Total topics: 460
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
Anybody who says, "30,000 people die from guns a year and guns are the reason" doesn't have the goal of banning AR 15. They have the goal of banning all guns, but they know that position isn't too popular, so they are doing what they can to shift the overton window. This is what you believe if you are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP) and you don't believe the government would go tyrannical and you want to copy the UK gun culture.
The UK jails people for misgendering online (I've read articles hinting at this that I can't remember), but the left thinks this is justified in the name of reducing the unwanted pain of the trans community.
I don't agree with censorship of any kind, but I can see the logic in it if one is consistent with their AUP morals.
The right wants the 2nd amendment to defend against tyranny, so you figure they would be against getting rid of the constitution and they would vote against anyone who came out in favor of terminating the constitution:
Never mind, they love this guy.
I love the 1st and 2nd amendments (and others; like the 8th and 13th) and I don't like voting for broadly anti constitution candidates.
The majority of the people that vote for anti constitution candidates don't love the constitution as much as they think they do.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Pro vaccine and Pro scientist: Remy: Affluenflammation (Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication Parody) (youtube.com). This video is pre COVID.
So why the parties largely switched on vaccines I don't know.
Even libertarian sites aren't consistent. It's one thing if they change their minds and admit it; but if the green party endorsed smallpox vaccienes, then reason.com would treat that vacciene like how they treated the COVID vacciene.
I think it's a mistake to not get vaccinated, but it's your right to make that mistake. The size of the mistake depends on the deadliness of the disease.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Fiscal conservatism: The belief that it is morally justified to let children that are poor, homeless, or undocumented starve to death and freeze to death in order to save money on the taxes of the well off (defined as top 50% of the country fiscally) and to cut government spending by 2% or so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I accept this label and I would call myself somebody that is fiscally conservative and I don't care how unpopular this makes me.
But if you don't agree with fiscal conservatism, I don't judge and it's totally understandable.
But most people who call themselves fiscally conservative, socially liberal; I call them the Anti-Trump Republicans; people who are fine with letting children starve and freeze to death in order to save money on their taxes and to cut government spending; but hate Trump for talking without a filter.
Fiscal conservatives; you know who you are. Own it; understand that in a world where everyone understands what the label means, most people would strongly disagree and my fiscal conservatism is probably truly backed by like 20% of the population. And I'm fine with that, because I prefer honesty, transparency, and bluntness to popularity among the American Public.
So once this is understood, democrats (Bernie Sanders style) are going to win every election hands down and I don't know how the conservatives are going to be different than Bernie Sanders on any issue if they want power again [Bernie could give lots of foreign aid money, all disagreement would get labeled as, "fiscally conservative" (which would be an insult similar to how the word "racist" is an insult right now. Calling someone a racist used to be a compliment or neutral term as Fiscally conservative kindof is now, but that might change once word get out)].
Against foreign aid? Then you are fiscally conservative.
Against socialism? Then you are fiscally conservative, and this belief produces pain for the poor if the belief is in power.
Against free healthcare (even for the undocumented)? Then you are fiscally conservative.
Insults are the easiest way to bend most right wingers into submission (if the insult can't be disputed). You call the right racist over wanting the border wall, that insult is disputed because the right denies being undocumented is a race. You call them undocuphobic, and the right would advocate abolishing ICE because they are cowards; they are afraid of being insulted in an undisputable way (and they don't really have a backbone).
Now I do have a backbone; I'm fiscally conservative and if people don't like me for it, then so be it.
But the left wants to reduce unwanted pain and the right wants to promote it. The right is sadistic; all of their ideology disagreements with the left either produce pain or there is a dispute to if pain is produced from the belief. If there is a consistent reason for it (liberty like with guns, or abortion with anti-homicide), then fine.
But not all of their beliefs are anti-homicide or pro liberty (for harmless people) to own AR 15s if it's fairly certain they won't murder with the guns. Some of their beliefs are done in the name of, "law and order", (which is the opposite of liberty) like deportations and the police killing black American Citizens. You don't need to be a race hustler to be against the government/police officers having the power to kill people without due process, nulling the 5th amendment.
On issues like deportations and police brutality, the right is sadistic and I am strongly against taking pleasure in the suffering of those who didn't have due process rights and I'm not sure how they would deny that argument.
Starving kids in Africa; I'm cool with letting them starve to death; but I don't take pleasure in doing it. I just prefer my money to their life in the name of fiscal conservatism.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" (Ephesians 6:5).
The Christain apologist defense of this quote: Couldn't find anything (gotquestions.org Ephesians 6:5 - Search (bing.com)).
If one can't find a bible verse that contradicts this, then the bible is pro slavery. Otherwise, the bible contradicts its self and therefore is not an all knowing document.
But, Lincoln the republican before law based on religion.
Yankees are based.
Burn the confederate flag.
And expand constitutional carry and no more vacciene mandates.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Group 1:
Claim 1: Racial Diversity is a strength in the classroom!
Claim 2: Students learn best when their teacher is the same race as them.
Reason: A racially diverse classroom will have some students not the same race as their teacher.
Group 2:
Claim 1: The republicans freed the slaves during the Civil War and this is why the Civil war was fought.
Claim 2: The Civil War was not about slavery.
Reason: I don't think I need to explain.
At least PragerU takes the position I agree with here: Was the Civil War About Slavery? (youtube.com)
Group 3:
Claim 1: Undocumented immigrants (UIs) should get deported.
Claim 2: The death penalty should be abolished.
Claim 3: Murder is worse than coming here illegally and murderers should be treated worse.
Reason: If you want UIs deported, then you don't want them getting free healthcare. If you are against the death penalty, then you support murderers getting free healthcare.
This claim goes against Claim 3, which I believe is a tautoligy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It's a test with as many questions as you want, all the questions are in theory very easy, they are all true/false, but if you get even one answer wrong, you are a felon. You aren't allowed to ask for help because that "ruins the mood" and you are expected to read her mind.
Are you going to want to take that test and even answer a single question? I wouldn't want too.
That's what sex is to me. Every answer has to be correct (consensual) or else you are a felon.
If that's reality, then I want 0 questions on my test. I can't get any wrong if I don't answer any questions.
"Safe words". If she uses a safe word, then you have already done something sexual to her without her consent. So if she uses a safe word on you, then you are a rapist until the definition of rape changes to someone that has sex immediately after the safe word is uttered by either party.
I want no questions on my test.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think it solves as good evidence that the sex you had was consensual.
I've heard people want privacy. Then why can't you print out 2 forms in the privacy of your home?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
All of these leagues have divisions (races) and they try to get a diverse group of teams from all the divisions to compete in the playoffs and if you are a really good team, but enough other teams are a lot better, then you don't get in because a higher ceded team from a worse division took your spot.
It's Affirmative Action.
It should be a strict meritocracy.
Don't judge by the content of their record, not by whether that division has privilege or not by other teams tending to do better.
Affirmative action is bad.
I genuinely believe this, so I don't watch sports to protest. But anybody that watches professional sports is supporting Affirmative Action.
This is fine; you have free speech, but just understand that.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Me: So Christians; do you believe Jesus paid for everyone's sins?
Christians: Yes.
Me: So I automatically go to heaven?
Christians: Yes.
Me: So why do I have to be Christain? I'm going to heaven no matter what.
Christians: You only go to heaven if you believe in God and Jesus.
Me: You believe in God and Jesus and you believe when you die, you will go to heaven?
Christians: Yes.
Me: And you believe living in heaven is unimaginably better than life here?
Christians: Yes.
Me: And Jesus paid for all of your sins, so because you believe in him, you get to go to heaven when you die (even if you commit a crime or sin as bad as murder)?
Christians: Yes.
Me: I (as an atheist) don't want you to do this, but what's stopping you from committing suicide? You are going to heaven if you commit suicide because you would die. If you believe suicide is a sin, Jesus paid for that sin, because according to you, he paid for all sins.
Christians: He only pays for repented sins.
Me: Hold on now. Your god will forgive a murderer or a child rapist that genuinely repents before he dies, but he won't forgive a suicidal person that repents after death? What about a genuine atheist that doesn't think there is a god and repents (but after death)?
This is the difference between being sheep smart and being lion smart; the person with sheep smarts repeats what they've heard (and their memory is good, but their critical thinking skills suck). The lion smart person has more critical thinking; if the idea makes sense; then they accept it. Otherwise, they try and figure out a rationale and moral response to it.
If you believe a pre death repentant murderer deserves the right to heaven more than a post death repentant atheist, I do not like that morality at all and I fail to see how any critical thinker would disagree with me on at least that.
It's not pro-life, it's not pro law and order, it's not pro victimless liberty, and it's anti free thinking to believe a murderer should get treated better than an atheist simply because they repented.
But it's faith; and you can't challenge faith and expect people to change their minds no matter how good your argument is.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If you have a girlfriend,
Vasectomy + Negative STI tests that you and your girlfriend have = Right to raw dog consenting women (who I would assume would want raw dogging if you have a vasectomy and she and you test negative for STIs).
Alpha men get vasectomies before sex so they can raw dog. Beta males (Bottom G) are scared of a day of ball pain.
Be a man. Get vasectomized before you have sex. Earn your right to raw dog.
Short term pain brings long term pleasure. Discipline + time -> freedom. Alpha men do the tough thing and bear the cross for their relationships. Beta males put all the birth control pressure on their women (who endure months of pain vs you enduring one day of pain).
I will get a vasectomy before I have sex. I'm not a pussy; I don't want people thinking my girlfriend is tougher than I am because she can endure months of birth control pain whereas I can't endure one day of vasectomy pain.
Pre vasectomy sperm samples can be stored in a hospital freezer when you want kids with a consenting woman.
Only pussy men have sex before they get a vasectomy.
Be the man; no pain no gain. Endure before you release into a woman.
Lets end abortion (and unwanted pregnancy pain).
Be a man; be tough.
If you are a woman; only date men willing to prove their toughness.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't like welfare kings that are from the inner city.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If a white person who really liked BLM (and BLM is their main issue) didn’t want black people getting killed by the police because they viewed a black person as their genuine equal, I should have no problem (and they should have no problem) with me calling them a Black Rights Activist.
So pro lifers; as people that are born, should have no problem accepting the, “Zygote Rights Activist” label because you believe a zygote is your equal. And that’s fine.
Just be honest and don’t be afraid of looking foolish; there are many people that agree with you on this.
You will turn many (maybe most) people off from your movement, but at least you are being honest.
And you should not be offended or try and weasel your way out of the label, “Zygote Rights Activist” because you believe a Zygote is your equal. You believe neither one of you should get homicided, and currently zygotes are legally homicided in most states, and you want to end that.
So just accept the label, "Zygote Rights activist".
Me; I don't view a zygote as my equal; I don't even view a 3 year old kid as my equal. If I had to pick between burning myself alive to the death or burning a 3 year old alive to the death; I'm picking the 3 year old (because of personal bias). If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day to save the life of a starving 3 year old from dying of starvation (burning to death takes a few hours; starving to death takes weeks so it's more painful), then why should I be willing to give my life to save somebody else?
If I had to pick betweena 5 year old kid dying or a 25 year old dying; I'm picking the one that doesn't have a job yet (the 5 year old kid).
People prefer the 5 year old because they are younger; by believing this, they would then believe that they lose value as they age.
If you think young people are more valuable than adults, next time you are trying to hire someone for a job, hire Timmy the 2 year old from daycare.
People love babies because they are cute. I don't like babies because they are useless and loud and often can't even speak English.
I like rich; smart; independent, fast.
I like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates. They are rich; their companies produce.
Socialism is bad; I prefer capitalism.
Now I wouldn't have the 5 year old kid die if the alternative is nothing; I respect a 5 year old's right to not get murdered.
But I'm just saying I would rather khave this person stay alive:
then this person alive:
Cute to me is a euphemism for the intersection of small, good looking, and stupid.
I don't like stupid; I like smart. I don't like poor; I like rich. I don't like dependence. I like independence.
I don't like Chuch Music; I like Rock and Roll.
I don't like CA and AL; I like NV and FL.
If I had to pick between Person A or Person B dying:
The ugly one has got to go. I wouldn't want the ugly one dying for no reason; but if I had to pick one dying, the strong deserve to live more than the weak.
I like winners; not losers!
In fact, I would go a step further. If Group 1 or Group 2 had to die:
Group 1: Elon Musk and Bill Gates
Group 2: 10 homeless people
I would rather have Group 2 die. 1 Person that significently positively changes the world deserves the right to live more than 500 homeless people. With 500 homeless people not existing; the world becomes virtually unchanged. Bill Gates doesn't exist; no more Microsoft.
It's possible for someone's extrinsic worth to be more than their worth for being a human being.
Everyone's intrinsic value to me is A+B+C. A is their worth just for being human (Bill Gates has the same A value as a homeless guy). B is what they have currently done for society - what they took from society and what we can reasonably expect them to take from society (B for Bill Gates is thousands of times the value of A for Bill Gates). A 12 year old kid's B value is higher than a 3 year old kid; they will be in public school for less. C is an unknown quantity; it's what they might do in the future.
A+B+C=Intrinsic Value. Extrinsic Value=B.
Not all born innocent people deserve the right to live equally, but the A value for every person is equal and positive. If you do a crime as bad as murder, rape, or similar, for you; B=-A, and C=0. You can't be freed, and it costs too much money to keep someone alive who has 0 intrinsic worth, so you should get killed by beheading, with your blood and organs being used to save the lives of Patriots! If you are a left winger, I can replace the bolded words with low income people in the hospital who are disproportionally people of color.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
They all care about animals, and their leaders all back TRUMP!
PETA is strongly against bug consumption btw (What about insects and other “pests”? | PETA). In other words, if the globalists want us to eat bugs, then PETA is against the globalists.
Trump got endorsed by Modi, the PM of India during that time (India has a lot of vegetarians). Most politicians hate Trump, not vegetarian India’s PM.
The #1 most vegan country in the world is Israel. Not Denmark, Sweden, and certainly not Palestine.
Israel!
Israel, India, and Trump made the right move here.
I don't like Trump and I'm not voting for him, but credit where it's due.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm not going to ignore them just because they are on the left.
The difference between far left and far right censorship:
The average person that supports Biden supports a guy that probably takes too many naps (and honestly should be replaced with Kamala Harris because I don't think Biden is mentally there and it's certainly possible; so have someone like Kamala Harris replace Biden; have Biden step down and have Harris replace him; nobody thinks Kamala Harris has dementia and she is his VP).
The average person that supports Trump supports a guy that would execute his political opponents.
If you think Biden has dementia, lets say you think Obama is the one controlling Biden, then you should treat the 2024 election as Obama vs Trump; if you think Harris controls Biden, then you should treat the 2024 election as Harris vs Trump.
But don't vote for Trump. Keep free speech alive!
The sad part is I'm going to forget about this in like 48 hours.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Should horrible views get free speech? You would need a definition for what counts as a horrible view (and not a definition by examples).
Usually, "hate speech" is what people want to ban.
The definition of "hate speech" is the following: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or SIMILAR GROUNDS:"
If someone says, "Blacks should get killed", that would be deemed hate speech.
If someone said, "Death to poor people" (I'm not saying they are the same thing, but the left supports both groups because they are stereotypically oppressed, and many people would argue a poor (white or else) homeless guy deserves the same right to live as a middle class (white or else) person), that would be viewed as hate speech.
If someone said, "Death to murderers", whether you agreed or not, most people support someone's right to say it (because the murderer harmed someone else to a significant degree; the generic black or poor person did not).
So if the standard is, "If you advocate the death penalty for any harmless or minimally harming group (the poor homeless guy on welfare harms the taxpayer nominally with welfare consumption); then that's hate speech that we would ban you from saying."
If someone said, "I want to cut government spending and if it means poor homeless children of color starve to death, so be it. I'm a fiscal conservative and I prefer my taxes low with dead stranger kids to higher taxes and living stranger kids", if you were logically consistent, you may call advocating for fiscal conservatism hate speech.
If our government decides to censor fiscal conservatism, how would America be any ideologically different from communist China? Death and suffering of the poor are always the cost of economic freedom / low taxes/ low spending / fiscal conservatism / social freedom as well.
Advocating the censorship of those advocating human sacrifice in the name of freedom (even if it's a slight cost of freedom to save a huge number of lives) is communism.
We had that during COVID lockdowns (people were advocating censoring those who wanted a little human sacrifice in exchange for a lot of freedom), and these people are communists. I can respect (and despise) an honest communist; I cannot respect a wishy-washy communist who doesn't realize they are a communist that claims to only want to censor some things they would deem to be hate speech while not realizing the precedent they have set.
Me; I'm a free speech absolutist. You should be allowed to advocate literally any political position you want, whether it's as far right as the KKK or as left-wing as calling for the deaths of all conservatives, even if they are anti Trump republicans (but still agree with Trump on all the policies they deem make Trump a bigot). People should see Liz Cheney the same way as they see Ben Shapiro; they are both anti Trump republicans.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Anybody that's reading this, I recommend staying tuned to the end. It wouldn't seem to make any sense, but eventually, I think it will.
DP supporter: Here's what I believe:
- Every gun law is an infringement (unless it happens to transgenders).
- Ban abortion. Abortion is murder. Murder should either be punished with death or life imprisonment. So treat abortion the same way.
- End single motherhood for harmless fathers (unless the father is an illegal alien, then kick him out because it's the LAW and the LAW must be upheld no matter what (unless it's the Roe V Wade law)).
- America first! No money for foreign countries (unless Israel, because they stand for freedom (but only the freedoms we don't like such as legalized abortion and other satanic rights (biblical rights, like the right to freely move where you want they don't do))).
- Parental rights (unless the parents look like this: Example)
- Like Trump because he runs the country like a business, hate wokeness, and call businesses woke (and like Trump because he runs the country like a business).
- My body my choice for vaccination (but not for cannabis; out of my most agreeable states; only 13% of them legalized recreational weed; the states I don't like, about 90% of them legalized weed).
- God is always morally correct on everything (unless it's any of these verses: 20 Bible Passages for Curious Leftists, then I'm against it).
- Taxation is theft (and fund our police).
- Decentralize the government, less people per representative (so government becomes less centralized). In other words, agreeing with this guy: How to Make Congress Less Terrible | Robert Reich (youtube.com). But wait, he uses buzzwords like, "Women" and, "People of Color", and he's on the left, so we can't agree with a left-wing point.
- I support the free market; free market capitalism is great (unless the free market (aka Big Tech) decides to take down my speech because they have decided that my speech is harmful for their profit margins, then I don't like the free market). The free market using child slaves to produce goods cheaper; I don't protest against that. The free market taking down electronic text that I wrote; I will get upset at that and I will protest against that.
- I support free speech so much; it's why I agree with this woman that wants to take away certain people's right to vote because they tend to vote blue: Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls It 'Wise' to Bar Democrats Who Move to Red States From Voting (newsweek.com) (or at least I won't actively call her out on it because she is on my team).
- I'm going to act like my mind can be persuaded and other people are going to assume my mind can be persuaded (and maybe I will actually believe that my mind can be persuaded), but subconsciously, I won't be able to have my mind persuaded because I have a party to stick too. My party's orthodoxy can't be challenged no matter what, no matter how little it makes sense. Until I break partisan bonds, my mind will never be changed.
For those who are wondering, D supporter is not, "Democrat Party supporter", it's "Donald TrumP Supporter".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The radical left and the thousands of woke gender studies PHD majors can't even answer the question in their own field consistency with years to answer; what is a woman?
But that's ok; because this suburban Yankee math major from exurban NYC (myself) answered the question by himself in a few days:
Suburbs, STEM, the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment before SJWs, Snowflakes, and San Fransisco!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Pro lifer: Scientists confirm a zygote is a human being!
Me: According to you, scientists can't even define what a woman is. Why do you only trust the scientists when it benefits your team?
Pro lifers: Trans science is new. Zygote science is not!
Me: How old does the science have to be before you believe it? Really, any number you select is going to be arbitrary.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This is in terms of trends, not an explicit rule.
The left: Anyone who wants to deport undocumented immigrants is racist.
The right: It's not racist! People coming here without documented is not a race anymore than sexual orientation.
Me: Hey left wingers. Calling people names for disagreeing with me on an issue that doesn't effect me isn't my style, but if it's your style, you can try calling the right undocuphobic. They can't really deny agreeing with that label as easily, because they are against people being here simply because they are undocumented. Just saying. The right may act all politically correct and stress the terms, "It's ILLEGAL!", then you can call them illegophobic (which really means they would be afraid of anyone who broke any law, even if it was speeding 5 mph above the speed limit).
I'm giving you guys some pointers for how you can get what you want politically on this issue and reduce unwanted pain as what you guys want to do (because I've heard that deportations produce a lot of pain for those involved).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you knew the election was going to be between one of these 2 people (I'm not saying this is reality, but hypothetically speaking), who would you vote for:
Person 1: A Pro choicer that is a proud white supremist and is pro choice because they want women to be allowed to decide if they want an abortion. They don't make their pro choice stance racial; they just happen to not like non white people and the unwanted pain produced from pregnancy for some women.
Person 2: A pro lifer that denounces white supremacy.
If your answer in this hypothetical is, "I would vote 3rd party" or, "I wouldn't vote", to me, this counts as a dodge. I get it; you are a pro choicer that hates white supremacy.
But if you had to pick between the pro-choice white supremist or the pro life non white supremist, if you pick the pro life non white supremist, fine.
But if you pick the pro choicer that is a white supremist, that's fine as well.
But if this is what you pick, don't be mad at pro life Trump supporters for voting for him over Biden (pro choice non white supremist) even if Trump is a white supremist.
And if you are a pro lifer that thinks Trump is racist (you might not think he's racist, but lets say hypothetically speaking you thought he was racist), if you care more about abortion policy than racism, fine; vote for the pro life person you believe is a white supremist. My grandfather did that twice. I'm not mad at him. He didn't like Trump's white supremacy (he believes Trump is a white supremist), but he held his nose and voted for him over a pro choice that supported what he believes is murder.
But if this is you, then don't get angry at left wingers who would be willing to vote for a white supremist over a pro lifer.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics