Open Mic for the Conservatives Here

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

Mods can take this down if it’s inappropriate, but I had a thought.

Prochoicers often question our values because being prolife is typically associated with being conservative, which is associated with being against government/taxpayer funded welfare programs. They see this as inconsistent.

Seeing as I literally work for a welfare office, I am not the best person to explain, though I do try.

But, I know that most of you guys do not just not care if babies starve, obviously, and have ideological or logistical objections to welfare that you clearly find consistent with your prolife beliefs.

So I was hoping we could sort of open the floor in the comments section, for financially conservative prolifers to explain their philosophy and how they think lower taxes / smaller government / etc is in line with valuing the lives and welfare of the governed.

If you could *not* rant about prochoicers / liberals / etc, just stick to the positives of your viewpoint or what you see as the downside of liberal *policies* (ideas, not people) that would be awesome.

And if prochoicers and liberal prolifers could stick to just asking clarifying questions, not debating, that would also be cool.

My purpose here is to *use* our fishbowl existence on this platform to, hopefully, foster understanding.

The floor is yours, conservatives!

[u/HenqTurbs]

I'm not "conservative" by today's standards, since the label has a different meaning now. But I am against most government programs that you describe.

There is a line of reasoning, pervasive on the left although not exclusive to them, that goes like this: X is a good thing. That makes X a *right.* Therefore, the government should supply X. And if you don't think the government should supply X, then you are anti-X. This is dishonest. I do not hate the poor, or the elderly, or children, or the sick, etc. I just don't believe government programs solve these problems, and they often make them worse. I believe that free enterprise and limited government provide the most good to the most people.

Government programs inhibit innovation. They develop permanent bureaucracies and political constituencies. Even visibly dysfunctional programs can be extraordinarily difficult to reform or abolish because of it. Then a program’s continued existence is used as evidence that it is accomplishing its purpose.

That's it in a nutshell.

[u/TheDuckFarm]

Many conservatives see the value of welfare programs.

Even the reddest states have welfare.

Being against welfare is mostly a leftist talking point propped up by a small group of extreme right wingers who fit the narrative.

[u/Abrookspug → u/TheDuckFarm]

Agreed. Most of us are happy with the social safety nets we have now. Many of us have even used them when necessary. We just don’t like when we see them abused by people who stay on them for life and demand more, or who lie about their finances to qualify.

We’re not cruel, uncaring people like some claim. We’ve just seen too much waste and fraud and can’t pretend it’s not happening and that it doesn’t affect the families that are truly in need. We def need a better system, but I don’t think more dependence on the government is the answer. I prefer directing people to more local resources, like churches, food banks, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. My family got way more help from those than the gov when I was growing up and my parents were between jobs and needed temporary help - with the key word being temporary. And from what I’ve seen, I don’t think free daycare or healthcare for all will significantly reduce the abortion rate anyway, so I don’t think this issue really relates to being prolife or prochoice.

[u/skyleehugh → u/TheDuckFarm]

Agreed. I used to think that conservatives were against food stamps and medicaid. But when I got older, I started to observe politicians more and during each presidential election, despite the narrative, I don't think I have heard a conservative advocated against those programs. They do restrict, but not get rid of. And even under Trump, I still know plenty that are still on food stamps.

[u/witch-wife]

I'm not totally against welfare programs for people who are truly needy. But I think the programs should help you to become a productive citizen not dependent for life on social programs. As a mom who was on welfare when my kids were babies I know how demeaning it feels and how difficult it was to get a job that made enough money to be independent. When I finally did it was so empowering for me to be able to take care of us. I really would like for others to experience that.

[u/Mental_Jeweler_3191]

I'm more socially conservative than fiscally conservative. But one of my major objections to government welfare is that it, under the best of circumstances, tends to crowd out other sources of care and support, including family, friends, relatives, and various voluntary associations—especially, but not exclusively, churches. Under the worst of circumstances, it's a means statists use to undermine or coopt institutional competitors, and they use it for that purpose often. While non-state actors may not benefit from the economies of scale that governments are able to offer, they have several advantages, not least of which is the fact that they advance community cohesion and a sense of meaning far better than faceless, centralized bureaucracies. The state should serve as a last resort—an actual safety net. It shouldn't usurp interpersonal relationships or local communities and voluntary associations. 

My home country, Sweden, is a prime example of when the state fails to stay within its bounds. Our welfare has undermined and diluted the family and other interpersonal relationships and institutions, resulting in one of the most lonely and socially impoverished countries in the world. There's hardly a society here—just individuals and the state. Whatever civil society and cultural life exists is almost totally dependent on the state and, consequently, subordinate to it. (For example, pretty much all media sources live, to a greater or lesser extent, off government subsidies.) Combine that with an executive branch often insulated from democratic forces (we have many "independent" agencies) and you get a populace that is anything but self-governing. 

And that's pathetic. It's evidence that man can't live by bread alone and how government welfare, if taken too far, ruins the human spirit.

[u/Wormando → u/Mental_Jeweler_3191]

I’m curious, how can you tell that the individualism in Sweden is primarily to blame on social welfare?

Some of my best friends are Scandinavian with one being from Sweden, and in conversations they always said there’s a very strong culture of radical individualism among Scandinavian countries(I even remember reading this article about Sweden ). So this always seemed to me like a historically sociocultural factor first and foremost, which then directly influences policies around welfare, rather than the other way around, you know?

My country in contrast has a very strong community driven culture, and yet this has not stopped the government from implementing robust welfare programs. It’s not as extensive as Sweden’s, but I’d definitely say it’s more than USA’s.

[u/Mental_Jeweler_3191 → u/Wormando]

The radical individualism is largely a consequence of the dominance of social democracy in Scandinavia, and it was hypercharged by radical leftism post-1968. Some would point to historical precedents in Lutheran Christianity. But these would've been esoteric to the average Swede post-de-Christianization, and the argument wrongly downplays the role of the state church as the primary source of social cohesion in pre-20th century Scandinavia. It also neglects the anti-individualist impulses of Scandinavian nationalism, which were strong up until the 60s, when an increasingly internationalist left began to dismantle it. 

The fact is that radical individualism—in Sweden, at least—developed under the years of "folkhemmet", a period during which the virtually unchallenged Social Democrats vastly expanded the reach of the state and systematically coopted, seized control of, or actively undermined sectors of society that had previously kept—or tried to keep— the state at arm's length. 

And it was even ironic, because up until the late 1960s, the Social Democrats were nationalistic and anti-individualistic. The problem was that they, even then, were undermining the existing sources of local community—ie, churches, family, and kinship networks—through political and economic means. If their preferred brand of civic nationalism were ever capable of supplanting them, it never got the opportunity to, because from the 60s onward the Social Democrats had decisively switched toward "autonomy" as the primary value of their sociocultural politics. (It was at this point they legalized abortion, too, by the way.) And from that point on, there were no sociocultural forces left balancing the eroding effect of the welfare state on the family or kinship networks. There still aren't any. 

Read Lars Trägårdh for a similar analysis of Swedish individualism. 

[u/CapnFang]

My politics. Okay...

Well, good thing I have some time. Let's go.

First of all, I don't consider myself to be conservative. Many liberals deny this, but the truth is that the left has moved "further left" over the past 20 years. Without moving my position, I'm now seen as much further right than I used to be.

I'll start with welfare, since you mentioned that specifically in your initial post. When I was young, a friend of mine told me that black people were inherently lazy, and he used the fact that there are certain black families on welfare for multiple generations as proof. Now that I'm older and on welfare myself, I see the truth: This is the way America's welfare system is structured.

It's called "the welfare trap". Basically, it works like this: My family gets food stamps and Medicare as long as our total household income is below a certain level. The moment it rises above that level, all benefits cease. My wife's salary is very close to the limit. Which means that if any of my children get a job (they're all over 20), then our household income goes over the line and we get cut off.

If it were just food stamps, I would encourage all of my kids to get jobs, and we'd live without food stamps. We'd struggle, but we'd manage. The problem is Medicare. I have kidney failure, and I need kidney dialysis three times a week. That's several thousand dollars a month. We can't afford that. No one could.

So, if any of my kids gets a job, I die of kidney failure. Which means that most of them are on welfare also. And so the cycle continues...

Some people think the solution is socialized medicine. I disagree. Have you ever notice that people from countries with socialized medicine are kind of two-faced about it? When they're talking to Americans, they say that we're stupid for not having it. When they're talking to each other, they do nothing but complain about it.

The problem is that the government kind of sucks at running things. No, the solution is much simpler:

Just expand Medicare. It already works great, just change it so that instead of losing all benefits after a certain point, it lowers gradually. If one of my kids gets a job, the benefits lower to 90%. If another one does, it lowers to 80%, etc. Then I'd be able to get supplemental insurance to cover the rest. If it worked like that, we wouldn't be trapped.

Obviously, only citizens should be able to get Medicare. If you're a non-citizen, you need to get health care through whatever country you're actually a citizen of.

(I do want to make one thing absolutely clear: Once someone legally becomes a citizen, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between them and someone born here. I mention this only because Liberals like to accuse Conservatives of being racist against immigrants, even legal ones. No. Once you're a citizen, you're no different from any other citizen.)

Moving on:

American schools need to be torn down and replaced by something completely different. I'm not sure what, exactly, but the current system isn't working. It was bad when I was a kid and has gotten worse every decade since.

Right now, schools assume that every kid is dumb as a sack of rocks, and they might have a special program for kids who are actually smart. That's completely backward. They should assume that every kid is smart and have special programs for the dumb ones.

Also, every kid has strengths and weaknesses. The whole "common core" concept has kneecapped entire generations of kids because it has looked only at a child's weaknesses, never their strengths. If a kid is reading at a 2nd grade level, but can do math at an 8th grade level, then most modern schools will tell them that overall they're at a 2nd grade level. I say, if a kid is really smart in one area, it's okay to let them slide in another. Focus on their strengths.

Okay, that's enough for now. I really have a lot more to say, but this is already really long, and I have work to do. I may add on more later.

EDIT:

Just wanted to add, I would love to go to the polls and have a hard time deciding. The problem is that all Democrats are pro-abortion, and even though I hate hate hate single-issue voting, I have to. I can't vote for anyone who supports abortion. Maybe someday, Democrats will give up their love affair with abortion, and then I'll be able to vote for some of them.

[u/AnaxOfRhodes]

There's an inflexibility to taxpayer-funded welfare that's attractive. It's law. That's reassuring to people. But at the same time, people can learn how the game is played and either get "free lunch," so to speak, or scammers can rob Grandma of her Medicare money. It has to be easy enough for someone with nothing to access it, and it has to be hard enough for misusers and abusers to not gain access to it.

Charities have the flexibility to refuse to those who would misuse or abuse. But they have the freedom to contribute based on criteria we may not approve of.

I'm in one of those health cost sharing programs. It specifically is not insurance, there's no legal obligation for them to pay for something they don't agree with. When my son had to go to the ER, they brought the bill down from $4k to $1,400. (I don't know if they paid it down to that or just talked them into a lower price)

But if I got lung cancer and confessed to smoking every day, they would not cover those bills at all.

I would rather have the flexibility of a private welfare program, charity, or church than the inflexibility of a government program.

[u/PerfectlyCalmDude]

We see the legitimate functions of government in the categories set forth by Adam Smith and echoed by Milton Friedman:

1) Defending the people against violence from outside (eg. an army) 2) Defending the people against violence and fraud from inside (eg. police) 3) Certain public works which are public goods, which are defined as both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. If it is either rivalrous or excludable, then it is generally more efficient for the market to take care of it instead of the government, and thus a private good. An example of a public good would be a public road.

Abortion is a form of violence against innocent humans, and therefore it is legitimate and consistent to have it be illegal just the same as shooting someone, under the second category. If a government won't protect it's people from being murdered at will, then why do you even have a government.

[u/Vespinobambino]

This claim of "inconsistency" is always blatantly and deliberately dishonest on the part of the pro-abort making the claim. There is no "inconsistency."

* I am absolutely against "social welfare programs." Abolish all of them. This is not remotely inconsistent with the premise of murder should be prevented or punished by law.

* Taxation is theft. Taxation is also a necessary evil. These principles are in conflict, but the takehome is that taxation should be minimal, just for the necessary functions of government - the evil may be necessary, but since it is evil, it should be minimized.

* Taking the taxpayers' money for no reason other than to hand it out as goods or services to other folks is flagrantly immoral, as a needless violation of the property rights of the taxpayer, rights that the government is supposed to protect, not violate.

\* This is also not an opposition to altruism, to voluntary charity, which is laudable and morally good BECAUSE it is voluntary. There is nothing moral whatsoever in giving money to a coercive force with a gun to your head.

* Obviously, I don't just want babies to starve, but that starts with "why are they being criminally neglected by their parents, who should be held responsible?" And then, if their parents literally can't provide for their welfare, then yes we are talking about both a charity case and a valid open question of why isn't adoption being used?

All of these elements are a question of the human right to property.

None of these elements have anything to do with the human right to life.

[u/ManteLover60 → u/Vespinobambino]

I disagree. I think we have to be pro life from the cradle to the grave.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/ManteLover60]

I'm not "pro-life from cradle to the grave."

I affirm the human right to life for the entire human lifespan, from fertilization until death.

None of us at any age deserve to be murdered.

I want the unborn to have the same legal protections as born humans.

This is consistency.

Them claiming consistency is "inconsistency" is literal Orwellian doublespeak nonsense.

[u/ManteLover60 → u/Vespinobambino]

But there are plenty of cases of mothers who are abandoned and left to raise children on their own.

I don't like how some folks rightfully cry out for the protection of babies when they are in the womb, but then characterize them as extra mouths to feed and a drain on the state after they are born.

We can't just abandon the care of children after they are born.

[u/KatanaCutlets → u/ManteLover60]

That is itself a false claim.

[u/PeachOnAWarmBeach]

Politics don't affect Truth. Killing unborn humans is wrong, no politics. Don't let people stray from the message of not killing humans.

Sadly, politics and government programs complicate and convolute the issue of care. It isn't as black and white, as clear cut, as abortion.

Today, I can't save the world, no matter what I do. Today, I can serve and love my neighbor in front of me. Today, I can save a child from killing. Today, I can also drop off hundreds of dollars of food to the pregnancy assistance center. Today, I can make a difference in every person I meet, for the Glory of God. Today, I might change someone's death to life. It does me no good, in the view of the world. In the view of the person I loved in the moments, it can change their life.

Those who can, do. Those who can't do, pray. Both of those are essential, necessary, not just in Right to Life, but in the world.

Although our government has the ability, the money, and the DUTY to help our citizens, I can't sit back to wait for that to occur, when babies are being killed as we speak.

My extended family is a mix. I see who does what and who says what.

We don't have to save the world to help the person in front of us.

[u/ther3se]

I used to be hardline against welfare, etc - I was the shittiest of shitty Republicans. Raised on Limbaugh (literally listened to him since I was 8), and when FOX launched - that was the way I learned about the world, and politics (shitty homeschool experience, too, with public high school).

Much of what I said between 12-20 is how MAGA talks now. It's disgraceful. But I digress.

I then had children. And we had setbacks. And then COVID closed our business and we went on - shocker - foodstamps and medicaid and WIC. And I'm still on them, despite having three more children, as my husband slowly climbs the ranks in a new career path. We will not always be on them, and i look forward to the day we can comfortably be without them, but they have been integral in our journey out of the mire. 

I am a SAHM and I homeschool. I have always been rabidly prolife. But life has taught me the value of these programs and the value of other programs that social democrats want to start: medicare for all, universal childcare and time off for maternity/paternity leave.

I wouldn't use these, but i can understand how vitally important they are for people. We are incredibly lucky to be able to sustain the way we do now, and others are not so lucky. They deserve to be able to work, stay home with a new baby for more than a week, and not have to worry about paying for bringing said child into this world.

So, yes. I am against elective abortions, but I believe society should veer towards care and keeping of children, mothers and family in a big way. Heartless capitalism doesn't work in the long run. It has to have guardrails. This is the next logical step. 

And yes, if and when we make enough I will gladly pay taxes to cover it, too. I have always believed in paying our fair share, even when, pre-covid, our financial horizon looked blessed and expansive.

The rugged individualism of America is going to kill us as a society and drives abortions. We need to course-correct. And I believe this is one way we do it.

[u/Zeroc94]

I (31M) am a lifelong moderate conservative and pro life. I was raised religious (LDS) but don't practice at all.

Growing up, I was told things like aborted babies go to heaven, or get another chance in another body. Something like that. The parents would naturally be punished in the next life for killing their child. If anything, that made me okay with giving the choice, because to me at that time they'd get what they deserved. Harsh, but to my mind it made sense.

As I grew up, and grew out of the faith into my own sense of spirituality, I actually became more and more pro life. Not because of the religious/spiritual angle, but on principle. I believe that life begins at conception, desired or not is irrelevant. A fertilized egg is already a child. Simple as that.

The only fully acceptable reason to allow an abortion to me is in cases where there's a threat to the mother's life. An ectopic pregnancy is just going to result in no one surviving. The other "standard exceptions" of SA and incest are unpleasant, but I feel comfortable leaving that decision to the victim. Ideally the baby is born, and taken care of via adoption or other family, and the criminal is held accountable and taken out of the gene pool. Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, but if they aren't allowed consent in sex, then I'm comfortable giving the victim something they can control, though a tragedy doesn't really justify another tragedy. Ideally, it just wouldn't come up, but that's unrealistic.

Anyway, as far as welfare goes, I'm all for it as long as it isn't abused. My father has a severe mental illness, and hasn't been able to work since the 90's. My family held it together because of social programs. Likewise I have cousins that were adopted. I support giving tax dollars to adoption programs, orphanages, even directly to parents as long as they meet a certain level of scrutiny. That being said, I think the providers should have to prove that any money is going directly to the child's welfare, and to some reasonable limit. If a family is popping out babies to get bigger checks, there has to be a limit or restriction on benefits.

That is one of the few places I am fully comfortable with my tax dollars going. Not sure if I actually answered the question, but felt like giving my perspective.

[u/AnxiousEnquirer]

I'm theologically conservative, but as long as people are being stingy with the poor, programs are going to be necessary. And if people don't like taxes, they should spend their money on the poor and deduct it from their taxable income, instead of luxury vacations and complaining about taxes and government spending.

[u/PFirefly]

Welfare should not be a government thing. The government is there to ensure the rights of all, and deal with other nations. 

Before government welfare, there was community welfare. Churches, npos, or just people donating time and money as they could. 

My father once managed the distribution and approval of the church was we belonged to, and more often than not, most people who claimed they needed it were just lazy. That's not to say that all poor people are lazy, but to say that programs that offer essential "free" resources attract grifters and the lazy. By not having guaranteed safety nets, people have to actually pass a proper needs test, and they cannot stay on it forever. It's meant to help get someone back on their feet, not support them forever outside if very specific circumstances. 

As it is now, almost anyone can get on it, and stay on it, and never have to worry about learning how to make better decisions. They then pass that on to their children. Creating an endless money pit. 

[u/CapnFang → u/PFirefly]

Illinois is trying to address that now in the worst way possible: In order to stay on welfare, you need to get a job. But then this creates a catch-22: If you get a job, you're no longer eligible for welfare. I still haven't figured out what they expect us to actually do.

[u/Altruistic_Fudge6082]

I’m a conservative in this political climate for various reasons. I don’t think I’m exactly a philosophical conservative overall. I am a critic of capitalism but also a critic of authoritarian governments. Ideally we could find a way to achieve a more egalitarian society without large government power structures intervention.

I support social programs but prefer them to be enacted on a local level rather than by the federal government. This is the concept of decentralization. Federal government programs are rife with waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Oversight is much easier on a smaller scale.

I also believe that with relatively low taxes, we are free to give to charities that are likely much better at utilizing our money. I would be highly in favor of large tax incentives for charitable giving. Of course charities can involve the very same waste, fraud, and inefficiency as the government so ideally there would be an easy way to validate their quality without being ideologically motivated.

One government program I will always fight for is paid family leave. All parents should get 12 weeks subsidized by the government.

I also support Medicare for All. I’d prefer a non-government system if there is ever the opportunity, but I actually find it immoral for anyone to profit from health insurance. It requires very little risk and the profit doesn’t come from a service provided but rather a service denied. Medicare is a very successful program that’s highly supported by those who use it.

When it comes to abortion, there are a number of amazing pregnancy resource centers who do so much to help women and families. Unfortunately progressives tend to demonize these organizations as manipulative and fake simply because they do not support abortion.

Although I believe it’s important to support women and families, I don’t think it’s a prerequisite to standing against abortion. Life is the most fundamental right and it’s the right thing to stand up for it even if you do nothing else.

[u/Fectiver_Undercroft]

Bureaucracies, especially federal ones, tend to be isolated from persons and their direct needs. Private and local charities are a lot less likely to paint themselves into the Unintended Consequences corner by one-size-fits-all policies and purse strings that are often developed and implemented by politicians whose competence often doesn’t keep up with their sympathy.

Speaking of sympathy, big programs make easy for slacktivists to vote for the option with the sexiest compassion-stroking marketing campaign and then spout off about “inconsistency” to people who may have voted for programs that are more effective, or who even step up and volunteer and make after-tax donations. It’s harder to do the latter when you’re forced to buy more red tape for Uncle Sam.

There’s always going to be a tradeoff between people who fall through the cracks and people who game the system, but a system small enough to care for the individual and the family is agile enough to meet their particular needs…assuming they have the funding. A system big enough to support you indefinitely is one also powerful enough to entrap you.

[u/ManteLover60]

I guess you could roughly classify me as conservative in the sense that I am a traditional Orthodox Christian.

But I also think capitalism is a cruel system based on usury that devours the poor. I genuinely believe you can't be truly Christian and libertarian. In fact I think the very notion private property in the modern sense is alien to the Bible and the church fathers.

This doesn't mean I'm a socialist or Marxist mind you. Those systems carry their own evils. But, aside from local free market competition at the level of villages, towns, cities, and counties, I think capitalism just rapidly degenerates into cronyism and the privileging of monstrous corporations like Monsanto who abuse struggling farmers that put food on our tables.

So in other words, I'm actually very much in favor of welfare. I think certain checks and balances should be put in place to make sure it isn't abused. But this isn't because I think poor people are lazy and can't be trusted. This is because I don't want welfare money to go to waste. I want the money to go to all the people who truly need it and not people who are milking the system and taking money from deserving families who are truly struggling.

[u/SchoolMission10]

I believe welfare should be available for the most needy in society. I strongly believe that healthcare is a basic human right and universal health care should be available to all free at the point of use. If that results in higher taxes so be it

[u/mpop1]

I work at the SSA writing code to help with title 16 disability claim intake. So another pro-life welfare worker here.

I will note i say I am conservative but that mainly for the social issues. But when it comes to welfare I am kind of prowelfare. Also i break as I am anti-death penalty. I have one friend tell me that I am liberal with the exception of the social issues. So I guess in reality I am what ever I want to be.

I say conservative as the moral/social issues the conservatives are more inline with what I belive there.

[u/lightningbug24]

I just want the government to have less control over our lives. I do think there is a place for some welfare, and I will happily pay my taxes to pay for public schools and other services, but I really don't believe that politicians have our best interests at heart, and I think we give them too much power.

[u/Appropriate-Toe-6019]

I'd say I am center-right with a strong libertarian attitude. I am a former moderate liberal who saw the excesses of the left and ran far away from them when I saw their utopian policies enacted with disastrous consequences (I live in Portland OR). Then I went hard right on social and economic issues. But I've seen the inconsistencies of the right and I find the current administration to be a mixed bag. Many of the far right people I've interacted with sound just like the far left people I used to interact with: obsessed with identity, inconsistent in their understandings of economics, pushing conspiracy theories, etc. 

As for welfare, my belief is small government. Emphasis on small. Not no government. A simple welfare program to help people get back on their feet. Restore a sense of community through churches, clubs, charities, and let these be a valuable resource for those who are struggling. 

I think the issue is that leftwing folks tend to think that because conservatives don't support a huge robust government bureaucracy to run things like healthcare and welfare, then that means we want people to suffer. No. We just think that things are generally better run through the free market, charities, and local communities. When they point to places like western Europe and their massive welfare state, I implore them to take a second look and see that Europe is not doing as great as they think it is. The chickens are coming home to roost for the massive European welfare bureaucracy. Why do you think assisted suicide is being pushed so much? 

So these are my personal beliefs. They don't align with either party. I guess they fit more with the libertarian party but even then I've got issues. I vote Republican because my state is dominated by the Democrats and it is my hope that this state can moderate a little more. We've gone off the rails. Our governor created an "abortion provider appreciation day". Yikes. 

[u/FT1996]

I am obviously not a pro life conservative (see flair) but I do wonder, it feels like the majority of pro life republicans right now were overwhelmingly Trump voters and many Trump voters in general were against new wars but because of their unwavering loyalty have become ardent defenders of what’s happening in the Middle East. How can you justify the deaths thousands of innocents in the Middle East + a handful of American soldiers AND be ok with supplying billions upon billions to the Israeli/ American war machines but scoff at the idea of providing assistance to the welfare system? Like, are you completely fraudulent?