Total topics: 331
Gaza's population: 2.3 million people.
Gazan population that is left homeless by Israel: 80% of 2.3 million (Desperation intensifies in Gaza amid uncertainty of ‘safe zones’ | UN News).
Who fucking causes 80% of a country to be homeless?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
MAGA: He has dementia.
Me: He debated against Trump in 2020 and he was mentally sharp.
MAGA: That's because he had aderol in his system.
Me: So what? Trump can't function without food in his stomach. If Trump needs food, then he can get food. If Biden needs meds, then he can get meds. Nothing wrong with that.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My school says, "Racism is bad". Alright.
They also advertise trips to France.
Why just France? Why not offer trips to Niger as well? Or South Sudan (and not have to learn French)? Or the Bahamas (and travel somewhere close)?
Chat GPT states over twice as many Americans toured France (Far away, Francophone, expensive, cold) as Jamacia (Close, Anglophone, cheap, warm). Tourists tend to be liberal and young.
Liberal American tourists prefer White countries to non-white ones. I'm not racist; I'd rather tour Jamacia; but I don't like travelling, so I won't do either.
They like pretending they aren't racist as they are and if you call them out on it, then they get offended.
I prefer Tom Boui (white guy) (Poudii VS America’s Most Racist Man (DELETED SCENES) (youtube.com)). At least he is honest about it (and he's funny).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Left: Help the Gaza Strip!
The right: Invade the Gaza Strip!
Me: Listen to the Gaza strippers. They ROCK!
Suburban Summer is Coming and Suburban Spring is here!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
OTI - Google Sheets. If anyone has a disagreement, then you can state it if you want too.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
You want abortion banned because it kills an innocent human being. How many zygotes do you believe is equal to the life of a woman? If the answer is 1, then lets say a woman is pregnant and she has a 49% chance of dying without an abortion. Should she be allowed to get an abortion? If you believe the 2 are equal, then the answer is no because it's expected that more lives will die as a result of abortion than if birth continues.
The only rebuttal is the belief that a zygote is not equal to a woman, and if woman=human and zygote < woman, then zygote < human.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm voting for someone who never thought their uncle got eaten by a cannibal after falling from the sky and someone that never thought George Washington conquered airports.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Person A: it’s to protect marginalised people from the hate mongering that’s happening online.
Me: This argument can be applied to any form of conservative speech. I'm going to go with NOT banning conservative speech because of an allegation that it goes after marginalized people.
Person A: if conservative speech consists of fear-mongering against marginalised people, that says everything we need to know about conservatives :)
Me: That is the majority of what conservatives believe. But would you censor all conservative speech? Yes or no. Either it will be legal to say speech that affects marginalized people or it will be illegal to state conservative opinions. You got to pick. I pick free speech (I don't support banning books).
Person A: i would censor bigots, without a second thought.
Me: At least you are honest; you would censor republican leaners (about half of the country) because you believe they are bigoted.So then if you censor the republican party (whom you would believe all of their opinions are bigoted, so to you, they are bigots), then what would be the opposition to democrats? Is one party rule what you want where all oppression is minimized?
"Banning hate speech" is code for, "banning all speech we think is hateful, aka conservative speech."
Protect free speech! And republicans; until you eliminate all the anti BDS laws in your state that make you sign a pledge stating that you won't boycott Israel and until you guys support the right to burn an American flag and the right to sit for the national anthem to protest police brutality, you guys don't believe in free speech either; so spare me your fake outrage.
I'm a free speech absolutist, and very few people are.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are many combinations many people believe are contradictions (like pro life and pro death penalty, pro life and [insert really practically any position the right has on a non abortion issue whether it's guns, vaccine mandates, mask mandates, immigration, Medicare for all, free college (more educated people tend to live longer), you name it]), or , "Education not indoctrination (but we will teach PragerU in public schools)", "Actual Nazis shouldn't get fired from their job for being Nazis but if you support Palestine, then the government can legally fire you over it", "Being anti Israel is anti sematic, but being pro Hitler isn't" (Cadence Owens liked a post I think everyone can agree is anti sematic and the right likes her, but if she endorsed Palestine, then she's an unforgivable anti semite). I'm pretty sure we can agree that liking a post that stereotypes Jews as drinking Christain blood is way more anti sematic than not wanting the Israeli military to attack Gaza.
But here is why it is a contradiction to be anti death penalty and pro deportation.
If you are pro deportation, then you don't want undocumented immigrants getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.
If you are anti death penalty, then you do want murderers or similar getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.
It is a contradiction to treat undocumented immigrants worse than murderers. Murderers are worse.
They are ILLEGAL immigrants
The term, "Illegal immigrant" is synonymous with, "Undocumented immigrant" and the only difference is connotation. Those who see no problem with them being here will refer to them as undocumented. Those who do see a problem with them being here refer to them as being illegal. Use whatever term you prefer. I don't think it's wrong that they are here; so I use undocumented. I won't police your speech; you don't police mine.
I happen to believe the high slope punishment policy; the very bad crimes (murder; r***) should get death as punishment; the harmless crimes should get no punishment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Egypt: HOW DARE ISRAEL oppress the Gazans. They are human beings. They need protection.
Me: What do you guys think about annexing Gaza?
Egypt: HELL NO! WE DON'T WANT THEIR GHETTO TRASH!
Me: But you want Israel to treat them equally to Israelis?
Egypt: Yes.
Me: But you won't treat them to Egypitians?
Egypt: Yes.
Me: Sounds a bit hypocritical.
(similar for Jordan vs West Bank)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If someone wants to smoke tobacco, then should they be allowed to do so? Yes.
Should they be allowed to rob you to satisfy their tobacco addiction? No.
But their body, their choice? Unless we accept that bodily autonomy is worth less than $8 for a pack of tobacco, and therefore, worth less than a baby's life (because a baby's life is worth more than $8).
If a woman doesn't want pregnancy, then she should make sure her bf has a vasectomy before they have sex.
I'm anti-abortion (I think abortion should be punished with community service) and I'm getting a vasectomy before I have sex with any woman that can get pregnant.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Believing in white privilege because whites are less likely to get in trouble is like believing in Indian privilege because the same is true for Indians relative to whites.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Fiscal conservative: I want low taxes.
Me: So you want to cut government spending?
Fiscal conservative (FC): Yes.
Me: On what; exactly?
FC: Bureaucratic waste.
Me: Is it social security? Do you want elderly people to suffer more?
FC: No.
Me: Is it the military?
FC: No.
Me: What about Medicaid or Medicare? Do you want poor and old people to suffer more?
FC: No
Me: What about unemployment benefits? If a dad is unemployed, then should his kids suffer from lack of unemployment benefits?
FC: No
Me: Do you want to stop paying interest on the debt? Do you want the debt to get bigger?
FC: No
Me: Well, that's 82% of the budget (2021 Budget). What do you want to cut?
FC: Something else (and this something else may be important or not important, but I won't do my research on it because I'm going to assume it's unimportant even though it easily could be).
Me: Yeah; I think I'm going to side with the left on this one.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If someone has no rights, then it means someone can shoot you, eat your body, and legally get away with it because you would have no rights.
Either you believe undocumented immigrants should get at least some rights or you support the right to cannibalize undocumented immigrants.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
# of people homeless: 600K.
Cost of a good house: 500K.
Cost to give every homeless person a free house: 600K*500K=600M*500=60000M*5=60B*5=$300B.
Cost of free college: $60B
Amount of money spent on the military: $800B
Cut the military budget by 50%; that raises enough money to give free college and to give every homeless person a free house (while having $40B left over).
Cut the military budget (and this means we can stop funding Ukraine).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I believe the confederate flag should be burned by those that own one.
I believe ICE should be abolished.
I believe Affirmative Action should be eliminated as it considers race.
I believe anyone who murdered an Asian person because of COVID should be tried for murder and executed.
I believe Qualified immunity should be repealed (most people this benefits wouldn't vote for me if I ran for POTUS, but that is irrelevant; it should still be repealed).
I'm not racist, but there exists a sporadic pain in my head that came as a result of me getting fired from a job I've had for about 2 years. The only way the pain can get reduced temporarily is by me uttering very offensive words. I've tried, "Get out of my fucking head" and it worked with short term relief for a while, but it's starting to fade away. I've resorted to, "Get out of my jack nasty head you stupid son of a goat fucker and enjoy getting blowjobs from your cousin's sister" and it currently provides some sort term relief, but eventually, this will go the way of, "Get out of my fucking head".
I'm worried it will turn into a phrase that will involve me uttering the N word (hard r) and I don't want to utter it randomly only for some black stranger to get offended over what they (and honestly most people, including my parents and even my therapist) have no idea about and beat me up over it.
I need to prevent this from happening. I take meds; they don't work.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
BLM: White people should recognize their privilege.
Me: Alright. I recognize my privilege because I'm white. I'm lucky to have this privilege. I'm happy to have this privilege. I'm proud to have this privilege. I am Proud to be White.
BLM: Quit being racist!
Me: What? Didn't you want me to recognize my privilege? Oh; you wanted me to act sad about something you believe is good for me. That doesn't make sense. Nobody should be upset at a privilege they have even if others don't have it. Imagine me saying, "I'm Ashamed that I was born really good at math and I resent this part about me."
It doesn't make sense. If white privilege exists (just like any privilege), then I should be proud to have it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think whether one is AUP (Democrats) or LUSHO (Libertarian), there is ample reason to support executing murderers
If one is LUSHO, then they don't like the government giving free stuff to people. This would include murderers and those that commit r***, so they would favor executing them to save taxpayer money.
If one is AUP, then they want more money going to help teachers. Enough money is spent taking care of murderers and those that commit r*** in jail to give every public-school teacher an $8400/year raise. Even one that is AUP would want to help our teachers and students more than murderers and those that commit r***, so the logical penalty would be death. Every state, even the bluest ones have many of their teachers wanting a higher salary and the state can't afford to give them one. An $8400/year raise by not spending on murderers and similar frees up a lot of cash.
Although the republicans have no core ideology, I believe they are mostly correct on this issue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say you are a white person protesting police killings of black people because you believe a black life is equal to your own and you want to save their lives. I should get away with calling you a, "Black Rights Activist" if you say, "Black Lives Matter" and I should be able to type in, "#BlackLivesMatter" into YouTube and get a bunch of BLM supporters with their videos. I see these videos of Black Rights Activists and they would be proud to call themselves Black Rights Activists.
Lets say you are a born person protesting abortionists killings of zygote people because you believe a zygote life is equal to your own and you want to save their lives. I should get away with calling you a, "Zygote Rights Activist" if you say, "Protect the Unborn" (aka, "Zygote Lives Matter") and I should be able to type in, "#ZygoteLivesMatter" into YouTube and get a bunch of ZLM supporters with their videos. I do not see videos of Zygote Rights Activists when they protest; I see science videos about zygotes; but never Lila Rose or Classically Abby or Chloe Waked. I can put in #ProLife and find stuff; and everyone is Pro life to an extent (otherwise we would all be suicidal), but those that want to ban abortion are Zygote Rights Activists.
They should start calling themselves ZLM, "Zygote Lives Matter" so they are more honest. They would lose support because the normie thinks of that as silly, but at least it's honest. I mean, they do that with, "Blue Lives Matter" when some number of cops are getting killed by people (although I would prefer the government just fund cops less and if your house gets robbed, then have stand your ground giving you the authority to defend your own home).
Blue Lives Matter has a movement because cops are obviously human beings. Black Lives Matter has a movement because blacks are obviously human beings. Zygote Lives Matter would have a movement if Zygotes were human beings, but no such movement exists. Hell, I can't even find a, "Fetus Lives Matter" movement on YouTube.
People don't believe Zygotes (or even Fetuses) are human beings as much as they say they do. I can find "Youth Lives Matter", but the Youth are pretty safe, so it's not a big concern.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It's because being gender neutral is a product of Anglo-American civilization and Anglo civilization is the best out there for tending to lean libertarian compared to the others. Spain and France are too influenced by the Catholic Church and all of their authoritarianism. The Anglos and Germanic groups believe in more liberty by comparison.
When I say Anglo civilization, I don't just mean stereotypically white English speaking countries. I also mean places like Jamacia, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea as well.
I am proud of my civilization and this civilization happens to be gender neutral, so I like using gender neutral pronouns.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If the answer is yes, then call it, "Law and Order". If the answer is no, then call it, "Rebel Pride". You can get the right to back any policy you want with this logic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
P1: Jan 6 almost overthrew the government
P2: Very few Jan 6 Protestors had guns during the protest that they did since they thought the election was rigged.
P3: The Jan 6 Protestors believed the government was tyrannical and they almost succeeded in overthrowing them with very few (less than .05% of the US population (Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors (newsweek.com))) present, with only 12 members having guns according to Newsweek (Fact Check: Were There Armed Protesters at the Capitol on January 6? (newsweek.com)).
P4: Very few guns were had by the protestors when almost overthrowing the government.
C1: You don't need a huge number of guns to overthrow the government if they go tyrannical if 12 guns distributed among 120,000 people almost gets the job done. So I would argue this makes the 2nd amendment's argument that guns are pretty much not needed to defend against a tyranical government not accurate; because our government that the Jan 6 people thought was tyranical almost got overthrown with 12 guns and if they had 0 guns, but 10 million protestors, then they could almost certainly have overthrown the government if they do something that pisses off 10 million people enough to conduct a revolution (so the 3% figure that people claim was enough to start the US revolutionary war in the first place).
So my sole reason for wanting AR 15s to be legal is freedom. Just like I support the freedom to own an autograph; it doesn't make either useful. I would not spend $800 or so on an AR 15; I'm fiscally conservative and I would rather invest the money and conserve my finances.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I would be a free speech absolutist solely for opinions that the speaker actually believes in. If someone grifts and says something that they don't believe in when they say it, then if there is enough evidence, then I support that person being deplatformed.
I would assume there are some people that grift, but it's hard to tell if someone is a grifter.
I would assume if they are doing a multi hour debate about their beliefs, then it's obvious they say what they believe. If the stuff they say is nuanced and not too extreme, then they probably aren't grifting. There are black people that don't like BLM, there are females who hate feminism, there are trans people who agree with Blaire White on trans issues. If you strongly disagree, then that's fine. But not all Blacks, females, and LGBT people agree with the left on their RSG characteristic and this is fine. If they are far right or far left, then it's possible they grift, but it's hard to tell. If they make some obvious contradictions, then it's safe to say they are a grifter. The problem is there exists some overlap and I have a hard time figuring out who is who.
An example of an obvious contradiction wouldn't be someone that is, "Pro life and pro death penalty" or, "Pro choice and pro vacciene mandate" or really any 2 beliefs of any kind. They are inconsistent (and being inconsistent is ok), but they aren't obvious contradictions. Even being pro choice and then pro life 5 years later isn't an obvious contradiction; it just means you changed your mind and this is fine.
An example of an obvious contradiction is saying, "I did this awesome alpha male thing with my buddies at the college I went too" and separately saying, "I never went to college; college is a scam". It's obvious you like college if you did alpha male stuff with your buddies at college.
Also if someone said from 2000 to 2008, "We need to do X" and then in 2016 says not only, "I don't believe in X" but, "I never believed in X", then I think that is grifting worthy of being banned.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
We should ban any non essentials that used child slavery. So say good bye to chocolate and all products with it,
Also all of the products below:
So many people are giving Korea a hard time based on him being into kids because they think it exploits the kids, and I just think it's hypocrisy.
I'm only into adult women; I just think 15 years look gross.
But just don't be hypocritical. If you are against exploiting kids, then be consistent and boycott all products that kids got exploited to make.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Their government jails you for Tweets that state that you don't like the monarch.
This is anti free speech. For those on the left, they are banning certain tweets (aka very small books).
I am a free speech absolutist; Fuck Thailand and God Bless America (as an atheist)!
It's stuff like this that prevents me from being a democrat.
Protect free speech and protect all victimless liberty!
I want a world where undocumented immigrants that didn't get the Fauci potion to be allowed to defend their cannabis fields with fully automatic machine guns and so skinheads can protect their transwomen girlfriends with a small private army in the heart of western civilization.
I don't want deportations, but if you bring children across our border for sex, then you get beheaded, your blood and organs taken from you, and that goes to save the lives of American Patriots with all expenses being taxpayer funded for!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
How to get a conservative to agree with you on guns:
Don't say:
We need to end mass shootings
Instead say:
Karl Marx was a staunch pro 2A advocate; the 2nd amendment is backed by socialists.
With companies having vaccine mandates:
Don't say:
We need to let companies have vaccine mandates to protect their workers from COVID
Instead say:
The private sector having company policies that they agree with is free market capitalism.
With any social issue where the left agrees with libertarianism (immigration, Qualified immunity, War on Drugs), you can reference small government and individual liberty. For abortion, you can add:
I don't want my tax dollars going to feed other people's kids in foster care. That's SOCIALIST!
With any economic issue where the left disagrees with libertarianism, don't say:
We need to tax the rich to help fund the (insert social program here) of poor people
Instead say:
We need to tax the globalists and use the money to fund the (insert social program here) of American Patriots!
The correct framing can make left wing ideas sound like the MAGA crowd would agree to them.
At this point, I would say someone can probably agree with the democrats more than the republicans because they don't agree with communists like Marx on guns, they believe the free market can decide to mandate COVID boosters as a result of free market capitalism, they don't want to fund other people's kids in foster care so they prefer abortion, they like small government on weed, Qualified immunity, and immigration (at least wrt deportations), and they believe the globalists should be taxed more to fund the healthcare of American Patriots (they define an American Patriot as anyone who lives in America by choice, which would include undocumented immigrants since they chose to live in America).
If anyone is in the Bernie Sanders campaign, then they need to tell him to change his framing on issues to appeal to MAGA people.
I'm going to try and not to respond to any posts because I've learned that people here are almost certainly not willing to change their minds, so there is no point in talking to them about policy differences.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Left wing voters don't vote against their own interests on the issue of welfare; right wing voters do. One of the interests of people on welfare is, "keep taxes high so I can continue to live off of welfare (maybe until I find a job, maybe indefinitely)". Wanting to cut welfare while you are on it as an adult is hypocritical.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Left: Ban Coal!
Me: Why?
The Left (TL): Because the CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.
Me: By how much?
TL: .02 degrees Celsius per year.
Me: Bah; that's nothing.
TL: OH NO! The concern is sea level rise!
Me: By how much?
TL: 2 Cm per year!
Me: Can't we just build sea walls?
TL: No! A lot of economic damage will be created from climate change!
Me: How much?
TL: About 3% of the GDP in North America (This is How Climate Change Could Impact The Global Economy | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)) by 2050.\
Me: The current US GDP is $25T. So about $.75T?
TL: Yes.
Me: How much would it cost to go all renewable?
TL: $8T.
Me: I think I'll pass.
TL: FASCIST!
Note; this is not an endorsement of republicans on some other issues. But on this issue, the GOP has more common sense.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The right usually defines communism in one of 2 ways:
1. The economic opposite of capitalism. This means they don't want well off people being forced to subsidize less well off people.
2. The free speech opposite of the first amendment.
With this definition, then the Catalonian independence movement would have no communist backing. They are the ones who get censored by the Spanish government in protests and the rich Catalonian province (by the standards of Spain) subsidizes the rest of the country. So you figure the Catalonian independence movement would be a right wing movement; but it turns out to be a left wing movement, therefore communists are more likely to back it.
How did this happen?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you prefer this flag:
to this flag:
because of allegations that the US is, "woke" (which to you, is a synonym for left wing), then this flag:
inherently offends you and I'll help you pack. It also means you aren't America First, but Russia first.
I don't believe the US should be involved with Ukraine, but if you think we should take RUSSIA's side because Russia is allegedly less woke, then you put Russia before America.
America should strictly stay out.
A poll I read a while back indicated that only like 4% of the US population backs Russia (over America). The people who back Ukraine still put America first, but they are fine with helping other countries and they still love America. If a husband wants to donate $100 to charity and spend $40K on his family, does that mean he doesn't put his family first? No.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Hawks from both parties: The military protects our FREEDOM!
Me: From who?
Hawks: Russia! China!
Me: If these places won't invade Mongolia, why would they invade America?
Hawks: TRAITOR!!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Here is the video.
Note: He never debunks the arguments presented by the people he is critiquing. They claim (emotionally which isn't my taste) that abortion will harm those that can get pregnant (I'm not trying to make this about transgenderism, but fetuses can't get pregnant regardless of their chromosomes). Ben Shapiro attacks their character instead of the points they are making.
A mass murderer can say that the sky is blue and the sky is still blue. Character is irrelevant to the message you send.
Ben Shapiro never debunked their points, he merely attacked their character instead of attacking the idea they were stating.
The closest thing he said was, "You are killing your baby girl". The Pro Abortion Legalization (PAL) crowd has argued that regardless of the gender of the fetus, that it should be legal for most pregnancies to be aborted due to concerns of pregnant individual's right to bodily autonomy (most women aren't pregnant right now, so women shouldn't be confused with pregnant person).
If you are Ben Shapiro, you then justify why it is okay to force someone to be pregnant for 9 months based on consensual sex in order to save the life of a zygote. He would have to defend that position if it is what he believes.
He doesn't; he goes after character, and then dodges to make it about Trump.
If he wants to talk about Trump, then he makes the video, "Trump was involved with .... " and he doesn't then make the title, "Abortion ... ". If you want 2 separate videos, then do 2 separate videos. Just stay on topic.
But if Ben Shapiro takes the pro life position (or as I call it, the ANti Abortion Legalization (ANAL) position), then I have no issue with it. But then he has to defend that instead of attacking irrelevant aspects of the person he is critiquing. It would also mean he would have to disagree with the abortion policy of ISRAEL (which has very left wing abortion laws) (Israel eases access to abortion, days after US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade | The Times of Israel).
He won't do this though because he wants to appeal to Israel and to the ANAL movement (solely because both are backed by republicans) despite the contradiction (while Palestine is very ANAL in it's abortion policy). The left wingers are against genocide.
How does the right back both the ANAL position while backing a country in a war where they have the PAL position and their opponents have the ANAL position? If abortion isn't your big voting issue, then fine. But for a lot of ANAL advocates, it's their sole reason for voting republican, so you would expect them to be anti Israel.
But people have parties to stick too.
My position is I am neither too strongly PAL or ANAL; I'm Pro vasectomy; it solves the concerns of the PAL and ANAL crowd with abortion. I will get a vasectomy before I have sex and I should since my primary abortion position varies a lot from time to time, but I'm leading more towards the PAL side now because every pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Areas the GOP establishment is small government:
1. Tax cuts for globalists.
2. Gun rights (unless trans).
3. Free speech (unless it’s an LGBT book). They mean free speech for actual Nazis, and those that want to Terminate the constitution (Trump).
Areas the Democrat establishment is small government:
1. Immigration
2. Military genocide
3. Abortion
4. Drugs
5. Qualified immunity
6. LGB
7. Transgenderism
8. (At this point in time) Free speech. I see them advocating for stopping the ban of LGBT books in schools, and they have accepted that actual Nazis should get free speech. If only the conservatives thought the same thing about LGBT pride indoctrination books.
1. Tax cuts for globalists.
2. Gun rights (unless trans).
3. Free speech (unless it’s an LGBT book). They mean free speech for actual Nazis, and those that want to Terminate the constitution (Trump).
Areas the Democrat establishment is small government:
1. Immigration
2. Military genocide
3. Abortion
4. Drugs
5. Qualified immunity
6. LGB
7. Transgenderism
8. (At this point in time) Free speech. I see them advocating for stopping the ban of LGBT books in schools, and they have accepted that actual Nazis should get free speech. If only the conservatives thought the same thing about LGBT pride indoctrination books.
9. Parental rights to raise theybies. Conservative parents have the parental rights to homeschool their kid. The same should be true for LGBT advocate parents.
Who seems like the biggest defenders of liberty?
I don’t like either party, but I think I know the answer to this question.
Who seems like the biggest defenders of liberty?
I don’t like either party, but I think I know the answer to this question.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If the ruling was 5-4 or even 6-3, the. You can make the case for it being partisan.
It was 9-0.
I’m not voting for Trump, but I respect the results.
It was also 9-0 when they said Trump lost in 2020.
My rule is when individuals (not ideas, but individuals) are on trial, I respect whatever the court says since I wasn’t there.
Biden won in 2020, but Trump can run in 2024.
Most other people will cheer for their team.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The definition:
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
If one says, “Abortion should be banned”, then this can be argued to be abusive speech to women (similar grounds).
If one says, “Government spending should be cut, so cut welfare and social security”, then this is threatening and abusive speech to the poor and elderly who need this to LIVE (elderly are similar to these other groups).
All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech. I would respect it if the left wanted to ban all hate speech (including conservative speech) or if they were free speech absolutists.
Just don’t play the middle ground and be honest.
All conservative speech is hate speech, so be consistent.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
How about no?
But MAGA people will defend it no matter what.
They treat zygotes than Mexicans. Go figure.
No changing their minds; it seems sadistic at this point.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The most hardcore right wing abortion position is, "legal only with risk to the mother's life".
Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life.
Legalize abortion up until the moment of birth.
It's small government and we can't go around treating the zygote equally to the woman. That's socialist.
Fuck socialism and the free market (including Big Tech) is based.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The GOP doesn't consistently believe in anything.
I can't do this with the democrats though; their ethos is anti-unwanted pain.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
According to Kyle Kulinski:
Corruption that benefits the right (repealing Roe V Wade): Bad.
Corruption that benefits the left (re enacting it): Good.
If the left wins on every issue, then what would our politicians disagree on? It would be one party rule at that point.
Doesn't seem too good for diversity of thought.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Only one of these sets had their bank accoutns frozen and people defending the decision.
It was the truckers.
If you are pro vacciene mandate, how do you defend that?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Person A: I believe that abortion should be banned unless there is a risk to the mother's life. You never know in advance if abortion will kill the mother's life, but if the abortion is a risk to the mother's life, then she should be allowed to get an abortion. This includes all pregnancies at all stages of development, because all pregnancies are a risk to the mother's life (even if it's (1/a trillion) percent chance). Abortion legalization should therefore be unrestricted.
How could a pro lifer disagree with that logic? Unless they maybe state, "The odds of a woman dying from this pregnancy has to be at least X% in order to allow her to get an abortion."
How much would X be? Because I can argue that if X% is .0000000001%, then I can advocate banning abortion unless a risk to the mother's life and it sounds very pro choice. Even repealing the Hyde Amendment sounds pro life if X is this low if it's the mother's life we are talking about.
What is your value of X is you are pro life?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
But I will probably create some suggestions that I think can make people smarter and produce better arguments.
1. Don't cite biased wing cites and treat it like they are objective. If a left winger cites CNN or Huff Post, then the right winger dismisses it as leftist propaganda. If they cite FOX or OAN, then it gets viewed as RINO because people tend to see parties as single issue parties, when in reality, it's multi issues. If a republican says transwomen are women; the left praises them for abandoning their party on that issue and the right thinks they are RINOs. If a democrat says abortion is murder, then the equal and opposite occurs. This hypothetical pro trans republican and pro life democrat are ideologically identical on these 2 issues (they are both pro lifers that think transwomen are women), but the parties would cancel someone they view as a, "traitor to their team".
2. Understand how your opponent thinks. I'm not talking about their opinion on a belief; I'm talking about their morality. If you are a democrat, then your value is Anti-Unwanted Pain (AUP) and you are pragmatic with how to get there. If you are a republican, then your value is often a lot less principled, but it's very ideologue. An example of an ideologue AUP person is a socialist. In order for a right winger to convince a left winger of their belief, then you have to prove your belief is AUP. Otherwise, it is impossible to change the AUP person's mind, so there is no point (unless you want to debate which value is superior, AUP vs an example alternative moral code like LUSHO (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others, which is my moral code) or CPL (Consistent Pro Lifer), or TASQD (Tradition And Status Quo Defender), or some other moral code that) in debating moral codes. You got your moral code; I got mine. As long as we are consistent with both of our moral codes, then me trying to convert you to my moral code would be like a devout Muslim trying to convert a devout Christian to Islam. But unlike religion, where everyone can live by their religious views while barely forcing that on others; a Jewish POTUS doesn't have to force me to live by their Jewish beliefs, but a AUP POTUS would have to force me to live by their moral code. Otherwise, what's the point of there being a POTUS? Maybe there can be like 10 Co Presidents and if AUP gets 40% of the vote, LUSHO gets 30%, CPL gets 20% and TASQD gets 10%, then 4 of the Presidents would be AUP, 3 would be LUSHO people, etc. There is no point in doing debates if everyone's moral views are formed and it is impossible to change those views, although these views are less hereditary than religion.
3. Pretty much try and follow the rules more or less in these videos:
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
But if this is true, then it would make sense for the GOP to advocate for raising taxes on those blue democrat voters and fund the healthcare of the red voters.
But they won't do that because they call it socialist.
But if Trump endorsed socialism and called corporation and capitalism, "woke", and railed on that for a good month, then his idiot supporters (the majority of whom are idiots that aren't consistent with any of their claimed values and if they block me, then they don't believe in free speech like they claim to do), would become socialists in the name of fighting, "wokeness" (which they have defined as being pro cancel culture even though they block people they don't agree with, therefore vigilantically cancelling them; making them the woke ones).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I do not believe the GOP has a consistent definition for what they stand for.
Me: What is a republican?
Republican: We believe in small government.
Me: You guys want to keep ICE, repeal Roe V Wade, and support the government funded police. Try again.
Republican: We believe in law and order. Follow the law no matter what.
Me: If the law said guns are banned and COVID boosters are mandated, I wouldn’t expect you to agree with that law.
Republican: Well, we believe in tradition/status quo!
Me: Roe V Wade was an American tradition and the status quo for 50 years. It got repealed because of you guys.
Republican: We believe in Biblical Law!
Me: The bible says in Matthew 25:35 to welcome illegal immigrants in your home. I know you don’t agree with that.
Republican: Well, what does the left consistently stand for?
Me: The left is consistently against unwanted pain. They are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP). Either come up with an alternative ideology that is palatable, become independents (which means you are open to voting for a democrat that Trump doesn't like) or join the left.
Republican: We believe in small government.
Me: You guys want to keep ICE, repeal Roe V Wade, and support the government funded police. Try again.
Republican: We believe in law and order. Follow the law no matter what.
Me: If the law said guns are banned and COVID boosters are mandated, I wouldn’t expect you to agree with that law.
Republican: Well, we believe in tradition/status quo!
Me: Roe V Wade was an American tradition and the status quo for 50 years. It got repealed because of you guys.
Republican: We believe in Biblical Law!
Me: The bible says in Matthew 25:35 to welcome illegal immigrants in your home. I know you don’t agree with that.
Republican: Well, what does the left consistently stand for?
Me: The left is consistently against unwanted pain. They are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP). Either come up with an alternative ideology that is palatable, become independents (which means you are open to voting for a democrat that Trump doesn't like) or join the left.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The first amendment states the government can't prosecute you for your speech.
If we were logically consistent, then an ISIS supporter would be able to fly an ISIS flag on public property and the government wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
All the free speech advocates didn't say anything when Big Tech censors pro ISIS accounts. They will defend the free speech of Nick Fuentes, but not ISIS.
I think there needs to be a consistent standard. Either Fuentes AND ISIS should get free speech on social media platforms and the same amount of vigor should be used to defending the free speech of those with horrible views or neither should.
But Fuentes is a right wing figure, so the right will cheer on his right to free speech. ISIS on the other hand; they are left wing, so it's not as much of a free speech concern.
I think the standard of, "if you genuinely wish (not tolerate in the pursuit of something else, but wish) the death on somebody whom you believed didn't harm anybody else, then it would be banworthy" may be a good standard. So you can advocate the death penalty for murderers and rapists and kidnappers (positions I agree with), but if you advocate the death penalty for Jewish people or black people or Christians, then it would get banned and you would face prosecution.
I think from here moving forward that that is a good standard to have.
The death penalty for unwanted unborn babies (pro choice) would be free speech (speech I don't agree with) because that's in pursuit of women's bodily autonomy.
But this also means if I call a black person the N word as a white person, then that is free speech because the N word isn't inheritely calling for the death of someone based on race.
Do DARTers agree with this standard? Yes or No?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The argument for Nationalized healthcare is, "We all have to take care of each other with our tax dollars".
How far does this go? If one believed this consistently, then they would not support nationalized healthcare (NH), but internationalized healthcare(INH).
Basically, every country with NH agrees to form a treaty that states that they would join an INH pact, largely funded by the rich globalists.
Oh, wait? Countries like their independence. Alright. Kind of like people.
I don't respect NH; I can respect INH or I can respect the American model; but NH is too arbitrary.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Jessie Ventura vs Donald Trump.
Trump and Ventura give off similar vibes.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
One of the following will happen on Feb 13 2024:
1. There is global words in the sky that says, "Christianity is correct" and everyone worldwide will be able to see it in whatever language they speak.
2. There is global words in the sky that says, "Islam is correct" and everyone worldwide will be able to see it in whatever language they speak.
3. There is global words in the sky that says, "(Some other religion) is correct" and everyone worldwide will be able to see it in whatever language they speak.
4. There will be no words in the sky that says something like that because there is no God out there.
Whatever bullet point happens tomorrow would solve the religious debate if people made sense.
All other, "signs of God's existence" are coincidences and will not be accepted.
An all powerful God should have no problem doing something like this.
And, "God wants all of humanity to have faith" isn't something he is consistent with; otherwise he wouldn't send any perceived signs to us (and Saint Peter would be held to the same standard).
I don't believe in religion.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion