defines conservatism by a set of values and policies. The same goes for liberalism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, nationalism, etc.

> With a president that openly labels the press the enemy of the people?

With a president that has appointed more 1st/2nd amendment-protecting federal appellate judges than any other president, you mean?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com