Total topics: 343
This guy blocked me.
It's people like this that make me want to boast the following:
David,
You look like you are Gen X. I'm Gen Z. My generation is replacing yours through immigration and race mixing because you didn't abort us when you had the chance! But if you did, your population numbers would plummet and you would have to rely on even more non whites for labor (either that, or all retire and starve because nobody would be working in the US once every Gen X person is retired).
God bless our public schools (for increasing the national average IQ, something white nationalists seem to be very proud about)!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Liberal: Hello HFCSM. Would you blow a man to end world hunger?
HFCSM (honest and blunt): Honestly, I wouldn't end world hunger even if I didn't have to blow a man. Ending world hunger would cost a lot of tax money from the rich globalists. Cutting taxes means some people are going to have to starve, and I'm ok with that. I don't want to pay for other people's kids; that's socialist! God bless Big Tech.
If you disagree with HFCSM, that's fine, but then don't call yourself fiscal conservative; because that's logically what fiscal conservatism means.
Lower taxes means less money for the poor which means poor children starve.
If you're fine with that, alright, but if you're not; don't call yourself fiscally conservative, because you are not. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just come as advertised and if you call yourself fiscally conservative, just make sure you understand what that means.
I don't like it when people write blank checks and falsely advertise their political ideology. Just be honest!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare, but his marketing sucks.
If I was Bernie Sanders and I wanted conservatives to support free healthcare (even if I wanted conservatives to support socialism), I would sell the following shirts with a sarcastic message on them:
The MAGA base isn't against socialism and they don't love the rich; they hate rich billionaires like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerburg. They merely hate whatever right wing media tells them to hate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say you have a dad and he murders and rapes a bunch of women. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your dad.
Lets say you have a great great grandparent and he enslaves a bunch of blacks. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your ancestor.
But all the pro black people won't change their minds because they have a party to stick too. My mind is free!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you have any disagreement and you want to state it, you are free to do so. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trumper: Donald Trump is awesome!
Me: Why?
Trumper: He increased funding for HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).
Me: So you like the fact that Trump increased government spending?
Trumper: Yes... no... (and then diverges to another topic)
We talked about politics for a while. I could only ask questions because I was at work. I asked him if he was pro free speech, and he said yes, but I still had to moderate myself because I was at work.
Me: I don't think it's fair that elderly people when they were my age got to go to college for $50 a semester and I have to pay $5K a semester.
Trumper: That's because the government spends too much money subsidizing colleges.
Me (after thinking about it; I didn't tell him this at the time): Didn't you just praise Trump for subsidizing HBCUs?
Trump can do pretty much anything and his base would eat it up or be like, "Well, um, I mean ..." and still vote for him anyways (like when Trump said he wants to be a dictator).
Conservatives accuse liberals of wanting to get rid of the constitution (me personally; I don't like the 16th amendment, but other than that, I love the 1st and 2nd amendment, as well as the 5th, 8th, 13-15th, and the 19th (this is not an exhaustive list)). So it's implied that conservatives like the constitution.
A quote from Trump:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
And his base will twiddle their thumbs because they don't have a good response (but they will vote for him anyways).
Trump can literally advocate nuking Manhattan and San Fransisco and Chicago to destroy the woke left and his base wouldn't be upset enough to vote against him for it; to them, it helps the right win elections. However, if Trump said we should legalize abortion, even though aborted babies (if born) would be more likely to be non-white, poor, entirely gen alpha (which I can assume will be more left wing than Gen Z), and future democrat voters in 18 years, the MAGA base would get angry at him for wanting to legalize what they believe is murder.
Legalizing abortions to prevent more democrat voters from being born? No; it's murder regardless of political ideology.
Actually NUKING left wing strongholds? Hell Yeah! Owning the LIBS!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: Should undocumented immigrants who don't murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: NO! THAT IS BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM!
Me: Should American Citizens who do murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: Yes. The State should take care of all prisoners in jail at the taxpayer's expense because we believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
Me: How about lets treat undocumented immigrants who don't murder better than American Citizens that do murder. I'm anti UHC and pro death penalty.
U=Undocumented immigrants getting government paid for healthcare.
M=Murderers getting government paid for healthcare.
\cap=Intersection
^C=Opposite
All of the following combinations make sense of who gets government paid for healthcare even if I don't personally agree with it:
1. U \cap M
2. U \cap M^C
3. U^C \cap M^C
My ideal is bolded.
This option does not (but it's the status quo of our country):
U^C \cap M
It's what the libertarians back.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: Can children consent?
Society: NO!!!
Me: So why is circumcision of babies a thing (or as I like to call it; chopping off penis foreskin)? The kids can't consent to that.
Society: Because the kid won't remember it (or parental rights).
Me: So your saying it's okay for a parent to have the right to have sex with their baby boy if the baby boy won't remember it?
Society: NO!!! Children can't consent as BABIES!!
Me: You need to pick one argument.
Either pick:
1. "Babies can't consent to (sex, genital mutilation)" so this would mean you advocate for keeping it illegal to having sex with babies AND you would want it to be illegal to do ANY form of genital mutilation on those who are too young to consent (whether you call this genital mutilation a gender surgery or cutting off dick foreskin). This means that religious officials and doctors who do dick foreskin chopping off get prosecuted by the police and tried the same as someone for raping a baby (so I would do the death penalty for that). It also means ANYONE that has cut the foreskin off of babies before the baby is a consenting adult is a groomer and would face the same penalty as child rape (which SHOULD mean death) if they do it beyond a legally established date. People that chop baby foreskin off before the date wouldn't be facing punishment, but people who do that after the date (a date I would want to make pretty soon) would be put to death for doing something as bad to a baby as raping them while they are a baby.
Or pick:
2. "The baby won't remember it and parental rights". So this means circumcision (and gender surgeries) are allowed to do on a baby that can't even consent yet because of parental rights, AND that it would be okay to have sex with your newborn on the grounds that they won't remember it.
I pick #1
If your religion tells you to do something as bad to a baby as raping them, you need to find a different religion. It doesn't matter if this religion is Christianity, Judaism, or Transgenderism.
LEAVE THE BABIES ALONE!!!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country). These people would be American Citizens, so they can’t be sent back to California. There are probably some hardcore blue California voters that would be happy to move to battleground states to turn them blue in exchange for financial compensation. Move them to slightly red districts to turn them blue.
Every red state either doesn’t have a lot of people (North Dakota, Wyoming) or is not very red (Texas, Florida) and if they aren’t too red, then sending red voters into states to make them redder would possibly cause their state to turn blue. California and NY don’t have this problem.
Newsom runs for POTUS and the left base gives him credit for it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are 2 possibilities: God burns ordinary people in hell for God does not burn ordinary people in hell.
If the 1st is true, then Christains are bootlickers for worshipping a God that enacts cruel and unusual punishment, and I worship tyrants; the constitution is a better source of legal ideology than the bible and all constitutional conservatives agree with this.
If the 2nd is true, I don't have to worship him because I'm not going to hell if I don't.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
On one hand, most Americans are hypocrites on the age of consent (if they are Christain).
Christain Americans: 13 YEAR OLDS CAN'T CONSENT!!
Me: Don't you worship a God that had sex with a 13 year old girl (Mary)? I mean, pedophilia or atheism, you decide bud.
But also if young people are allowed to legally consent to sex (Korea was the first person I met that defended pedophillia, so it's a new view to me and I kinda have to play Devils Advocate because when virtually everybody agrees with you, you don't come up with as good of arguments as someone that is in the ideological minority because the ideological minority thinks about the majority's positions way more than the other way around). A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.
Korea's argument: Children can consent.
Me response: What about drunk people? Can they consent?
His response: No; drunk people might regret the sex they have.
I don't think this is a good response. If sober adults consent to have sex and enjoy it the full time, but the woman regrets it an hour later (lets say she was a virgin and her hymen broke, so she regrets it an hour later), the man is not a rapist. If the woman gets an unintended pregnancy, she regrets that sex. But if a drunk person regrets sex 5 hours later, it's viewed as rape done by the sober party. So I don't think the fear of sexual regret is a good enough reason to charge someone with rape.
So either drunk people can consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly) or children can't consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly), or there is some other reason why drunk people can't consent but children can with Korea's logic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life. Pro choice people tend to be democrats who believe that the right to life outweighs fiscal autonomy (the right to not fiscally sacrifice for someone else). By the law of transitivity, if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
Consider the following question: Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction? If you believe that Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy, then you would have to believe that it's okay to be addicted to meth even if you must steal from people in the name of your bodily autonomy to be happy.
But lets be real; no normal person is okay with people being addicted to hard drugs if it means that the addict robs people to get high. So since this is a contradiction, I can't call myself pro choice.
If your pro life, you believe that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy (not in ALL cases, but in the specific case of what a parent has to provide their child).
Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive. Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney. However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)? If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
No matter if your pro choice or pro life, your going to have to bite the bullet. This is why I am strictly neutral on the abortion issue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The supreme court argued a storeowner can refuse to serve someone for being gay.
This to me sounds like a storeowner refusing to serve someone for being unvaccinated.
The right should treat gay people the same way they treat unvaccinated people (and vice versa).
Statement: If you are allowed to deny business to someone for being gay, your ALSO allowed to deny business to someone for being unvaccinated.
I think the converse, inverse, and contrapositive should apply equally.
Liberals think the converse and inverse shouldn't apply because they argue that the unvaccinated are putting other people at risk. To me, this barely makes sense because unvaccinated people are causing almost no vaccinated and boosted people to even get COVID, let alone die from the disease.
You need a little bit of risk to maintain liberty. Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and would lose both.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Now the left hates TERFs and the right loves them.
I respect TERFs for coming to their own conclusions.
But what doesn't make sense is why this is the case.
I mean, sure, the TERFs are right wing on trans issues. They ALSO are super pro choice (they ARE radical feminists after all).
So in a world that made sense, left wing trans activists and right wing pro life activists (who both would rather vote for a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women than a pro choicer that agrees with Matt Walsh on trans issues) would not like TERFS (for the trans activists, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro life activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice) and right wing Matt Walsh fanboys and left wing pro choice activists (who both would rather vote for a pro choicer that thinks transwomen are men than a pro lifer that thinks transwomen are women) would like TERFS (for the Matt Walsh fanboys, it's because the TERFs are right wing on trans issues which they prioritize and for pro choice activists, it's because TERFs are very pro choice).
But that doesn't happen because our society thinks more left vs right instead of actually supporting groups that agree with their main issue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
For the libertarians, it's "small government", which they argue leads to, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others". This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, anti gun control, anti ICE, anti war, and anti Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".
For leftists, it's "anti pain" (even if democrats don't realize this). This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues. They are pro weed, pro gun control, anti ICE, anti war (at least when America does it; but sending foreign aid to Ukraine helps reduce their pain), and pro Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "we should minimize pain".
The conservatives have no consistent ethos.
They stand for, "small government" unless it's immigration, the police, or military spending (strangely enough, conservatives want a higher military budget while not funding Ukraine's military even though America's military is almost exclusively for other country's goals if they are allies with the US), or for LGBT freedoms.
They stand for, "life" while being against Medicare for all, gun control, or an open border policy (which saves lives).
They stand for, "American tradition in 1980" unless it's Roe V Wade (an American tradition for 50 years). No matter what year conservatives think is the ideal year to base American policy off of, there will be SOME reality present in that year that conservatives will be opposed too. Any time before 1980 in the US had very high income taxes (unless the time was early enough to where segregation or slavery was reality, which conservatives SHOULD oppose). So no time period before 1980 has conservative ideals 100%. After 1973 (but before 2022), Roe V Wade was the law (and conservatives don't like Roe V Wade). Since all time is either after 1973 or before 1980 (or both), conservatives don't consistently stand for American tradition.
They stand for, "Chirstian tradition", which is code for, "Bible law" or, "Theocracy". The bible advocates open borders nearly all times immigrants are mentioned (What Does the Bible Say About Immigration? (openbible.info) contains dozens of pro open border bible quotes). The bible also advocates that loving money/capitalism is bad (What Does the Bible Say About Wealth? (openbible.info)). The bible also has some anti gay quotes (25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say? (biblestudytools.com)). The bible says that people that have gay sex should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). I think ALL of these positions (except immigration) are horrible positions and the conservatives believe that at least SOME of these positions are horrible positions. But if conservatives were consistently pro bible in their policies, I would agree with basically none of it, but at least I can respect it (like I only agree with democrats about 47% of the time, but at least I RESPECT their ideology).
They stand for, "Everything Trump says, I support" unless it comes to Trump telling his followers to get boosted against COVID. The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't boosted (and I think this is fine since I don't like vaccine mandates). But then don't act like Trump is so smart that you agree with everything he says, because he told you to get boosted and you claimed he was a sell out.
So I will tag some conservatives and ask them to define what their party consistently stands for.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Normal people: Nobody can be pro life and pro holocaust.
Ye West: Well, ACTUALLY.
If the Holocaust is brought back, this is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
DeSantis dismisses 2024 polling decline against Trump: 'I'm not a candidate' (msn.com). DeSantis isn't running in 2024; the republicans who are done with Trump are going to have to pick someone else
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What if in the US, if you could prove you were vegan for an entire consecutive year from April 16 to April 15, you had no federal income tax for that year. It gives people an incentive to not kill animals for food (the dairy industry kills baby calves and the egg industry kills chicks).
Anybody wanting to opt out of income taxes like this would have to do the following:
1) Film all the meals they eat for a year and have it sent to a state
2) Send all the receipts of the meals they ordered to the state so the state can fact check and make sure that no animal products were consumed in that year
Assuming that this vetting process happens, the reward is no federal income tax. I don't think too many people will take advantage of this, but those that do would see rewards for helping make the world a better place.
Those that choose to eat animal products won't get penalized for doing so.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My definition for a woman: Someone with a high ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
My definition for a man: Someone with a low ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
Lets see if this answers Matt Walsh's question, "What is a woman?"
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Imagine if Bud Light said that abortion is murder. All the dedicated pro choicers would boycott Bud Light. I think that would be immature. I think it's equally immature to boycott Bud Light over them claiming transwomen are women.
You have the right to do it, it's a free country. But if you DO boycott Bud Light, don't be claiming your against cancel culture when you cancel Bud Light for disagreeing with you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Lets say your driving above the speed limit when you don't have too for pleasure (like people have sex when they don't have too for pleasure). Lets say that you end up accidentally running someone over while driving above the speed limit and the only way they will survive is if you give them a kidney. Lets say they were in a cross walk so they were crossing the street legally.
This analogy presents the fact that if you didn't screw up, somebody wouldn't be needing you for help (just like with pregnency/recreational sex/abortion). If I did this to someone and they needed my kidney, I would absolutely oblige since I screwed them up, I would feel a personal obligation to save their life since I caused them to be dependent on me. However, forcing OTHERS to oblige if they are in a similar situation seems too authoritarian to me. You SHOULD save the person that you caused to be dependent on you, but it's not an obligation.
I have to treat an unborn baby the same way up until the moment of birth. I'm not proud of this, but I have to be consistent.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My moral code is:
One does not have an obligation to help, just to not harm.
Because of this, I believe the following:
1) No UHC and socialized medicine, food, or housing.
2) Abolish ICE while giving nothing of financial value to undocumented immigrants that are here. Deporting the undocumented is harming them; but not giving them free stuff is just not helping them.
3) Ban abortion beyond 8 weeks; it harms the unborn because they are getting killed, with the penalty being a lifetime sales tax of 10% imposed upon both parents of the aborted baby. I can see the argument for how it harms then woman, but I'll give her 8 weeks to abort (unless she was raped, then it's 12 weeks, or the abortion saves her life, then it's up to 40 weeks) since I don't think a zygote or an embryo is a human, but a fetus is. Expand the Hyde amendment so if rape victims or life saving abortion want to be performed, the person getting them must pay for them. I don't have an obligation to help them out.
4) Pro veganism; when I live on my own, I intend on going vegan 100% of the time and I support ending animal death. The meat industry kills innocent animals it's disgusting.
5) Abolish the income tax, and when the stock market becomes big enough, nationalize a tiny portion of the stock market so the dividends pay for government expenditures without taxes (this is when the stock market becomes big enough). In the meantime, fund all government expenditures with a sales tax on neceseties and luxuries and a capital gains tax.
6) Replace all fossil fuels with nuclear energy to combat climate change; if solar panels were a useful way to combat climate change, Obama would have solar panels. Same with Clinton and anybody that tries to get the US to go solar. Build nuclear power plants to combat climate change and get America relying 75% on nuclear energy. Sell the plants to the private sector.
7) Chop off the heads of murderers and rapists because I don't want society having our tax dollars helping murderers and rapists live. This is harming the murderer or rapist, but it's better than harming the taxpayer by having them fund the living expenses of the worst people in this country. If somebody has to be harmed, it's better for the murderers and rapists to be harmed.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Can anyone give me a definition that it's followers live up to 100% of the time?
If Matt Walsh can ask what is a woman, I think I can ask these questions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"We must ban owning cars for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from car accidents. Take public transit; move to a big city and use their public transit system. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate blood donation for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not having blood. Nobody needs all their blood and you can lose some to save lives! If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate adopting children for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not being adopted. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban dogs for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from dog bites. Nobody needs pitbulls or any other dog breed If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban AR 15s for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from mass shootings. Nobody needs an AR 15. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
If Statements 1 to 4 are stupid, so is statement 5. Shall not be infringed!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
1) Paying off the entire US debt using the following plan:
2) Aim to increase the stock market 500% by increasing our population 500% and putting the people in the counties that want them.
3) Want the federal standard for abortion to be up to 8 weeks into pregnancy (unless your a rape victim, then you get 12 weeks, or unless you need the abortion to save your life, then up until the moment of birth)
4) Protect family values; more prosecutions for deadbeat dads, and making sure fathers raise their kids. This includes if the fathers are undocumented. All fathers matter.
5) Bring back the death penalty in every state for murderers rapists, and kidnappers, saving $25.2 billion a year, and using that money to give our struggling teachers a $8400 a year raise, providing better education for our kids since better people would be attracted to teaching.
6) Nationalize the education system once the US debt is paid off so the states can use the money they dedicated for education to pay off their state debts (teachers get a starting salary of $68400 a year)
7) Implement a federal rape victim insurance plan. It works by every female paying $.15 a day to the federal government and if they get raped, get pregnant from the rape, and are able to successfully prosecute their rapist, they get $300,000 restitution for the trauma of being raped. If they abort, they get $100,000. The rapist gets killed.
8) Replace prison sentences with lashings for minor crimes to save the taxpayer money and to reduce re offense rates.
9) Anyone that steals would be subject to a day of hard labor per $160 they stole. After their sentence, the state hooks them up to a job to where they don't have to steal anymore because they are busy and not poor anymore. The job would pay $40,000 per year with healthcare as a salary. The jobs they would be doing are outlined here:
10) Run this country like a buisiness; customers aren't kicked out for being undocumented, customers pay money for the stuff they get here (taxes, jobs, goods and services bought here), this business doesn't bomb other businesses in war unless for self defense, and America gets rich off of freedom.
If anyone disagrees with any part of this, let me know; I don't block and it's okay if we don't agree 100%; I don't expect anyone too and I'm not going to get mad over disagreements.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The reason for this is because democrat politicians are trying to make the country better, whereas some republican politicians and most republican voters have double standards in place that I don't respect.
Republicans in 2008: Child rape should be punished with death! Child rapists are horrible people (they are RIGHT here in my opinion)
Roy Moore: Rapes a child
Republicans(most of them): We'll vote for him. We think he is a child rapist, but he has an R next to his name, so we will vote for him.
Republicans: Abortion is evil; abortion is murder and we believe murder should be punished with death (so logically, you can assume they want abortion to be punished with death)(I don't think it's pragmatic to execute 1/6 of the country for getting or paying for an abortion). Also Family values, deadbeat dads should raise their kids (they are right; deadbeats deserve further punishment if they don't raise their kids)
Herschel Walker: Yeah; I agree with you. Also, I'm the father of an aborted baby. And I'm a deadbeat to 4 kids.
Republicans: We'll vote for you to own the libs.
Republicans: We want to cut taxes.
Me: Less taxes=less government services. What do you want to cut?
Republicans: We don't want to tell you, we just want lower taxes.
Republicans: We support back the blue (except for Capital police officers on Jan 6)
Republicans: We want less people on welfare (never call out their own base when they are on welfare)
I'm sick of the hypocrisy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college. The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people. If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people.
If your worried about democrats coming into power, what you might want to do is abolish political parties and force every politician to run as an independent so there are no parties. But the thing to first do is rank choice voting, 5 candidates, each of whom must have up to 10 policy agendas that they fight for and between 3 to 7 of them have to be left wing ideas and between 3 to 7 of them have to be right wing ideas. This way, voters are selecting somebody that they agree with at least 80% of the time instead of at least 50% of the time.
If this happens, there is no need for the electoral college because every vote would be equal, just like it is in all 50 states; it's not like in Nevada, where the vast majority of the population of that state lives in Clark County, it's not like Nevada has an electoral college where counties with less population are given more votes. This is true for every other state in the union. So why not for the country at large? And get rid of the senate; it represents Wyoming and Vermont per capita way more than California or Texas.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If one believes the election is rigged, then they don't vote in it. If you think the voting machines are going to switch your pro Trump votes to pro Biden ones, then what's the point in voting if the elites decided who the winner is going to be?
You vote because you trust the electoral process. Otherwise, don't vote in the elections that you think are going to be rigged against you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If a muslim says that they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right (I think) would want that muslim prosecuted for hate speech. I mean, many right wing states banned BDS protests (which being pro BDS agree with it or not is not the same thing as being anti Jewish people) and the right never screams about, "free speech" when it benefits Palestinains
But if a white christain Trump supporter says they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right views it as, "hate speech is free speech".
The left is consistent with both. No matter if it was Christain or Muslim, they would claim it's hate speech that should get prosecuted. I can at least respect that.
But I'm a free speech absolutist, so for me, it wouldn't matter if the person that said it is Christain or Muslim, I think it's protected speech. Now if they act on it and murder Jewish people, I'd want the murderer put to death with a public beheading. But if it's just all talk, I think prosecuting someone for speech is too authoritarian. This is whether Christian or Muslim.
The reason why I'm a free speech absolutist is I'm going to say 3 statements I may or may not agree with (this means I agree with it, this means I don't)
1) Death to murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
2) Death to J walkers, baseball players, and singers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
3) Death to Jews, blacks, people that have gay sex, and people that cut off their dicks. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
The left thinks that groups 1 and 2 are free speech that should be legal to say, whereas #3 is hate speech that should be banned. I think they are all free speech (and hate speech, because it is speech where you are hating someone and all of these claims hate SOME group of people). But I think hate speech is free speech.
The only sort of alternative view I could see is thinking #1 should be legal whereas 2 and 3 are banned because nothing is wrong (in most people's views) with being in 2 or 3, but there is something wrong with being in 1. But I really think saying anything in #2 should be legal, so I have to treat #3 the same way.
I wonder if someone said, "Death to women that get 8 week abortions. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.", where that would fly under. Some people think it's as bad as murder, so it would be #1, but others think it's #3 because they don't see it as murder. I don't know how you can objectively determine where such a statement would fall under, but I have a feeling the left would want that statement banned under hate speech, just like they would for the other items in #3.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
They should spend money on training Americans to protect themselves rather than rely on the police to protect them. When your house or business is being robbed, when your 8 year old daughter is being raped, don't rely on the police. The police are minutes away when you need protection within seconds.
Introducing: The 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The amendment greater than all the others (including the first), because it PROTECTS all of the others. All of the amendments are worth keeping except for #16; the state should not be entitled to the fruits of my labor.
With this amendment, you can protect yourself within seconds rather than rely on the government that take minutes.
But a 2nd amendment is no good if people don't have guns. This is why I call for cutting funding for police significantly; if someone is robbing you or raping you, you are expected to know how to use a shotgun, a glock, an AR 15, or pepper spray to protect your home or body from the criminal. Who needs the cops; we got guns! If you don't know how to shoot well enough to protect your home, that's on you. Learn to protect yourself rather than rely on the inefficient government police force.
Shall Not Be Infringed! The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants, and a rapist is a tyrant for forcing his will upon a victim in an unjustified context.
More power to we the people, and less power to the government!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Open borders presentation - Google Slides. Anyone that disagrees with the ideas stated here should check out this presentation; I think I addressed everything.
Hopefully DART doesn't censor MA FREE SPEECH!!
Feel free to like if you agree.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The only definition I can think of to define a human being is based on the definition I would use to define a woman, a man, or an ear of corn.
When defining nouns, I think it’s okay to show people pictures of what a human, woman, man, or ear of corn look like, and expect people to figure out what is a human, woman, man, or war of corn.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/interactive-pregnancy-tool-fetal-development?week=8 shows the pictures of human development in the pregnancy. At conception, the pregnancy doesn’t look like it contains a human being. I just don’t think it does. 8 weeks is a different story. At 8 weeks, that looks pretty human to me, so I wouldn’t legalize killing an 8 week pregnancy. Basically, I think abortion should be legal up until 8 weeks into pregnancy and banned beyond this point. You find out you’re pregnant at 6 weeks, so you still have time to abort under this model. Make this the federal standard.
I don’t believe bodily autonomy arguments are good, and if anyone believe that bodily autonomy is a good argument, let me know and we will see if bodily autonomy is a good argument. But here is kind of why I do think bodily autonomy is a good argument:
Let’s say that there are these 2 people in a relationship (a man and a woman). Let’s say the woman is being a total asshole to the man, the worst asshole you can imagine, and she causes the man so much emotional stress from the relationship. Let’s also say the man cannot do the following things:
1) Tell her she is being annoying while expecting it to reduce stress, because this would be like a pregnant female telling her fetus to stop being annoying. She can do it, but don’t expect it to deliver results because fetuses don’t speak English.
2) Break up with her, because this would be like the pregnant female breaking up with the fetus. If she does this, the fetus is aborted. If breaking up with your girlfriend resulted in her death, people wouldn’t let you brake up with a girlfriend you chose to get into a relationship with.
His only 2 options are:
1) Suck it up; deal with the stress for 9 months.
2) Kill his mentally abusive girlfriend through painless methods. A gunshot to the back of the head does this.
Should he be allowed to pick the 2nd option? Absolutely not; suck up the mental pain because your temporary pain is not worth your girlfriend’s life. You chose to get into this relationship knowing the hypothetical consequences, so you deal with the girlfriend for 9 months.
Now you know why I don’t believe bodily autonomy is a good argument.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Texas law states that if you have 10 kids, you don't have to pay property tax.
They also banned abortion because the Texas government claimed a zygote is a kid.
So what am I going to do? I want to move to Texas, and If I'm able to own multiple houses, I want to freeze 10 zygotes in a freezer, pay at most $7000 for freezer fees, and (if I own dozens of properties), save $tens of thousands on property taxes. And I'm able to do all of this because the Texas government believes that a zygote is a human being that should be treated exactly like a baby.
Now lets say your pro choice, but you never want to be the parent of an aborted baby. Well, if you move to Texas, you have a vested interest in Texas keeping abortion banned so you can freeze zygotes in a freezer to avoid paying property tax. If Texas decides to legalize abortion, you may feel good about it since your pro choice, but you also are going to have to pay a lot of property tax money to Texas, so you may want abortion banned in the state just so Texas classifies a zygote as a human being so you can keep your property tax savings. I mean, if your pro choice but never want to be the parent of an aborted baby, then the abortion laws don't effect you. Now, if you get a girl pregnant accidentally and you want to abort, then that's a different story; you go to a state that will legalize abortion, you abort, and you come back. But you still live in Texas (and you would vote for pro life republicans so you can keep you can avoid paying property tax,keeping abortion banned in Texas). You can pay for the travelling fees with the money you saved from property tax.
Now, if everyone in Texas took advantage of this, your going to have a lot of embryos stored in freezers and no property tax coming into the Texas'es state treasury. So then Texas might do at least one of the 2 things that they don't want to do:
1) Don't classify a zygote as a human, so legalize abortion so they can collect property tax money. This is going to lead to potentially hundreds of millions of zygotes being killed, but if they aren't people, this is legal.
2) Impose an income tax on it's residents (because property tax no longer generates any revenue if every person took advantage of this).
They might increase the sales tax, but the sales tax only raises so much revenue. But they need to raise taxes to generate revenue instead of the property tax, or they could not count zygotes as human beings so they can have no income and sales tax and rely on the property tax.
Not only this, but ANY state where abortion is banned because of the belief that it kills a human being, the residents there can use a similar hack and avoid paying federal taxes (and maybe state taxes as well because the state may have child tax beneftis) because the federal government provides an average of about $5000 per child that is a dependent of the family as a tax cut and if zygotes are human beings, no matter how pro choice you are, you have a vested interest in your state banning abortion so you can freeze a zygote and collect the tax savings that resulted from that zygote being dependent on you. If you ever decide to get an abortion, you can head over to a blue state for one. The federal government is going to have to do something similar to Texas, where they either legalize abortion nationwide or eliminate the child tax credit, but if they eliminate the child tax credit, then all the families that have zygotes stored in freezers are going to kill their zygotes illegally (unless the federal government legalizes abortion nationwide) if they live in red states.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
People claim vaccine mandates are in the name of public health. I'm just curious as to how far does the, "public health" argument go? Like would you mandate boosters for example?
Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now? | KFF claims that the majority of dead people from COVID are vaccinated people (60%) while COVID vaccination rates - Search (bing.com) states that less than 2/3 of the US population is fully vaxxed or more.
In other words, being vaccinated alone barely prevents you from dying of COVID.
To be fair, the article calls for getting people to get boosters. But only about 1 in 3 Americans have the booster. Are you REALLY going to mandate something that less than a third of the country has for every job out there and to enter restaurants?
Comparing vaccine mandates to the Holocaust as what MTG did; horrible comparison; really, that's just pathetic.
But vaccine mandates nonetheless aren't worth keeping around because excluding the majority of society from public life over a vaccine that not taking it makes you less than 1 pt more likely to die of COVID than without the vacciene.
There are but 2 non arbitrary positions you can take with regard to vacciene mandates, don't mandate any shots or mandate the updated booster. Mandating the updated booster excludes the vast majority of America (Less than 4% of U.S. adults have gotten updated Covid booster shots (nbcnews.com)).
So the only consistent option is no vacciene mandates.
If 99.9% of the US population got their boosters, then you could conceive of mandating the booster; but when it's about 1/3 of the country, it's not pragmatic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I’ve noticed that the word, “woke” is defined very differently by the left and right
The left defines woke as being aware of racial struggles. The right defines it as political correctness and sensitive outrage against people for opinions.
The dictionary definitions, like most definitions, lets the left have their way because the left makes up the majority of America’s population. But I think DeSantis viewed the term in the right wing definition, which is pink haired college kid who gets offended when Ben Shapiro talks about his ideas.
I don’t think DeSantis should have said Florida is where woke goes to die if the left is correct on what it means to be woke. But there needs to be a new term to describe the pink haired gender studies major who gets offended at everything right wingers and their supporters say. Whatever that term is, “call it snowflake”, or DeSantis said Florida is where snowflakes go to melt, would it still be offensive? Surely we can all be against snowflakes.
When I refer to snowflakes, I do not refer to BLM supporters, Medicare for all supporters, or supporters of any left wing cause. I refer to people that block over political disagreement and people that are unwilling to hear opinions they dislike, whether left or right. Some of the biggest snowflakes I have met are on the right. I got kicked out of a GOP club for being anti war and anti ICE and leaning into these talking points under the justification of small government (now they all oppose the war in Ukraine, but still want to fund our military a lot for no reason other than a false sense of safety). Those people are snowflakes, and Florida should be where they go to melt too. But there are many people on the left that are snowflakes and they should ALSO be called out on it.
Love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter if they are right wing, left wing, LGBT, unvaccinated, undocumented, pro life, pro choice, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man. As long as they are a good person that doesn’t harm anyone else and that treats others well, you do the same.
The left defines woke as being aware of racial struggles. The right defines it as political correctness and sensitive outrage against people for opinions.
The dictionary definitions, like most definitions, lets the left have their way because the left makes up the majority of America’s population. But I think DeSantis viewed the term in the right wing definition, which is pink haired college kid who gets offended when Ben Shapiro talks about his ideas.
I don’t think DeSantis should have said Florida is where woke goes to die if the left is correct on what it means to be woke. But there needs to be a new term to describe the pink haired gender studies major who gets offended at everything right wingers and their supporters say. Whatever that term is, “call it snowflake”, or DeSantis said Florida is where snowflakes go to melt, would it still be offensive? Surely we can all be against snowflakes.
When I refer to snowflakes, I do not refer to BLM supporters, Medicare for all supporters, or supporters of any left wing cause. I refer to people that block over political disagreement and people that are unwilling to hear opinions they dislike, whether left or right. Some of the biggest snowflakes I have met are on the right. I got kicked out of a GOP club for being anti war and anti ICE and leaning into these talking points under the justification of small government (now they all oppose the war in Ukraine, but still want to fund our military a lot for no reason other than a false sense of safety). Those people are snowflakes, and Florida should be where they go to melt too. But there are many people on the left that are snowflakes and they should ALSO be called out on it.
Love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter if they are right wing, left wing, LGBT, unvaccinated, undocumented, pro life, pro choice, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man. As long as they are a good person that doesn’t harm anyone else and that treats others well, you do the same.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
2 issues that should be considered, abortion and transgenderism.
Me personally, I don't care about either one of these issues; not enough scientific evidence is there for me to believe a zygote is a human being and I'm not trans.
But the left and the right believe something very different.
The left's argument:
"Abortion bans and not calling transwomen women negatively impact women and transgenders."
The right's argument:
"Abortion legalization harms the unborn and transwomen are men pretending to be women because that's science"
When the left claims that all these science groups claim that transwomen are women, the right proceeds to ask, "What is a woman?" of which the left has no decent answer that encompasses transwomen and ciswomen and excludes transmen and cis men. They also don't have a good definition for what a man is. The right has their definition; it's based on chromosomes, but the left won't accept this definition because they believe transwomen are women.
I asked Quora people (who were both pro choice and believed transwomen are women) who they would rather support, a pro lifer that believed transwomen are women or a pro choicer that agreed with Matt Walsh on transgenderism.
To my surprise, the left on Quora cares more about transgenderism than abortion, so they perferred the pro lifer that believes that transwomen are women.
Now if your on the right, you believe that abortion should be banned and that transwomen are men pretending to be women. What issue do they care about more? I would imagine abortion, because from their perspective, 800,000 dead unborn children per year is a bigger issue than whether or not you call the few trans people you know by their preferred pronouns. To confirm this, my conservative brother told me he cares more about abortion than transgenderism.
So here's the deal I would support: The moment the right can define what a woman is in a way that excludes (cis and trans) men and includes cis women and transwomen and the moment the right can define what a man is in a way that excludes (cis and trans) women and includes cis women and transmen, they can enact a right to life amendment in the constitution that outlaws abortion nationwide (you can have an exception for rape and/or mother's life if you want that, you can enact exception for fetal defects if you want, you can leave these rare situations up to the states if you want; the left got their victory with transgenderism, now you get to have your victory with abortion laws written in the constitution so they won't be able to be overturned unless 3/4 of the states vote for that).
From my experience, the left cares more about transgenderism (an issue where the right has their way since the majority of America agrees with the right on this issue) and the right cares more about abortion (an issue where even with Roe gone, a majority of states have abortion legal.)
But then the right has to define women in a way that would get the trans community what they want, which is to be recognized as their perceived gender.
Lets make a deal!
Then once these very polarizing issues are settled, we can focus on something less divisive.
You can propose counteroffers to this idea if you want; but both sides get what they want out of this deal. But I want some sort of deal to be made so we can focus on something less divisive.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left: We don't believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.
Also the left: We support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (but we want to reduce the abortion rate of zygotes)
Me: If you believe that zygotes aren't people, why would you care what the abortion rate of zygotes is? If I kill a pig for meat, nobody (except vegeterians and vegans) cares about how many animals get killed for food, because it's viewed by the majority that farm animals aren't human. If you REALLY believe a zygote or even an embryo isn't a human being, why would you want to reduce the rate at which they get killed? They aren't human after all, so it shouldn't matter how often they get killed. Collect stats on it if you want for data's sake, but don't advocate for reducing the death rate of something you think is just a clump of cells.
The right is consistent on this front. They believe a zygote is a human being so they want less of them killed. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's worth respect. The left isn't being consistent. They want to reduce the death rate of zygotes but they don't believe zygotes are human beings, so why aim to reduce the death rate of zygotes?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I 100% agree.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Anytime a head of state sends their country to fight an offensive war, they got to send one of their children to fight in it. The UN makes this international law and enforce this law like all other laws are enforced.
Let’s see how quickly the wars end. This is for Yemen, Ukraine, Palestine; end the bloodshed!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you like Trump, try to convince me to vote for him.
If you don’t like Trump, try to convince me to not vote for him.
The Never Trumpers and the MAGA crowd have made up their minds. I have not. If Trump wins in 2024, it won’t be because of the Never Trump Crowd or the MAGA crowd. It will be because of swing voters like me.
So make your case. I’m going to tag one never Trumper and one person that I think is in the MAGA crowd, but anyone is free to convince me to vote, or to not vote for Donald Trump if he runs in 2024 and beats DeSantis in the primary. Let’s say it’s 2024, Biden vs Trump rematch.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think the answer is yes. If you don’t like the rules of your religion, then leave the religion. Not mandated by law, but what I think people should do. I’m not religious; I can’t follow the rules of any religion 100%.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
So not all republicans are white supremests, but pretty much all white supremests are republicans.
But why? If you believe the way white people have done things in this world is the best out of any other race, you would have to believe the following ideas are great ideas:
1) Secure the border; keep non white people out.
2) Universal healthcare.
3) Free college
4) High taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs
5) Abortion is legal; and paid for by the government for all that want them up until 12 to 20 weeks into pregnancy.
6) Hate speech is banned
7) Transwomen are women
It sounds like claiming white culture is the best culture in the world is akin to saying social democratic policies are the best in the world (except for immigration).
Social democracy is western civilization.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
https://costplusdrugs.com. If you need any life saving drugs, go to Cuban for them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being. But I think a fetus is a human being.
In addition, Forbes states only 34% of the US population supports abortion being legal for 2nd trimester or more.
Because of this, I support a national abortion ban at 12 weeks into pregnancy. If a state wants to ban all abortions (except for rape and maternal life), that’s fine; 39% of the country agrees with them.
Here is the compromise try at I support: National abortion ban at 12 weeks. Every state must legalize abortion for rape victims up until 12 weeks (because abortion at that point is self defense; if I got raped, I’m not paying child support) and for maternal life up until the moment of birth (because I think maternal life outweighs fetal life for these rare cases).
The states are going to make their own laws regarding abortion in this framing. If you want an abortion and you live in a red state, you must travel to a state that will perform your abortion.
Punishments for illegal abortion:
Any woman that gets a late term abortion (24 weeks or more) when their life or health did not require it and if there was no fetal defect should be put to death; that’s murder, and the penalty for murder should be death. Since this is very few people, it’s pragmatic to implement this. The fetus endured pain from that abortion (and it was a lot of pain), and since they had plenty of time to abort beforehand, the proper penalty is the same as stabbing an infant; the death penalty; especially when you can do a c section and be fine; late term abortions of healthy babies without the mother dying without an abortion should be punished with death.
The penalty for illegal abortions that aren’t late term should be a lifetime sales tax imposed upon both genders of the aborted baby equally (10%). These abortions are common so they have to be treated as such.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Where I stand on issues - Google Sheets is where I stand on every issue I could think of. I've updated it since last time. I think I changed my stance on transgenderism thanks to YouFoundLxam. I may have changed my stance on a few other issues as well.
If you disagree with anything I said here; feel free to let me know.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Most left wing voters are against:
1) Fossil Fuels
2) Nuclear energy
When asking them their ideal energy source, they say renewable energy sources. If they REALLY supported renewable energy sources, they would own solar panels if they could afford it. But they don't, implying that they want OTHERS to use solar energy and to pay for panels but they personally don't want solar energy. This seems hypocritical.
Every pro solar politician should be required to buy solar panels out of their $174,000 a year salary if they tell the rest of us to get panels. Otherwise, why should I get solar panels?
I think America with our current population should build 300 more nuclear power plants to provide clean and cheap energy and to make Ameria more energy independent.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you fired every unvaccinated person from their job, the unemployment rate would skyrocket. It’s not worth raising the unemployment rate to 8% from 3% over a vaccine mandate. I don’t want to pay for the unvaccinated people’s welfare.
I don’t think a company should be allowed to fire you for ANY of the following reasons:
1) Your unvaccinated
2) Your LGBT
3) You post politically incorrect things on the internet (or if your super woke; I don’t want AOC supporters fired from their jobs).
4) You are undocumented.
5) Your race, religion, or gender
We need to make it easier to get jobs to minimize the welfare state.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This is what the conservatives have become:
Conservatives: We are pro life. I think they are more right here since I think there should be a punishment for abortion. But the penalty should be a lifetime 10% sales tax on anything bought for the rest of their life, but the sole person who ensures the tax is the father of the aborted baby. Any parent of an aborted baby should be barred from public office unless the pregnancy was conceived through rape, there are fetal defects, or is a threat to the life of the mother.
Reality: Herschel Walker paid for an abortion. But he denies it but still calls himself a Republican.
Conservatives: We will vote for him. He is on our team.
Conservatives: Child rape must be punished with death. I think they are right here; I don’t want my tax dollars feeding them. They beloved this in 2008, and a majority of the American population supports the death penalty for rape I think (I’m not sure, but this is out of my experience)
Reality: Roy Moore is a child rapist.
Conservatives: We will vote for him because he’s a republican. Alabama’s governor would support him even if he was a child rapist because all she cares about is the party of the politician.
Conservatives: We need to cut welfare. I shouldn’t pay for my neighbor’s bills. I think every person that uses government assistance should be required to have a government job so society gets improved for those living off of taxpayers. Exceptions are for those with bad disabilities, but if you have kids, you should not be allowed to live on welfare.
Reality: Many welfare recipients vote Republican. Not all. Maybe not even the majority, but many. They often have more kids than what they can afford to raise, like what happens in Kiryas Joel. This not an insult to all people living there, but the able bodied people living anywhere in the US should be required to get off of government funds or get a government job within a year. After that, the welfare state is virtually eliminated. I would rather have blue voters on welfare than red voters because blue voters that are on welfare don’t vote against their economic interests. With few exceptions, I criticize EVERYONE on welfare, whether they vote blue or red.
Conservatives: Never criticize their own voters for living on welfare.
Conservatives: We don’t like identity politics. I agree with them here; I ignore race, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression and even documentation status. I see it (everyone does), but I ignore it.
Reality: Donald Trump appoints someone to the Supreme Court just because she’s a woman. Fox News ends up praising minority conservatives like Nicci Haley for being minority female conservatives when their ethnic background or gender shouldn’t matter. They point to Dave Rubin as “one of the good ones”, but they should “IGNORE” his gayness.
Conservatives: They have tokens just like the left.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics