>

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.
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.