>

Yes, not allowing trans MTF compete in girls sports.  There is no way the best girl athlete in the world can compete with a trans woman.  It’s going to destroy women’s sports.
You see it all the time, women’s records being shattered by a trans-woman.
As someone right leaning, I think theres an argument for good healthcare in the US as an investment in the economy.  
I also think there’s an argument that we need to rein in defense spending.  We’re approaching one trillion annually in defense spending with no ongoing significant combat operations.  Folks on the right don’t seem to appreciate that we can’t have a reduction in wasteful spending without addressing the $816 billion elephant in the room. >

As a progressive, I truly appreciate this take. Universal Healthcare would likely see an increase in healthy people returning to the job market. Healthy people are more inclined to actively pursue a better life. 
And the excessive spending on defense could see more money sent to places like mental health, poverty, education, welfare, etc. >

Why do you think the government doesn't show a greater interest in keeping people healthy from a lifestyle standpoint so that the demand for treatment-based healthcare decreases? Obesity-related complications are the biggest consumer of healthcare resources, but the government is all but silent in attempting to solve that problem at the source. >

Profits. The end. For-profit healthcare, prisons, rehab etc make it so no one ever actually gets better and will inevitably return. Capitalism is a blight on humanity, at least in its current form. Also, clearly, the American government is corrupt, so we're pretty well screwed. >


Capitalism is a blight on humanity,

Capitalism works great in certain sectors.   If you and I are selling widgets and you make a luxury widget but only ten of them and I make a cheaper widget but 1000 of them, capitalism works pretty good.  
But once it touches any fundamental way that human beings are allowed to survive and be content, it becomes sociopathic. >

I can definitely agree with the left on climate & environmental sustainability. We must take care of our earth. I truly don’t understand all the conservatives who are adamantly opposed to new sources of energy, transportation alternatives, & reducing our plastics consumption. >

Odd thing is, I do know a lot of Republicans that love solar. The idea of being self-sufficent, regardless of climate change, should be non-controversial.   
Having diverse sources for power is just a huge positive overall. It limits fluctuations in markets with limited resources (like petroleum). 
Multiple power sources and decentralized distribution of electricity is also great asset for our National Security. 
There is a big difference between conservatives and modern Republicans, so the OPs post to me is impossible to answer. >

Might help to market it as being self sufficient. Like you said.
Seems like the path with least resistance in getting more support for greener climate >

"Stop relying on Big Oil to live your best American life. Buy solar, and get tax credits for doing so."
Can see this appealing to that one odd yet significant crowd that wants society to collapse so they can thrive or whatever. >

The whole tax credit thing... years ago when my area was considering allowing wind farms (spoiler alert... we did), there was a massive push back from the Republicans saying "they're only doing it for the Obama dollars!". So, even then, they'll hear some Limbaugh wannabe tell them it's morally reprehensible for anyone to accept the tax break and they'll run to the mountaintops to let everyone else know. >

While accepting agricultural tax credits… odd. >

The whole "small government/ don't tread on me" thing, then going on to demand the government do something like ban abortion, is also odd. >

Are you under the impression that one cannot logically believe that one of the duties of said "small government" should be to protect the lives of its citizens? >

Gay rights. I don’t know why this is even brought up anymore. Their lifestyle is not affecting anyone else regardless of if you agree or disagree with it >

The issue with this question is at a high enough level, there’s a lot of “positions” that most people agree with. 
People generally agree on “restricting” congress trading, and “common sense” gun control. But once you get into actual proposed legislation - they don’t agree anymore. The devils in the details >

As a disclaimer, I'm independent, I agree with the Republicans on some things and agree with a Democrats on other things. But Democrats get more support and coverage on social media and news so I tend to hate on the Democrats more.
But I think everyone would agree that there are certain people who shouldn't own guns and we should do what we can within reason to keep criminals and certain people from owning guns. 
The Democrats lose me when they try an institute bans or otherwise institute laws that would punish law abiding citizens. 
But both parties have their hard line issue that I think turns away a lot of moderate voters. Democrats try and push way too hard in the way of gun control (more thorough background checks? Sure, banning certain firearms? No) and Republicans push way too hard in the way of abortion (regardless of your stance on the issue not allowing any exceptions at all is frankly ridiculous). >


But Democrats get more support and coverage on social media and news so I tend to hate on the Democrats more

This just sounds like knee jerk contrarianism. >

It's also statistically not true. >

As a conservative practically embarrassed to brand myself as a Republican now the way the party has gone, anything on climate and abortion I would agree with the dems on. >

It’s crazy how divided we are, especially with being practically forced into two parties, that labeling yourself a member of a party makes everyone think you believe a specific set of things.
Like no everyone’s different they are parties not ideologies. They have a similar baseline but grow from there. Judge each person individually. That’s why I, a more liberal person, tend to only label myself as moderate or independent to prevent being stereotyped with the worst/most extreme of the left >

I thibk it's fair to brand someone with the policies the party they vote for enacts.  Not so much to judge them for what other voters who voted simmilarly did or said.
For example, it's shitty to judge all GOP voters because of Qanon, but acceptable to think they are ok with burning the world and subjugating women if they continue to vote for the GOP. >

Based on voting habits you can judge someone more than just the label. If someone is labeled Republican they can still vote either way. If they end up voting right in a certain election, judge them for that >

Exactly. I personally know people too embarrassed to admit they’re Republican and claim to “see both sides” yet they’ve voted straight ticket for 50 years and watch Fox News daily and repeat Q talking points. 
Their actions tell me everything I need to know about how they really feel. >

I agree with the left on prison reform. Inmates shouldn’t be in privately owned prisons, in the horrendous conditions that they are, with no way of returning to society successfully on release. 
Prison should be about reforming citizens into productive contributors to society. >

To my knowledge Trump/the gop didn’t even publish a platform for 2020 so I’m not sure what they stand for to even begin >

They did.
It was one page long and defined being a Republican as being personally loyal to him.
There is literally nothing else to being a Republican right now, at least so far as the party platform is concerned. >

Sorry, I meant a platform with objectives, policies, etc >


Sorry, I meant a platform with objectives, policies, etc

Ah, you mean the thing that details their stances on guns, taxes, foreign relations, healthcare, and the like?  This is it.
I'm not kidding, that's all there is, still. >

Did you scroll down? It gives answers to all the questions you ask because they just reused the 2016 platform. >

I can't see whereas they expressly re-adopted the 2016 platform.  (Besides, the 2016 platform document derides "the President".) >

Yes and the fact that it derided the current President was a great mocking point of the GOP. They didn’t bother changing a thing to their platform between 2016 and 2020. Laziness or incompetence? >

Both.  The 2016 platform was never actually adopted or restated by the 2020 platform document. >

I think we probably really should ban TikTok. That really just seems like it has to be a plot to track and destroy us. >

This just screams blatant sinophobia to me—we seem to not be upset that technology companies are tracking our every move and promoting disinformation (since many American counterparts are doing it as well), instead we are mad that a Chinese company is simply doing a better job of it.
Isn't that the long and short of it? Can you correct me where I'm wrong? Wouldn't it be simpler to focus on our own American giants that are doing the same exact thing? 
This isn't whataboutism, because I think we should ban them all, or strictly regulate. I just can't think of any other explanation for singling out TikTok. >

Let me put this another way: what is uniquely bad about TikTok, in a way that would justify taking action against them but not, say, Instagram? >

It's in the pocket of a hostile foreign government actively engaged in cyber warfare and espionage against the US? >

Not exactly what the question is asking, but as a left-leaning Democrat I firmly think we just need to drop the gun issue (at least for now), and never speak the words "defund the police" again. 
It's tough, because I wholeheartedly agree with the motivations behind each of these positions. They are both big issues for the country at the moment.
But sadly, they are losing issues. And at the end of the day, I feel like there are other issues that are equally or more important than these two that I'd also like to see addressed, and the electoral hit we take time and time again by pursuing these two problem issues is simply not worth losing the ability to fix all the other ones. 
Let's pick fights we can plausibly win, not ruin our reputation/electability by shouting at windmills that we'll never be able to move anyway. >

The defund the police slogan was the dumbest PR I’d ever seen. 
Straight up could’ve just been, “Reform the police” >

You're correct, but it was never a position of the Democratic party, or really any mainstream faction of it. Fox News et al simply tried to make it seem like Democrats as a whole were in favor of defunding the police. >

Lol, gaslight harder. We remember 2020. Dems have been desperately trying to reframe their support for BLM and the violence and damage that came from it since.
 I've even heard Dems try and claim it was the GOP that supported Defunding... that's the next evolutionary step for this gaslight. >


We remember 2020

Oh boy, are you one of those people who believes that a whole bunch of cities burned to the ground in 2020? >

No, there was documented billions of dollars in damages and dozens of deaths as a result from the riots you want to pretend didn't exist, despite being on film.
It's like arguing that nobody entered the capital on J6. That's the level of gaslight dems seem to always give, but it's expecially thick when trying to cover their tracts with the "summer of love" in 2020 >


expecially thick when trying to cover their tracts

if English isn't your native language, I'll go easier on you >

You have nothing. How sad >

I support nuclear energy. Also I feel like progressives are way too reactionary and hurt their own cause because of it. ”Defund the Police” is one of the worst slogans ever. When even a city like Minneapolis voted against replacing the police, you have to give it up. Progressives need to work on better messaging. >

Isn’t it funny that the one thing energy related that environmentalists managed to stop, nuclear energy, just so happened to benefit the oil and gas companies greatly. They didn’t manage to replace it with something else. Nope, just got those pesky plants out of the way for massive oil and gas profits. I’ve never met a voter on the left that is against nuclear power. Must just be a coincidence though. >

My mother was. When I was a kid growing up, we were 100 miles from it when three mile island (tmi) melted down. I remember the hype and fear surrounding that event. She was convinced (and had me convinced for a while) that it was too dangerous - even though nobody was hurt by tmi in the end. I think many older Democrats feel the same way. It was a major issue, check out the movie 'China syndrome' for a taste of the mood. >

That makes sense as the anti-nuclear stance is more a generational issue in my experience. >

I used to consider myself far more hawkish than the Democratic Party as far as military and national defense. It’s so confusing what the Republican Party stands for anymore with what’s going on in Ukraine. It seems like they are mainly siding with Russia which is clearly against democracy and our self interests. But at the same time they want massive defense funding but they don’t want to use what we have. >

Yeah it is amazing how much the republicans have shifted on Russia.
I think in the past their motivations were: National defence (Russia being an adversary), opposition to communism (hangover from USSR fears), and wanting to fund the military-industrial complex because of their donors.
Now their motivations are: Allegiance to Russia due to huge corruption (Russia supporting the GOP in exchange for all sorts of favours, trump bring entwined with them for years, etc.), and increasingly having shared objectives with authoritarian & right-wing regimes (sharing of disinformation, dismantling institutions, using intimidation and voter suppression to subvert democracy and gain power). They still want to fund the military-industrial complex but they’d rather not have to do so in a way that harms Putin’s regime or supports democracy. >

Social conservatives also like Russia going back a decade because they are seen as masculine... Putin has a harem and rides a bear into battle shirtless with an AK.
Russia doesn't have lgbtq, women are subservient, the race is white and unmixed, lots and lots of guns.
In a lot of ways, Russia has been idolized on the right. >

Worth mentioning that Russian gun ownership is extremely limited. >

i dont think republicans have their own ideas or platform anymore, the average republican probably agrees with me on the majority of actual policy ideas, its the culture war shit they disagree with, and none of that shit is real. 
bigotry toward LGBT people and racism aside what else is there? i dont think most republicans even agree with that stuff, i think most of them probably dont really care about the "culture war" i think thats an extremist thing and i dont think there are that many extremist conservatives. 
as far as what i agree with conservatives on that is explicitly not something the left already supports? i honestly cant think of anything. moderate americans share a lot more in common regardless of affiliation, its a spectrum and the averages fall in the middle. idk why people think the two parties are so different, its not possible for them to be, they would never be able to maintain control if they were. 
that being said, i think republicans have been forced to go more and more extreme with their views, the GOP kind of fucked itself with trump and are in a freefall toward outright fascism. i like to think most people have the sense to see whats going on and avoid people like desantis but i have very little faith in america these days. after trump im better off without expectations. 
i skimmed the comments and see mostly conservatives admitting they agree with pretty basic "progressive" ideas. which is not surprising to me because progressive/socialist ideas are extremely popular in general, but im not seeing many left leaning people. i dont think an answer for us exists, certainly not for leftists like me lol i dont even agree with liberals. >

I'm in North Dakota which is a Republican state. You mentioned you're not sure what Republican policies really are, so I linked our state budget and the issues that are most important to our community here,, to help give you an idea:

Ensuring pension solvency for state employees
Investing in technology and cyber security
Support for K-12 and affordable access to quality higher education
Building up our workforce (skill and training programs)
Support for behavioral health and substance abuse disorder
Investing in infrastructure
Establishing framework for long-term investing and distribution of legacy fund (state taxes collected on oil monies) >

Well I’m Canadian but I assume this thread is us based I took a read through all answers and confirmed there’s only one republican policy I agree with and that’s the banning of Chinese spy companies.
Oh. John McCain. I liked a few of the things that he said when he was around. >

Liberal American but yes, John McCain actually stood for something and that’s respectable. I remember when he died he wrote a letter to America and it basically said Americans should come together and don’t listen to Trump or any of his divisive rhetoric. He also stopped his own party from repealing the affordable care act because he knew it was the wrong thing to do. >


He also stopped his own party from repealing the affordable care act because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.

And I don't think John McCain particularly liked the ACA, but he did at least recognize "repeal and replace with nothing at all, except a bunch of lies promises that we'll totally replace it with something eventually" wasn't a functional way to govern. That much was honest, at least. >

Gun control. I’m a liberal, but we could get more common sense gun law passed it we made our stance “responsible ownership” and not bans. Get elected into office, then incrementally pass common sense legislation and funding for agencies to enforce legislation that already exists. >

Don't take this the wrong way. Saying you're a liberal and setting yourself up for Lucy to snatch the football is a little too on-the-nose. The republicans have no intention of ever acquiescing to "common sense" legislation, so you've already started negotiating with a concession. Again, a little too bang-on for the current liberal strategy in America on guns and pretty much any other issue. >

We literally passed a bipartisan gun control bill earlier this year than Biden signed into law. What are you talking about? >

What did republican support look like? >

No, because the other party doesn't actually have a fucking platform.
Look, I don't hate the GOP because of their positions, I hate them because they're lying liars who lie about everything including their 'deeply held beliefs and traditions' to manipulate people who actually DO value those things.
Republican voters are being manipulated by reprehensible people, twisting them into a caricature of what they thought they stood for.
If you're a Christian and support the GOP, God weeps. There's no excuse anymore for believing the lies. They have no platform. They're morally bankrupt and want the rich to profit while the rest of us suffer, and we're not their friends. They're not your friend. >

I’m a Democrat and there used to be plenty of GOP positions with which I agreed or mostly agreed. There were many others that I did not necessarily agree with but I sympathized with to varying degrees. 
Honestly, my wife one day told me that she genuinely believed I had become a closet Republican because some of the views that I espoused about limited government and the need for fiscal responsibility.
However, the GOP has gone so far off the cliff and all they want to talk about nowadays are things like pronouns and who can get married to whom and things they I don’t understand like “cancel culture” and being “woke.”
I have no idea what appeal they have to their own voters now? >

My dad says his biggest gripe with the democrats is all this woke cancel culture stuff they’re always talking about. Whenever he says this I just scratch my head is awe. I’m sorry who talks about this stuff all the time?? I’m a very far left progressive person. I could give a shit about whether Kanye has a shoe deal or dr. Seuss is publishing an old book (and I’m a reading teacher!). Genuinely do not give a shit. Know what we care about? Healthcare. Helping people who need it with social programs. Bloated military budgets. Education. Making sure that we take care of our retirees. Modernizing our infrastructure. Self sufficiency with clean energy. Workers rights.
So many issues are at the forefront of my mind, so many seriously important things that need to be done, things that progressives and democrats talk about on a daily fucking basis. But they don’t hear any of that apparently. They don’t see that it’s THEM who go on and on about cancel culture and woke stuff.  They are the ones who keep talking about random bullshit.
Who gives a shit if a dude wants to be a girl. I don’t care. let them live whatever life they want. If they they aren’t hurting anyone, why should we give a shit. If some rich asshole makes a bunch of racist tweets and his sponsors drop him, what the fuck does that have to do with us? Who cares?? I have bills to pay and I have to try to leave the world a little better for my kids. How does two women getting married stop me from doing this? It doesn’t. They are making themselves angry and it boils my blood that he doesn’t see it. >


Who gives a shit if a dude wants to be a girl.

That is what I really don't get. 
Republicans - "we need small government. We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do with our personal lives!"
Meanwhile, they fight to keep drugs illegal, gays from marrying, against trans rights, abortion rights... the list just keeps going on and on about personal life decisions/ rights to be governed and made illegal. The exact opposite of small government. >

Being forced to repeat lies by political opponents is not something most people like and will actively battle against. Liberals are not fond of having to repeat conservative mantra and actively tries to dismantle this (like having to make a vow on the bible) when swearing to tell the truth in court. >

No. If you had asked this question thirty years ago, my answer would've been a tentative yes (I've always leaned a little hawkish on defense, defense, not offense), but the Republicans have long since forfeited my respect. The GOP has become a Frankenstein's monster of religious zealotry, racism, demagoguery, 19th century jingoism and open, proud corruption. The modern Republican vision of America is a government which provides NO services, NO protections of any kind, funding nothing but the military and the Morality Police. >

Guns. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
― Ida B. Wells-Barnett >

John Brown is my hero >

Well, the Republicans have no platform, so they don’t have any positions I could even theoretically agree with. >

The Texas Republicans have a platform and it's awful. >

What GOP position s would I agree with?

Limited government? Google "Terry Schiavo" to see what the GOP thinks of small government.  And that's just one example. 
Fiscal responsibility? The GOP has made major tax cuts twice in 23 years and yet not even proposed spending cuts to match.
Constitutionality?  Law and Order?  Two words: Donald Trump
families? We know this is a dog whistle for conservative Christian heterosexual values. If the GOP cared about children they would implement programs that actually help kids, instead of cutting school lunches, the child tax credit, the ACA and Medicaid, etc.
US Military Action? WTF is their Ukraine position?
Trade? Well, once upon a time I did lean their way a little... And then Trump decided that trade deficits were bad and implemented tariff trade wars. 
Relgulations? Does anyone remember what LA looked like in the 80s? Or the burning rivers in cleaveland?  Or maybe we need to go back to the days of children dying from bad milk?
Energy policies? The same people who chant "drill baby drill" and blame Biden for the 25th oil supply disruption since 1970 are the same people who refused to back alternative/renewable energy solutions that would leave us less susceptible to these global oil crises.
their unwavering position that my state, California, is a failed socialist state? Despite having more than half the CAPITAL investmentbin the USA, Forbe's #1 state for business opportunity, low taxes in the lower and middle class earners (that shit is literally in their 2012/2016 platforms), and more Trump voters than any other state? 

Oh, I know... I actually agree with a policy of lower corporate taxes... If it were "revenue neutral" (again, as they publish in their platforms). But in 2017 they lowered taxes in a non-revenue neutral way, to the tune of what, $6T?
So, are there ostensibly "ideas" that the GOP espouses that I might agree with? Sure. But that's like agreeing with the "democratic" principles of the DPRK. >

This is the crux of the issue for me. Republicans don't actually hold firm positions on anything other than accumulating raw political power to preserve their vision of America's social hierarchy. 
Everything they say has an asterisk next to it that says they will flip on that issue if it diminishes their power. >

Saturday Night Live had a great sketch related to this called "Republican or not?" >

I think we have to create a cohesive border policy.
One position that I think people misunderstand about the right is they do not want to solve homelessness and the crime associated with it. They have contributed largely to it by doing away with programs that help the homeless and those with mental health issues get off the street because they want to end all "programs". >

I think the current border issues are not a lack of security but a huge humanitarian crisis. Most of the influx of migrants are asylum seekers who are being let in legally. That brings up a point I do agree with the right on. We have to spread out the care and responsibility of handling new immigrants across ALL STATES. But not by randomly dumping people. We need federal immigration facilities with supplies and staff in every state, a dedicated transportation system for that. Ramped up DHS staff and IT to properly oversee and track so that people are sent where beds and food are waiting for them. Labor input from states so that migrants can be sent where their labor experience is most needed. Expand immigration courts so hearings happen faster. Speed up and expand work permits and green cards. Of course all of this would take a great deal of money initially and a lot of cooperation so.... >

believe it or not we already do that. We process them at the border and then they travel to be with family in other parts of the country. The problem to be solved is one of capacity of the system. We need to create a viable immigration system >

Yes in the cases where there is family waiting. But most of the asylum seekers dont have family here. I have long believed that the federal resources we provide to border states to care for migrants makes the whining by people in border states just people who choose to live in border states not liking actually living in border states. But the problems being experienced by El Paso has convinced me that we need to spread the influx of migrants out across the country. El Paso has handled immigration very well for a long time and they work very hard at it. But for the past 8 or 9 months the influx has been beyond their capabilities too. >

No.
There's plenty that I disagree with the Democrats on, but the most 'moderate' Republicans are criminally insane plutocrats; and the most radical are literal terrorists trying to overthrow the government with a violent coup. 
What policies does the GOP even advocate? They've not published a platform since 2016. And what legislative accomplishments do they have under Trump? Only one: tax cuts for the rich at a time when the rich were already doubling and tripling their wealth. 
They hate science and have zero interest in basing policy on it. They hate books and are actively trying to ban them while defunding public libraries. They hate immigrants, gay people, trans people, women's rights, and voting rights.
Can anyone name a single (genuine) policy proposal of theirs that a rational person would support? Because I can't. >

I think this is where I stand.
For example, I am strongly in favor of gun rights... But in saying that, I realize my views on the topic are still closer to Moderate Democrat on that issue than they are to even the most reasonable Republican. >

Yes. As a staunch 2A liberal, I believe gun rights are worker's rights and think things like the NFA are unconstitutional. >

If you're ever bored tell a conservative that universal gun ownership is in the Communist Manifesto. >


universal gun ownership is in the Communist Manifesto

I did a quick browse through of the Communist Manifest and didn't see anything about universal gun ownership. I could have just missed it, but are you maybe thinking about the "under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered" line from Marx's Address to the Central Committee? If so, the passage is talking about the necessity of arming the revolutionary guard, and not letting the guard be disarmed by the citizens' militias that were expected to be raised by the bourgeois. It is absolutely not a "gun rights should be universal" argument, it's a "we need guns to carry out our revolution" argument. >

I like the UK Conservative party’s support of Ukraine, but than most of it comes from them wanting to increase their approvals as Johnson did. Not to mention the opposition to helping Ukraine within Labour is relatively small, if quite vocal.
edit: btw, it takes me like 16 hours to get a post approved on this subreddit, how did you get yours approved in just 15 minutes? >

I’m a progressive but I also worked in heavily regulated industries.   I often had compliance responsibilities.  I believe that certain regulations are important for consumer safety and the like and without those rules, some companies would cut corners.  But regulations and regulators can go too far.   So I lean a little more to the right when it comes to regulating businesses.   I think government regulation needs to be critically necessary or it should go away. >

I work in FDA regulated industries, and the paperwork is insane. It's so expensive and slow and most of it is completely needless.
And then I head over to China and see what a fucking insane asylum their regulations are and what it leads to, and I'm cool with what we have. Ywah, we need to keep working on getting rid of the needless shit, but the alternative means dead people. >

Regulations are often supported by the largest companies in an industry to keep smaller new entrants out.  Bigger companies have the resources to comply whereas a new start up couldn't possibly compete. >

Absolutely support cutting government waste and spending. Only problem is I think the bulk of it is from defense spending. >

This is phrased in a very American centric way.
I don't have a party that I oppose. I have many.
The 2 major ones are probably the 2 most sane parties.
There's a few okay minor parties and independents. Most are nutjobs in need of a hobby though or people that need their ego stroked. >

It's OK to oppose all parties, frankly. What matters is to go and try to choose the lesser evil. >

I oppose both parties for different reasons but I guess they both 
Republicans:

Immigration - Illegal immigration is an actual serious issue and it does need to be resolved as soon as possible. We have a serious issue in this country with drugs, violent crime, and human trafficking and a big source of all of this is our border with Mexico. We need to secure it. I understand that some people are idealists and they want to believe that every illegal immigrant is a good person, but that's sadly not the world we live in. I disagree with the wall idea because that's just dumb, but we have to be able to control our borders (this includes airports, ports, as well as the land border) and know who is coming in. I think it's disingenuous of the left to pretend that illegal immigration isn't an issue.
Trans people in female sports - This is a pretty low hanging fruit, but they're still right about it. Males have a massive advantage physically over females, and this is precisely why female sports exist. Allowing males to compete in female sports just corrupts female sports and it is a net negative on society. Trans people need to be excluded from female sports. I know it seems unfair at face value, but when you think about it is more unfair to let them in at the cost of women in sports.
Police - "Defund the police" has to be the dumbest movement the left has come up with in decades. Law enforcemnt is a vital part of society and the people who keep us safe and maintain order need to be respected. You could argue for better training, more accountability, or reform, and I'll be on board with that but don't give me this crap about policing as a concept is bad because that's just stupid. These ACAB people need to piss off. Cops are great people who work in a respectable profession and they preform an important function in society. We need to make their jobs easier, not harder.
Crime - Piggybacking on the last point, crime needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely. Criminals are not going to change or stop if you enable their behavior. Making crimes not crimes anymore isn't a solution, and we found out very quickly from places like San Francisco that tried this that it's pretty dumb idea. We need to deter and prevent crime, not enable and ignore it. If there's a crime problem then there needs to be more policing and stronger laws to keep things under control. What doesn't keep things under control is trying to replace police with social workers. Also social services are NOT a replacement for law enforcement. Social workers can't deal with emergencies. When some maniac is running around with machete yelling that he's going to kill the next motherfucker he sees, a social worker is going to be less than useless. I know it's an unpopular phrase now, but "being tough on crime" works.

Democrats:

Climate change - Climate change is just a fact. The fact that the right still thinks its a hoax is so stupid that it hurts my brain. The data is crystal clear and the evidence is overwhelming. Climate change is real and it's a big issue. Not only that but we're already suffering the disastrous consequences right now. We need to move towards sustainability, we need to move towards better environmental protections, we need to lower our pollution, and we need to be prepared for what's to come and what's already here. If we can solve this issue by firing up the economy, creating new jobs, increasing tax revenue, and innovating new solutions that's exactly what we need to do. We can't ignore this issue.
Universal healthcare - Now I'm against the Bernie types who want to abolish private healthcare, but luckily they're the minority. The majority of Democrats just support a Medicare for all type of coverage, and I'm all for that. We pay twice as much per capita as other countries to get worse results. We spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world... and the results are appalling. So why do we still have our current system? It'll save us a lot of money to simply move over to system that does more with a lot less. Not only that but we get save thousands of lives every year due to increased coverage, reduced medical related bankruptcies, and reduced stress levels on the American people. We're the only developed country without a universal healthcare system. It's been proven to work and it's about time we hop on board.
Stronger worker protections - Whether it's paid maternity leave or paid sick days or making sure that employers don't abuse their employees, the Democrats are spot on this. The parties SHOULD stand up for the little guys. Even though neither party does, at least the Democrats are giving us a glimpse of what could be with their pro worker stances. Workers are what built America. They're the middle class, they're working class, they're the majority, they are America. Happy, healthy, wealthy workers means a happy, healthy, and wealthy America. I think it's ridiculous how we have the biggest and strongest economy in history yet a lot of Americans can't afford to buy a house or they're living paycheck to paycheck or they can't take a week off to spend with their family or they can't take a fucking pee break. This country needs to be pro-unions and it needs to be pro-workers.
Abortion - While I understand where the conservatives come from, I cannot support their position on this. Abortion under Roe has been on the decline for decades, so you can't blame Roe for more murdered babies. If anything, studies have shown that banning abortion doesn't decrease abortion rates, people just opt for more dangerous and unsafe practices. If people need an abortion, they will have one whether its legal or not. When there's a will there's a way. However, it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be like this. It turns that if you give people proper sex ed and you provide with proper access to healthcare and protection, they won't have unwanted pregnancies, and there won't be a need for abortions. However the option to have one should always be there. We don't know the circumstances that lead a woman to have an abortion. It's not an easy decision to make, and no woman takes it lightly. We can't assume circumstances, and it's not anybody's place to decide what the right decision is for someone else. Everybody understands their own situation best. >

Thank you all so very much for the responses. It has been a pleasure reading them all. Regardless of where you are or what you believe we are all participants in our continuing American Revolution. Have a blessed and prosperous year! >

Nothing, the GOP is a party full of fascists and bigots. It shouldn’t be allowed to exist as a party. >

I don't know why schools having more flexibility seems more prevalent on the right than left, but I am very much in favor of it.
As an example, my son goes to a half-day school that's half-day all the way through graduation. Schools should be encouraged to have that sort of flexibility. Hybrid if they want. Start at 10 am if they want. >

As someone on the left, I'm not actually against more flexibility in school choice, but I think I see where the dissonance comes from. 
A lot of the 'pro-school choice' arguments on the right come not from a place of supporting different lifestyles/learning preferences, and more from a desire to hide/bury facts and topics they don't like, with American History being the big flashpoint. 
Republicans don't like the idea of teaching America's history as a flawed one, littered with mistakes and injustices. They think that plays into modern "woke culture" and inevitably instills support for a lot of the current social issues championed by Democrats, so they want to sweep it under the rug. They disguise it as "school choice" when in reality the motivation is primarily to allow the choice of which set of 'facts' your child is taught.
That kind of 'school choice' is bullshit, and something I'm firmly against.
But if we can develop policy that allows genuine choice in schools according to your child's lifestyle and learning preferences/abilities, while also having enough definition and structure to stop the agenda-motivated stuff, I'd be all for it. >

Piggybacking off this comment as someone who was going to be an educator, it also comes to down to the fact many people feel that public funds should go to public schools, and not be diverted to charter/private schools that often have less oversight and accountability in how well they’re educating their students. >

Yes!! I’m a public school teacher and this is exactly my belief (as well as many of my colleagues). We’re all for “school choice.” If a parent wants to send a kid to private school or teach them at home, we are absolutely fine with that. Parents should have a say in their kids education. And this is exactly why Boards of Education exist in every town.
Many of my colleagues send their kids to private perocial school.  No one judges them at all for it. It’s their choice. What we don’t appreciate is money getting siphoned off from our public schools. We need it and badly. Out buildings are falling to pieces. We need a massive reinvestment in modernization, infrastructure, staff, and student centered programs. >

From their perspective, and they're not wrong, it's their money that was "siphoned off".  Their money is siphoned off from their child's education and put towards the education of others.  They "need it and badly" as well.  They're not taking money away from the public schools, but are instead giving money that wasn't the public schools property and giving it to a different school (and note, in a school choice system, these can be public schools as well). 
Basically, it's hypocritical to say "We don't appreciate money getting taken from us to pay for an education elsewhere" as you support taking money from them to pay for an education elsewhere. >

That’s what taxes are though… money paid for the public good. I pay for the road in front of your house even though I don’t use it. >

Correct, meanwhile, that has very little to do with your argument above, as nobody is advocating tax dollars going towards anything other than the public good.  Education is a public good, even if that education is not done in the way you think it should be.  It's also not a good argument against people who want to use those tax dollars for the public good in ways that you don't agree with.  
Please, stop looking at this exclusively from your own perspective, and look at things from any other perspective.  You cannot ever convince someone in a public debate if you don't put any effort into understanding their stance from their perspective.
BTW, residential roads are a very poor example, as most people who have lived in a place for more than a few years have likely paid enough taxes to pay for "the road in front of your house."
And additionally, pulling out the middle school level "Taxes are for the public good" comment is just insulting, and more insulting to yourself than anyone else.  Nobody on here is that fucking stupid, and failing to understand that doesn't say anything about them, but tells everyone what you think of other people that present arguments that you disagree with. >

What a condescending comment.  Are you a teacher?  If not, then pretending to understand the challenges of public schools is laughable and "nobody on here is that fucking stupid."  Unbelieveable take.  Quick question - If Arizona is able to pass the vouchers for all program and a massive amount of parents put their kids in private, parochial schools, where in the friggin hell do you think public schools will get funding to stay open/afloat?  Probably some snide reply about economics sorting it out and schools closing/consolidating, teachers will lose their jobs, oh well, they knew what they were getting into B.S.  And why should I have to pay for some kid to go to a religious school????  Thought there was separation of church and state....guess not?  As a public school teacher barely hanging on, comments like yours are becoming the norm.  Parents never gave a shit until the bogeymen of CRT, Don't Say Gay and book burning (err...I mean banning) was splashed across a certain network in support of a certain political party in the last few years.  It's unbearable to be used as political pawns.  The end goal for the talking heads?  Back to segregated schools.  Already happening.  There will not be many teachers left soon.  Five have quit at my school just this year.  Perhaps parents can take FULL responsibility of their own kids' education, upbringing, and mental health, as us educators are frankly sick of doing it all.  You're welcome to write your chapter book of a response, but I won't be responding.  Too busy.  You know, gotta go try and teach the next generation, or something. >

Don't a lot of costs scale by number of students? If there are half as many students, you wouldn't need as many teachers, janitors, buildings etc. In theory you could take that money elsewhere... >

It doesn’t really scale that way. If we all start with the premise that every child has the right to a free education. If we agree with that then the following applies.
If students have a right to an education than that means public schools need to be able to accommodate. Public schools are not allowed (except under extraordinary circumstances) to deny a local child access to an equitable education. Private schools and charters are under no such stipulation. They are not public schools, no one has a right to one. This means they can close, relocate, alter requirements, etc. This means public schools need to be ready to take the students in a district.
Charter schools have closed down with little to no notice, but even if they give a years notice things take time to put into place. Finding qualified teachers can be difficult and school districts want to be sure that they are building institutional knowledge, not constantly hiring and firing teachers.
Also, while the staffing issue can be much more flexible, buildings cannot. Support staff for those buildings, maintenance, grounds keeping, these don’t change with the number of enrolled students and most of the dollar value of our taxes are going here (if we assume only minimal staffing). We can’t just stop taking care of half the building because it’s not being actively used. Also, depending on where the school gets it’s buses there could be a small fleet which also need to be maintained.
In reality most of the money is an investment, it pays dividends down the road, you can’t just pull money out and expect it to continue functioning, then add on the potentiality of private or charter closures and things can get bad.
It’s the exact same logic with any public service or utility. If we allow people to pull their funding, the whole system will go to shit. >

Affirmative action and "diversity" initiatives in education and hiring are modern-day racism. Your skin color should never affect how you are evaluated. Period. The Republicans are 100% in the right on this one. >

If a business owner has it in their mind that they - as a rule - will not hire any non-white people, should that be okay? 
If so, isn't that 'being evaluated on the color of your skin'?
If not, how should that be detected/penalized? What's to stop them from just saying "Sorry, all the most qualified candidates happened to be white!" 
I'm sympathetic to the argument that affirmative action and such are problematic, but I think you lose a lot of the nuance of the issue when you just boil it down to 'race being mentioned at all is racism - colorblindness is the way!' >

If a business put a sign in their window saying "whites only" they would go bankrupt in a month. I wouldn't shop there, and I'm white. The free market has a way of correcting that kind of behavior. No need to get the government involved. >

This isn’t about “whites only” restaurant signs though. It’s about hiring and selection practices, which are often much more difficult to identify than a sign. They happen behind closed doors, sometimes without even speaking about the bigotry aloud. Affirmative action laws are designed to address a racist policy for which there is no paper trail or cooperating witness. Also, many inequities are just baked into the system. Even if the people running an organization aren’t bigots, they might be inadvertently perpetuating a racist system. Affirmative action laws are a response to that as well.
I view it like this, your original logic is correct. If we base laws on race, we are creating racist laws; however, we are not living in a perfect world. That world where color doesn’t affect hiring and selection processes is still in the future, we are currently (hopefully) in transition to that world. In order to get there we need transistional policies like affirmative action. In time, with luck, we won’t need these laws anymore. >

The thing is proponents of such policies know that it has reached a point where the opposite is now true, and not even just against white people.
You can't tell me it's easier to get into college as an Asian person than as a Black or Latino person. >

I'm pro death penalty as long as we know and it's proven that the killer is responsible.   They didn't give their victims the chance to live, they should not have it either. >

On top of that, if the death penalty was abolished, criminals who would have been subject to it before would now live off the rest of their days on your tax money. That’s not a comforting thought. >

That's cheaper than enforcing the death penalty which also comes from our tax money >

It's like divorce, it's expensive because it's worth it.  
Plus we spend way too much on prisoners.  40 years ago it cost like $50K to house each one, why, they live in a box and people out in the world don't even make that much and can survive on less. >

On the contrary, if we want prison to actually be about reform  then we probably need to increase spending and reallocate funds from how they are currently appropriated. >

A family of four could easily survive and thrive  on what it takes to put one scumbag in prison. >

That's a false decision. We don't have to pick between supporting a family of four and funding prisons. This is why billionaires are immoral. Tax the fuck out of Elon Musk and support communities in need as well as funding a robust criminal justice system based on reform. This is a good use of tax dollars. Breaks for the 1% are the problem. >

I agree with many positions the other party holds, especially regarding social issues. >

I am a progressive and presently cannot seem to find any policy elected Republicans push that I agree with. I do however think there are progressive policies that traditional Republicans should be embracing with better messaging. Like the government should have no role in limiting marriage between two people because persona freedoms should come first. Or marijuana criminalization being a form of government overreach. >


I am a progressive and presently cannot seem to find any policy elected Republicans push that I agree with.

I can! Though not for the same ideological reasons. 
"Fake news"!
The Republicans are actually right on this being a big issue - we need to figure out a solution to the right-wing misinformation epidemic that is going on. We simply cannot function when half the country operates on a completely different set of "facts".
Similarly - election 'security'. 
Again - Republicans are right but for the wrong reasons. No, it's not Democrats stuffing ballot boxes and voting as dead people. The issue is right-wing election deniers seeking out ways to invalidate results they don't like and get into/remain in power anyway. >

I heard a lot of republicans saying that we should use paper ballots in this most recent election because biden or george works or whoever was gonna rig it. While the rigging part is nonsense, I could not agree more on the paper ballots issue. Finally! They get it! For the wrong reasons of course, but whatever, I’ll take it. Can we please have a paper ballot record of our elections, I’d feel so much better about it all if we did. >

I’m a democrat. The Republican Party has no policy positions other than owning the libs and getting people worked up about trans people so they can get in power and pass tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and make it easier for corporations to pollute and have tax payers pay to clean it up. 
So no. Your have to go back 30+ years for the republicans to have positions I’d prefer over democrats. >

For the all the hate Democrats get regarding 'social issues' - it seems Republicans are the ones who have gone all-in on them in recent years. Virtually all of the unifying Republican ideas are responses to social issues - but rooted in ideology rather than concrete policy solutions. "Groomers", "CRT", the trans bathroom panic, "stopping woke culture"...All of these are just the other side of the same social issue coin, but devoid of any actual policy recommendations to achieve their 'goals'. Just empty rhetoric meant to unite their base against a common enemy.
At least Democrats will propose specific policy solutions to all the social issues they push. Republicans have just been saying "X is bad - vote for me and I'll make sure we put an end to it!" >


For the all the hate Democrats get regarding 'social issues' - it seems Republicans are the ones who have gone all-in on them in recent years.

Well yeah, that's literally the white hot core of the right-wing media machine these days. They realized that all they have to do is vaguely gesture towards some nebulous "policy" to the GOP base and that base will convince themselves that you've explained an actual plan. 
To this day people will rationalize Trump's presidency by virtue of his "policy". What policy? The wall? The tax cuts? He never actually came out with that healthcare plan they were claiming was right around the corner. 
Given that, they can just go all-in on culture war these days. They will simply...act like they have a plan to solve actual problems without explaining (which the voters give the overwhelming benefit of the doubt), then start chucking red meat in the form of bigotry. The voters will delude themselves on purpose to try and make sense of it all.