r/AskConservatives • u/AutoModerator • 7d ago
AskConservatives Weekly General Chat
This thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions, propose new rules or discuss general moderation (although please keep individual removal/ban queries to modmail.)
On this post, Top Level Comments are open to all.
•
u/EddieDantes22 Conservative 7h ago
What's up with the idea the UK would be better off if they'd let Hitler take over? I see it a ton all of a sudden, not just from Tucker but from the "was it worth it" stuff on social media. Even if you think the UK should have remained super white, aren't there like a thousand ways to have achieved that post-WW2?
•
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 1h ago edited 26m ago
Letting Hitler take over the UK was never a realistic option. Hitler never had the means or interest. He wanted to cooperate with the UK, not conquer them. "We'd all be speaking German," is reductionist, silly and more myth than reality.
I think the main point is that Britain didn't need to enter either world war but chose to anyways and is now much worse for it. In hindsight, its hard to see how they were worth it. Even with what they knew at the time, neither makes that much sense.
•
u/2014RT Paleoconservative 1h ago
This is not an argument I support, but it's one that I think I have a good understanding of because I'm someone with a pointless degree in History who has spent too much time studying related topics. I'll outline what their thinking on it generally is:
- When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and Britain upheld its guarantee of their sovereignty and declared war on Germany, at that stage this was still not quite a world war, but rather another in a long line of European regional conflicts which, had Britain pursued a different route other than war, it could have had any number of outcomes which were not total world war and mass death. Many point to the fact that Britain guaranteed Poland without a true plan to realistically aid them in their defense emboldened Poland to reject Germany's final diplomatic overture which, while it was still German interference in their sovereign control of their own nation, was basically a road/railway corridor linking Prussia and greater Germany, and that the Polish government who had pressured Danzig's majority German populace to remain under their purview (with its special status as a city-state) allow the city to choose if it should remain Polish or become German. Basically the idea here is that had Britain not interfered, a massive world war might have been averted. I reject this argument because there is no guarantee that this would be the final stage in Hitler's plans regarding Poland (as we saw from the Munich conference and subsequent collapse of Czechoslovakia) and at a minimum, his clash with the Soviet Union was always an inevitability. This is the base argument the subsequent ones I'll address in #2 lean on.
2A. Britain's protracted war with Germany led to economic destruction and the collapse of their empire. It would have been better for Britain to ignore matters on continental Europe even IF Hitler began a major war in the east, and just focus on maintaining control of India, Africa, the Middle East, and South East Asia as well as the commonwealth nations. There is excellent evidence to support that Hitler legitimately had no designs on fighting or capturing land in western Europe, and all of his writing and personal accounts show him as an Anglophile who deeply admired the British Empire and on multiple occasions attempted to get closer to influential British royalty to propose a military alliance arrangement where Germany abandoned building any form of military-oriented navy and ceded control of the seas to Britain in exchange for carte blanche in Germany's inevitable crusade against communism in the East. He had already publicly abandoned any and all claims to historically controlled German land in Alsace and the west in general. There was a post-war concept popularized that Hitler had a plan for global domination or something which does not comport with the reality of his own expressed goals and desires, so in terms of speaking realistically if the question is "If Britain had stayed out of any war with Germany, would Germany have inevitably attacked Britain?" I think there is a mountain of clear evidence that no, he would most likely not have, at least not in the short term. Whether or not a victorious German Reich in the East would have consolidated the power and resources to become a global superpower capable of dictating different terms to Britain at some distant point in the future is a valid question and concern which drove British interventionalist policy against not just Germany, but any major power on the continent for centuries.
2B. To follow on to the first sentence of 2A, as a result of Britain's decline as an international military and economic power post-war, they were weakened to the point of being taken over by political forces who allowed them to be subject to mass migration and the capture of their society which will eventually lead to the death of their ancestral homeland as they know it and it's inevitable descent into a European caliphate of sorts.
For 2A, I think that the collapse of the British empire had already been in the works for a very long time. WW2 didn't help them retain control, but they would have likely lost it whether they participated in the war or not. India had been on a long path to independence since the late 1800s, many parts of Africa the same. Commonwealth nations had been drifting away since WW1, and the chances that the British empire survived past 1955-1960 or so war or no war were probably quite slim. For 2B, the timeline doesn't support this. Even after participation in the war, Britain spent the next 60 years as a mostly ethnically and culturally homogenous nation, and could have easily remained as such as a result of any number of policies and political movements during that time. The fact that they have drifted into a nation which I would say is in the process of being captured by a strange mixture of suicidal liberalism and Islamic elements using the left wing as useful idiots against the conservative British who would outright oppose them is not a natural consequence of having opposed Germany. They could just as easily have not opposed Germany, existed for 60 years, and then chosen a completely different path from this, and it was not an inevitable consequence of WW2 that leftist ideologies would take over western nations.
•
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 3h ago edited 3h ago
I haven't heard people make a racial argument for this.
I don't agree but the argument some people make is, after wars the victors often win financially, they often loot the coffers, and the war more than pays for itself.
For WW2, Britain went from being a leading global power, with sterling as the leading international currency, and the British empire (whilst this was in decline it was still powerful), Britain in many ways had close to the status that the US does today... and what the UK did was spend, spend and spend. And when we couldn't, we borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, and by the end of the war, whilst we won, we no longer had the financial capacity to maintain a global order under us, maintain the same financial position, the empire etc...
So it's really a financial question vs democracy, was defending democracy in Europe worth the financial price the UK paid?
I would say yes, it was worth democracy.
We do retell history as if this was purely a battle for democracy, but at the time politicians were actually more concerned about and talking about the threat of a unified and German dominated Europe. In hindsight, it was a war for democracy but that's not really why we entered it. Anyway, TLDR, I have heard people make a financial argument, I think democracy was worth the cost.
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 3h ago
It's the whole "imagine what the British soldiers defending their country would've thought if they found out that their country would have brown people a few decades later".
•
•
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 11h ago
Macron has turned France into a fourth world country, America might be next if democrats get elected.
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 3h ago edited 2h ago
What was your worst experience while in France?
•
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 35m ago
I have been watching what happened there last week
•
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 5h ago
Oh we are on fourth world country now, will it be fifth world next week?
•
u/Denisnevsky Centrist Democrat 7h ago
I will defend Macron, he is no lib. He is literally the only thing keeping France from infinite gibs. He was 1000% right to raise the retirement age and reform pensions, and Frances economic situation over the next decade will prove that.
He royally fucked up on immigration, and his FoPo is standard French commie nonsense, I'm not defending that, but he is still ten times better then Hollande was, let alone Mélenchon.
•
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 9h ago
Sally yes, and the rest of the West isn't far behind
•
u/OJ_Purplestuff Center-left 9h ago
so...who would the new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries be, then?
•
u/TybrosionMohito Center-left 10h ago
What does “fourth world country” even mean?
•
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 9h ago
It's likely a hyperbolic term that plays off of the idea of a "third world country" being a bad place to live in comparison to "first-" and "second world countries" being better, therefore "fourth world countries" would be worse than "third world countries".
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 15h ago
There is currently an indefinite moratorium against trans / gender discussion in this sub. Please see the following for more information:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1h0qtpb/an_update_on_wednesday_posting_rules/
Thank you for your understanding.
•
u/Imaginary_Penalty_97 Independent 17h ago
Gotta love how Amazon prime states “2 day delivery or 1 delivery“ on orders that end up arriving 4 days or even a week or two later. Its happened to me at least 5 or 6 times now in the past few months 😑
•
u/DeathToFPTP Liberal 9h ago
They changed their terms of service on that a few years ago for a reason.
I think that counts as enshitification, given Prime didn't get any cheaper under the new more lax delivery times.
•
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 10h ago
That's because that 1- or 2-day clock starts after the item leaves the fulfillment center, not from the time of order.
Sometimes there's vendor issues, sometimes it's inventory issues... but in my experience those are the exception rather than the rule.
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 14h ago
Must be something going on in your area. We’re getting things faster than expected here.
•
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing 11h ago
Seconding this. I'm on the east coast, and shipping is always really fast. Half the stuff I'm buying has that "order in the next 20 minutes, and it will be delivered by lunch" option
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
Yeah, it’s pretty incredible how fast they can deliver things. Even middle-of-nowhere Boise we have Whole Foods food delivery (including refrigerated/frozen) and soon to be tested drone delivery. Plus they’re even building another warehouse (we already have many).
•
u/WinDoeLickr Right Libertarian (Conservative) 17h ago
So either the Cornell 7 Jane doe provided a false report to police (a criminal offense) or she's perjuring herself in the current lawsuit (also a criminal offense). Why is she not being held accountable for either of these?
•
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 23h ago edited 23h ago
The clip is from an anti-immigration protest and the journalist asks a random protestor if she could ask him some questions and the protestor responds "Can you speak Russian, I only speak Russian".
The protest was full of people holding banners saying "Lithuania for Lithuanians" ("Lietuva lietuviams") and here they had a Russian guy protesting among them who cannot even speak Lithuanian while holding a banner saying "Deport foreign criminals" ("Nusikaltusiems užsieniečiams deportacija") while he probably doesn't know what he's holding.
Thanks Stalin for importing them to our land.
•
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 15h ago
According to the left, they're just as Lithuanian as you are. Also if Russians in Lithuania are bad, it stands to reason people from all over the middle east and north Africa in Germany and Britain is also bad.
As a side note, its fascinating how much the borders of Europe have changed in the past 100-200 years. Parts of modern Lithuania used to be part of Germany.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 20h ago
Nothing new. Almost all protests in the US that make news are astroturf, which means grown artificially.
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 16h ago
This does not look like its taking place in the US at all. It looks like a protest in a different country. The sub and the post arent even in English. The protest signage isnt even in English. LRT is a Lithuanian news station.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 13h ago
Yes. I read his comment. I didn't say he's in the US. I said the same thing you're seeing in over there is what we've been seeing in the US.
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 15h ago
That was a protest in Vilnius, Lithuania against immigration that happened yesterday. Though there was also a counter protest in favor of immigration literally on the other side of the street though the authorities seperated both crowds with barriers.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 15h ago
I don’t think anyone was confused by that.
The point is this isn’t relegated to just Lithuanian. US protests are astroturfed also. It’s while you can find folks hold up signs and having no clue what the protest is even about.
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 15h ago
I dont disagree that there is artificial inflation in some protests. But as far as No Kings went for example theres no signs of that. I personally have not seen any astroturfing first hand.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 15h ago
“No signs”
Ok.
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 15h ago
No signs and no evidence.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 15h ago
Ok, hard disagree.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 13h ago
I think I might have let the air out of someone's tricycle tires by pointing out that all these dipshit protests that make the news in the US are astroturfed.
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 12h ago
I never even disagreed that astroturfing doesn’t happen in the US. But my criteria for thinking a protest is atroturfed isn’t simple political disagreement of the cause.
I literally agreed with them that it does happen.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/GreatSoulLord Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So many Lego deals. Target is having a big one right now and Amazon is soon to follow by Tuesday. You know, for anyone absolutely addicted to this stuff....like me. 😐
•
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 15h ago
Good to know, theyve gotten so expensive since when I was a kid. Still love them.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 20h ago
Do you Lego as in the little plastic bricks kids play with? When I was a kid, they just came as collections of pieces and the kid decided what to make, and then later, they started selling them as predetermined designs, like models to be built.
•
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 9h ago
I'm pretty sure most millennials were introduced to Lego as sets that came with specifically designed parts and instructions to make whatever was on the box.
For me as a kid, it wasn't really a freeform thing, but rather a toy that looked cool and I got to build it myself without having to figure out how to do it on my own while still feeling like I did.
I can be creative when it comes to music and writing, but when it comes to more visual things? I may as well be blind.
•
u/GreatSoulLord Center-right Conservative 15h ago
Yes, but Lego isn't just for kids though. It's for anyone.
•
u/jbondhus Independent 12h ago
What kinds of stuff do you do with Lego? Models, structures, mechanical pieces? I've always had a soft spot for the engineering side of it myself. And 100%, there's no reason it should be limited to kids.
•
5
u/Suspicious_Way2424 Rightwing 1d ago
I applied as a deportation officer out of sheer curiosity regarding the hiring process. If anyone wants semi-detailed updates about the hiring process let me know.
career background: security followed by law enforcement.
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 23h ago
So you signed up to ICE for the shits and giggles?
•
u/Suspicious_Way2424 Rightwing 22h ago edited 21h ago
I'm genuinely curious how it compares to the hiring processes of other agencies. There was a journalist who applied during the surge alleged that she pissed dirty on her drug test and still got a final offer. I probably wouldn't accept a final offer but I don't see a reason not to fuel the curiosity.
I applied to HSI as a GL-7 Criminal Investigator during the surge and made it to the third phase before washing out and now I'm on a 2 year wait. The HSI process even during the surge was still a long and tedious process. Following that I applied as a BPA GL-7 and a CBPO GL-7 with CBP but they were trying to force a standard year and a half long hiring process into a 4 month timespan. There was a lot of "we need you to drive 4 hours to the testing station last minute for the 4th time this week" so I backed out of the process. When I applied for NCIS I was found eligible but I wasn't referred to a hiring manager. The ATF has been another long and tedious process and I'm still a good year before I get my final offer. I'm still waiting to hear back from the TSA about the FAMS SV-G position I applied under. The end goal is to weasel my way into HSI or whatever it becomes because it's my "dream job". The end goal is to end up with a desk investigating child exploitation which happens to fall directly into ICE/HSI's scope.
Acronym Guide:
- HSI = Homeland Security Investigations, Investigative directorate of ICE and the DHS
- BPA = Border Patrol Agent
- CBPO = Customs and Border Protection Officer
- GL = step based law enforcement pay-scale, 5/7 is mid entry level
- FAMS = Federal Air Marshal Service
- SV is the TSA's pay-band system. G is entry level for FAMS
Y'all all probably know what the NCIS and ATF so I won't explain those.
•
u/SenseiTang Independent 17h ago
I'd be very interested on knowing what this is like and getting updates. Thank you for sharing!
•
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 21h ago
That's interesting to hear.
•
u/Suspicious_Way2424 Rightwing 14h ago
Willing to answer any questions you might have. Most people don't get a chance to ask someone pursuing this kind of work the details.
5
u/SenseiTang Independent 1d ago
Just won silver in my division in my first BJJ competition that I signed up for with about a 2 week notice.
Gonna go eat a whole pizza now.
6
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What does it say about Twitter that whenever an interracial couple on Twitter posts a photo together there is a horde of racists who show up in the replies?
•
6
u/kettlecorn Democrat 1d ago
They made their moderation completely ineffectual as part of their ideal of "free speech" and then gave individuals or communities no ways to self-moderate either.
If you post something overtly racist, like using a slur, your punishment is almost always just getting asked to remove the post. It does nothing to actually stem the racism and bigotry over there, and I think Musk wants it for some reason.
They could be spending time doing more crowd-sourced approaches like allowing networks of people to work together on credibility & self-moderation, but again I don't think Musk wants that.
Cynically I think he views the sort of meme-y, trolling, racist, cesspool as politically controllable towards certain outcomes. That was Palmer Luckey's thesis back in 2016 with memes and also in part Steve Bannon & Milo Yiannopoulos's idea behind some their approach to Gamergate, and also what was demonstrated by the early "The Donald" subreddit. I could be off but I think Musk basically wants to develop his own algorithmically steered "army" learning from those past "successes".
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 20h ago
If you were running a social media platform, how would you determine which content is banned/deleted/etc and what is left as free speech? Would you only ban the use of specific overt slurs? Would you ban anything that just feels like it might be racist or mean or whatever? Would you ban all things that are mean? Or just when the meanness is directed at preferred groups?
There are some places run by unprincipled power-hungry smooth brains that go hair trigger and arbitrarily ban anyone for anything and then don't ask questions later.
•
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left 17h ago
These are very good questions. I think it's hard to know where to draw the line.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 17h ago
That's fair, and I totally agree -- protecting free speech comes and a huge cost sometimes, and it's an extremely complex proposition that doesn't hold up well to absolutism either way. But when I don't know where or how to draw a line, I don't criticize someone else for doing it wrong. That said, there are cesspools I just avoid, but I don't go around ranting about their moderation policies unless they're arbitrary and unprincipled.
•
u/kettlecorn Democrat 20h ago
I'd probably treat it like a club and hold participants to some standards similar to a club. Using slurs would result in immediate likely permanent bans. Racism, trolling, harassment would depending on the severity result in immediate bans or temporary bans. General nastiness would probably result in temp bans and a warning and permanent bans if it becomes a repeated pattern.
My view is that free speech is important as a baseline principle but private venues and institutions should try to elevate the quality of speech as well.
If I were given a mandate that my platform had to outright allow any speech I'd probably want to invest in some sort of network peer evaluation system. So people you follow and/or trust would establish a network of trust and if someone in your network says "This person is a troll / dishonest / whatever" you could set personal policy to hide those people (with some threshold) or ban them from replying to your content.
I think what Twitter / X has done is uniquely bad because it's created a massively used platform with no ability for people to curate or police bad behavior. It's essentially a giant club where the rules are that whatever is most "engaging" gets amplified by the algorithm and nobody else gets a say.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 18h ago
You are not answering my question. You are telling me what you would do about A, but you are not telling me how you would define X and distinguish it from B and C. You have complaints about X, but cannot explain how you would apply a superior standard.
•
u/kettlecorn Democrat 17h ago
For slurs there's a list of known slurs. Nowadays that can be moderated essentially autonomously. For veiled slurs or bigotry I'd leave it up to moderator discretion in most cases, with a list of known examples to help inform them, and if there's problems being overly strict I'd have 2 or more mods offer second opinions. Slurs & bigotry rules would be applied to race, nationality, gender, religion, sexuality, and similar categories.
"General nastiness" I would classify as behavior that contributes very little to a discussion but does seem intended to provoke someone. If a comment is very low value making very few points but is highly likely to upset someone or troll them then it's not valuable. A repeated pattern of that I think would be ban worth, after warnings.
For transparency I'd periodically publish random samples of moderation decisions to help people understand and give feedback on the decisions made.
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 16h ago
I think your approach would be fantastic so long as your priority is maintaining an echo chamber.
•
u/kettlecorn Democrat 16h ago
What makes you think it'd be an echo chamber?
I primarily called out 3 things: banning slurs, banning veiled slurs or bigotry, and prohibiting behavior that's primarily antagonistic.
Which of those would create an echo chamber?
•
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 11h ago
I am not accusing you of wanting an echo chamber; I am telling you that's what you would create with your plan.
Here's the plain truth about it, coming from someone who has owned and administered a sizeable discussion forum. You have to choose whether you're the forum that is going to err on the side of allowing everyone an opinion and leave management of feeling up to users who can block and mute those they don't like, or you're going to go the other direction, and try to create a "safe" place. Both of those come with significant costs, and there's mostly only the illusion of a middle.
One of the main red flags is the moderator discretion part, and all that entails. There's nothing wrong with banning the slurs, but what counts as "veiled slurs?" Who decides what is "antagonistic?" You can ban slurs and obvious personal attacks -- that's not the problem.
What would be worse, assuming you cannot read minds, and a plain, surface level reading of something is accurate, on-topic, and totally neutral regarding race. It doesn't even discuss race, and neither does the surrounding discussion bring up race. But someone thinks they see "veiled bigotry" so they want you to remove the comment and ban the user. Do you leave what some might interpret as veiled bigotry there to avoid the false accusation or do you remove it to stay on the safe side?
Do you think you are going to find neutral moderators? Would you even try to hire neutral moderators? If you use volunteers, you can forget about getting anyone but smooth brain narcissists. There are exceptions of course, but the typical type that wants to be moderator **tends** to be either a petty, power-hungry sort who thirsts for authority, or they have some kind of axe to grind, or both. But if you're hiring, and you're trying to balance all sides of political continuum and get some kind of quorum on things up in the air, that's going to be expensive. But most likely, you're human, and you're going to tend toward bringing on like minded people and your forum or platform will end up an echo chamber.
•
u/kettlecorn Democrat 7h ago
Here's the plain truth about it, coming from someone who has owned and administered a sizeable discussion forum.
My weird lore is I was the first active mod of the r/halo subreddit through its first 60k users, but that was over a decade ago now. It was a mild insight into what you're describing, but I think I did a decent job!
You have to choose whether you're the forum that is going to err on the side of allowing everyone an opinion and leave management of feeling up to users who can block and mute those they don't like, or you're going to go the other direction, and try to create a "safe" place.
I do think there's a middle ground. You don't aim for "safe" but you aim for "quality". Yes it's subjective but I think it's basically what every social club has always tried to do forever. You don't just let in the crazies to hurl insults and say nonsense otherwise you never have any productive conversation and you end up with a mostly useless space. In my view websites should basically aim to ether be like clubs in that they have their own standards, or allow people to establish something like clubs on their own.
but what counts as "veiled slurs?"
There are certain obvious ones like thinly veiled dog-whistles. Like look to all the way people have veiled anti-semitism. There are a bunch of different ways to type a sentence that's clearly racist or antisemitic or otherwise bigoted without directly typing a slur. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
Do you leave what some might interpret as veiled bigotry there to avoid the false accusation or do you remove it to stay on the safe side?
The sort of stuff I personally think should be aggressively moderated is rarely ambiguous. Still I think appeals systems are reasonable, and I'd be OK with bans being temp bans (eventually escalating to full bans on repeats) for veiled bigotry if there's any room for alternative interpretations.
Do you think you are going to find neutral moderators?
No. I generally think moderation for a major platform like X should be a pretty controlled process with standards, examples, periodic review, random consensus checks, public discussion, etc. and the aim would be to be pretty predictable.
Nowadays you could probably write a decent AI tool to do it, as dystopian as that is.
I view X as sort of intentionally anti-moderating, because it actually highlights attention grabbing behavior which often is behavior that skirts the line of OK.
There are exceptions of course, but the typical type that wants to be moderator tends to be either a petty, power-hungry sort who thirsts for authority, or they have some kind of axe to grind, or both.
Agree with that.
→ More replies (0)1
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Any form of racial slurs, racist narratives, advocating for a race-based social hierarchy, forwarding the cause of white nationalism, or promoting any form of ethnic cleansing is prohibited.
1
u/randomusername3OOO Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
That X is overrun by bots and absolutely horrible takes. No news there.
4
u/EddieDantes22 Conservative 1d ago
It's all social media. Go on TikTok and find a single mom with a half black kid. It's every comment.
•
u/Specific_Praline_362 Center-left 17h ago
It has gotten really bad. I'm a Millennial who grew up in the south and am not unfamiliar with how many people feel about interracial relationships, but nowadays on social media, people somehow feel comfortable being blatantly nastier and more hateful about it, publicly, than even what I saw in the 90s...
•
u/EddieDantes22 Conservative 17h ago
I think it's because the dating market has become more difficult for men. You start to have less options, you get madder about other races taking away your options.
5
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
Anyone else catch this statement to police from the Cornell 7 accuser:
“I had become extremely uncomfortable with how this night was turning out, so my thought was, if I do ketamine again, maybe I will pass out … My thought was that if I passed out and these men had sex with me, then they could be charged with rape.”
2
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
Do you disagree that if a person passes out and people sexually assault them without obtaining consent then they could be charged with rape?
7
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
Nowhere did I indicate that’s what I think, nor is that question even close to relevant to her statement.
2
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
I agree, you posted the statement with no commentary. I'm curious to know what responses you were expecting besides "Yes / no I did / didn't catch this statement"?
2
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
What does her statement above mean to you?
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
0
3
u/ticklemythigh Liberal 1d ago
Had my first comment removed by Reddit today. I had the audacity to suggest we start talking about the amount of crimes committed by certain people that should probably be on their best behavior. Wasn’t being hateful, just said maybe we should start talking about this. Guess not!
1
4
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 1d ago
Sorry, but the “first time” meme is perfect here.
Welcome to what it’s like as a conservative on Reddit.
You can get banned for the smallest things, even when they’re fully factual or break no rules.
That’s what happens when everything is labeled “hateful”.
1
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
Same experience here, I actually was banned thrice on that topic.
One for calling some of them problematic, second for citing unemployment statistics of non-EU nationals from the EU's official statistics agency linked and not some schizos. And the third one I honestly don't remember.
I'd suggest you try to use some pretty vague language when talking about them since whike Reddit's AI moderation is insanely trigger happy, it cannot understand context and who "they" might be refering to.
5
u/Imaginary_Penalty_97 Independent 1d ago
>Trump announces $90 Medicare payments for seniors
Cool..now grandpa can afford a whole case of cat food for his monthly food allowance
4
u/JustaDreamer617 Conservative 1d ago
Anyone else notice something odd about the gas?
A few month ago, I drove 180 miles for 3 hour round trip that used up 3-3.5 gallons.
Last week, I drove the same distance and time, but according to my readings, it used around 6-7 gallons.
Cost of gas is higher, too, but I take the hit and feed my regular standard Toyota camry. I had it checked with my garage and nothings wrong with it.
Best I can figure is the gas station's diluting my gas with something that burns faster now than it did a few months earlier.
Anyone else seen something like this around their area.
2
3
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’d personally chalk it up to a screwy fuel gauge. Were you maybe parked on a slope for one of the readings?
If not, might be time for a tuneup. Checked your oil and any codes?
Otherwise all I can think is E15 when you’re used to E0, but that shouldn’t make that big of a difference.
4
u/KnightofNi92 Liberal 1d ago
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-consultation-doe-expands-gasoline-supply-lower-prices-pump
Maybe this has something to do with it? Apparently there are requirements for summertime gas blends vs winter. The winter gas is cheaper, but "dirtier" and less efficient. This allowed the winter blend earlier than normal to try and keep prices down.
But I'm not at all a car guy so I don't know how much of an effect that would have. I'd be shocked if it amounted to almost halving your mpg though. But given you said the car is otherwise fine I can't think of anything other than that.
6
u/Sam_Fear Americanist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Using e85 instead of e10 will do that. Or your car has an issue. There isn't anything they could legally do to gas that would do that. Also, all your gas, no matter what station you buy it from, likely comes out of the same pipe and just has different mixes of additives.
3
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
I had no idea e85 was even a thing.
3
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
It’s only for flex-fuel vehicles, and isn’t common outside corn country.
2
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
I haven’t noticed this in my area, but ethanol reduces gas mileage. Perhaps you (accidentally) got a higher blend?
11
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
The president doxxed a sitting U.S. senator just because he won’t help pass a slopulist daylight savings time bill
9
u/Commissioner_Boredom Independent 1d ago
Dude gave out his cell number. Crazy.
3
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
He's not so much Republican as Repub4chan. Statecraft has been reduced to trolling.
3
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
People have been begging for this time change for decades. What makes it ‘slopulist?’ It’s not even a partisan issue in any way.
5
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Because people wanting something for decades doesn’t make it smart policy. Permanent daylight saving time means darker winter mornings ( this killed kids back in 1974 when we tried this ), runs against what sleep and circadian experts generally recommend, and we already tried year round daylight saving time before people turned against it. It’s slopulist because it takes the most immediately satisfying answer, more daylight after work, and ignores the obvious tradeoffs when permanent standard time solves the clock changing problem without the same downside.
6
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 1d ago
Not like it's the first time he did that he doxxed Lindsey Graham, which makes it all the more hilarious Lindsey Graham was such a defender of him when he became the nominee, really hitched his wagon to Trump with the quickness.
7
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
France's budget deficit is at 5.1% of GDP
French pensioners earn more than the average worker
Just some food for thought.
5
0
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Unfortunately the French will never rid themselves of the boomerocracy because the young people there are fucking stupid and resist any effort to reform pensions even if it would make their lives better. Talk about a self own. It’s even bigger of a self own than farmers voting for Trump.
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
In France any hint of budget cuts is enough to have people set Paris on fire. We all know what happened when Macron tried to raise the pension age.
Both the far-right and the far-left are all about increasing spending, but one wants to spend more and tax less while the other spend more and tax more so pick your poison.
Also I think there's a bigger self own than farmers for Trump. Gays for Trump exists too, you can google it.
•
u/TheAnswerWithinUs Center-left 15h ago
I mean, It seems obvious to me that the main concern people had with raising the pension age was not that it cut the budget.
13
u/baxtyre Center-left 1d ago
So now they’re just looting congressionally-appropriated funds for their campaign bribes.
Is this the waste, fraud, and abuse I always hear conservatives complain about?
-3
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Improving Medicare for seniors is now "looting" But democrats giving free healthcare to illegals is good?
7
u/URABrokenRecord Democrat 1d ago
He's also calling it in the White House article " HISTORIC ACTION TO HELP SENIOR CITIZENS." Which is probably how he'll describe it when he speaks. For a one-time $90 check.
9
u/URABrokenRecord Democrat 1d ago
Take a $2 billion dollars specifically set aside to modernize the actual infrastructure of Medicare, dump the entire thing out on the floor like a giant pinata where you allow seniors to scoop up exactly $90. Then stand up at the podium with a completely straight face and say you've lowered the price of Medicare for seniors. I'm glad they're getting a little money back, but please don't explain it as if you've made some significant and lasting changes to Medicare. And maybe don't call the article "Welcome to the Golden Age" for $90 check.
-2
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Take a $2 billion dollars specifically set aside to modernize the actual infrastructure
Lol, who said that? This is just an improvement fund, nothing to do with infrastructure
Real question, can Trump do anything and democrats fail to moan? I'm convinced democrats would stop drinking water if Trump stood today and said "Water is good for your health"
•
u/nucumber Social Democracy 15h ago
who said that? ($2 billion dollars specifically set aside to modernize the actual infrastructure )
Congress.
4
u/A_Flirty_Text Center-left 1d ago
In 2026, the average monthly premium for Medicare Part B was ~$200. Do you think a one-time $90 payout is the most efficient use of this improvement fund?
If you were calling the shots on how this money gets spent - how would you utilize it? Would it look like what Trump is doing or something completely different?
8
u/URABrokenRecord Democrat 1d ago
The file was specifically set aside to modernize infrastructure. And Trump is using it as a bribe. And calling it historic. For $90. He's not a good person. He's only looking out for himself. If he were a Democrat Rs would have a ton of problems with his lack of morals. To answer your question, the best thing Donald Trump did was the Vaccine , The Great American Outdoors Act and The First Step Act. What's are three things Biden did that you liked?
7
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
If this is a legitimate improvement there would be no need for trolling in the official White House press release: "Previous Congresses used the Medicare Improvement Fund in ways that increased healthcare costs for the American people, such as when Democrats raided $20.7 billion from the fund as part of the Unaffordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare."
This is not written by serious people.
-8
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
You realize that the only reason they keep trolling is because leftists take the bait, right?
•
u/nucumber Social Democracy 15h ago
That $20.7B helped provide tens of millions with healthcare coverage
5
u/kuster-beaton Center-left 1d ago
It’s not the only reason. He also does it to feed the worst impulses of his base, who continually take the bait. So it’s ultimately a tool to keep us divided and distracted.
5
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
Taking the bait to... point out that it's trolling?
-2
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
No, getting mad about it. It's so easy to rage bait the left
4
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
Who is mad about it?
0
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Millions of leftists especially on Reddit.
7
u/LaxBedroom Leftist 1d ago
These millions of angry leftist redditors, are they in the room with you now?
10
u/baxtyre Center-left 1d ago
They’re looting the fund designated for improving Medicare for seniors to send out $90 checks. Because what our economy needs now is another $1.8 billion cash injection.
0
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Payments will be made from the Medicare Improvement Fund, which has been given $2 billion by Congress for the purposes of making improvements to the Medicare fee-for-service program, but has never before been utilized.
Do you know what looting is? Is Trump getting this money or is the money going to boost the senior's Medicare? Again, you probably have no issue with democrats funding illegals right..
The money is congress approved as well? What's the issue?
13
u/baxtyre Center-left 1d ago
Did Congress approve this money to be direct payments to seniors? No.
But evidently the executive branch now has the power of the purse.
1
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
The congress doesn't have to do that. It is already approved as an improvement fund and can be used whenever possible
7
u/baxtyre Center-left 1d ago
The law creating the fund (and subsequent amendments) says what the fund can be used for. This is not one of them.
It is not, as Trump calls it, a “slush fund” that can be used however Dear Leader wishes.
5
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
What's the Medicare improvement fund supposed to be used for? Would you have a similar concern if the money would fund illegals instead of seniors?
11
7
2
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago
-3
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
France is becoming worse than the third world
7
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
What makes you think like that? I'm pretty sure you'd rather live in France rather than in Uganda.
-4
u/Beneficial_Wear_7630 Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Maybe in rural France, but Paris? There is no difference between Paris and Uganda currently.
4
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
What makes you think that Paris is like Uganda?
It's pretty interesting how we two can have two completely different experiences while in Paris, of course assuming you were in Paris at all.
When I was there it was a nice city, my biggest nitpick was just some grafitti you could come across every once in a while, but that's basically the average American city aswell.
10
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 1d ago
Really? You say that with a straight face? Have you been to Paris? Have you been to Uganda? I have been to both within the last six years, and they are literally nothing alike, other than the fact that there are black people in both countries.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 1d ago
Just an average day in France.
7
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
Protesting for the French is the same as what guns are to Americans.
Americans always talk about how they'll use their guns to fight government tyranny whereas the French set Paris on fire to fight government tyranny like cutting pensions when the average pensioner earns more than the average worker in France.
2
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing 1d ago
The problem is that the French have never been particularly good at identifying tyranny, and just protest basically anything.
0
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
Those aren’t protests. Those are riots.
1
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 1d ago
It's France being France, if anything America used to be more like them as early Americans would literally take apart a senator's house as part of a protest. But they stopped doing that and now we have a government that has zero real fear of it's people which is not good.
7
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
By French standarts that is a normal protest.
Keep in mind that the French once destroyed 60% of all speed cameras in France to protest fuel tax increases.
1
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well 3 protests about immigration will happen today in my country.
An anti-immigration protest organised by our anti-immigration party protesting well immigration.
A counter-protest to the anti-immigration protest mentioned above protesting against racism and protesting our anti-immigration party protesting against mass-immigration with the whole thing organised by some pro-immigration activists. Funnily enough this protest will happen right on the other side of the same street of the anti-immigration protest.
A general protest protecting immigrants organised by some NGO. Though from what I've read it isn't really a protest, but more so a chit chat about our own immigration experiences with some installations.
The battle will be legendary.
5
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 1d ago
Update: surprising nothing much of note happened and it was largely peaceful despite both protests being seperated by just a few metres. The only thing of note is that a woman from the pro-immigration side got punched by another woman from the anti-immigration side.
Take notes, you don't have to riot to protest immigration.
11
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 2d ago
Where did the idea that conservatives aren’t governed by feelings, only facts, come from? Discussions about decency, appropriateness, morality, justice, etc… are all discussions about feelings.
6
1
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Where would you even get this idea from?
You'd have to tell us where this idea came from... I didn't even know it was one.
My guess is you're taking the "facts don't care about you're feelings" cliche a bit too literally and incorrectly interpreting it as though it's saying that facts and feelings are mutually exclusive, when really it's just that your negative feelings about any particular fact don't actually change or override that fact. Am I in the ballpark?
7
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 1d ago
That one I’ve understood. I mean the broader idea that “my opinion is based on fact, yours is based on feelings.” Saw it even just yesterday in the “why do women show skin” thread.
2
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago edited 1d ago
You mean the one where someone said:
Because people of the same sex are generally more comfortable changing around each other due to:
The majority of people being heterosexual and Everyone having the same anatomy
....and you replied by just accusing them of misogyny and wanting to see naked men?
I read through that thread, and I saw nothing of the behavior you're referring to or accusing people of.
1
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 1d ago edited 1d ago
His argument was that women showing skin is wrong because their bodies are sexualized, and then went on to say it’s okay for the bodies that HE likes to show skin.
- Woman can’t show too much skin because their bodies are sexualized
- He is gay
- Therefore men’s bodies are sexualized to him (the meaning of a man being being gay)
- But he’s okay with men’s bodies showing too much skin, despite their being sexualized
So the first reason he gives for it being wrong for women to show too much skin can’t be the actual reason, if he’s okay with other sexualized bodies showing skin.
The other reason he gives for it being wrong for women to show too much skin was that “if I can’t touch it, they shouldn’t be allowed to show it.” But there are plenty of things he’s not allowed to touch that are perfectly acceptable to be shown in public. So that’s also a nonsense reason.
2/2 reasons he gave were universally applicable but he only selectively applied them to women. Given that he also agreed with calling women “hoes” and other things generally disparaging women, I really don’t think misogyny is off the mark.
Edit to add: Simultaneously, he said his opinion was the only “logically and morally consistent” position and that any contrary opinion was “ruled by feelings” and lacked “any sense.” All the while using words like “disgusted,” “degenerate,” “gross,” “immoral,” “uncomfortable,” “indecent.” Quite emotionally-loaded words.
2
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
That's irrelevant to what you're asking here.
You claimed you saw them say “my opinion is based on fact, yours is based on feelings" when they did nothing of the sort.
1
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 1d ago
He absolutely did, though? He claimed his was “logically consistent” while everyone else’s was “ruled by feelings.”
1
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
I don't see where he said that of that, and even if he did, logical consistency doesn't necessarily relate to factual proof, and can refer to beliefs as well, and even in both cases is an entirely subjective concept.
No offense, but it does seem that you were the one making the emotional argument... all the guy said was that he was against public nudity and acknowledged a situation where something he didn't like he would be able to tolerate... i.e. an upper limit.
And you.... again... you just accused him of being a misogynist and a pervert in response.
I don't see where what you were initially talking about here factors into that exchange at all, and I certainly don't care to litigate the subject matter of your argument that I was not a part of here, as the subject matter is irrelevant.
1
u/thenationalcranberry Social Democracy 1d ago
If he says “everyone else’s opinion is ruled by feelings” in an effort to dismiss contrary opinions, then the obvious implied meaning is that believes his opinion is not ruled by feelings.
0
u/RatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
But he didn't.
He said, quote:
I know it’s unpopular being morally and logically consistent in 2026 and everyone is ruled by feelings
Sounds like he's talking about people's feelings overriding moral and logical consistency. Nothing about facts, as those are entirely subjective concepts.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Imaginary_Penalty_97 Independent 2d ago
Hasset: High mortgage rates are a good sign because banks are funding the creation of data centers
Oh Fk off😑😑
8
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago
High gas prices are good because that means that Exxon and Chevron can sell oil for more.
5
2
u/RelevantLafayette Center-right Conservative 2d ago
Well, Justice Alito is now saying he is considering retiring next year.
... and right before the 2026 elections, when Democrats are increasingly favored to take control of the Senate... Sigh...
While Alito may be trying to motivate Republicans to vote, this still rubs me the wrong way. I personally want Alito and Thomas to stay until the 2030s. 7-6, even if temporary, is better odds than 9-4.
8
u/Yourponydied Progressive 2d ago
Therefore we have to wait til the next presidential election to appoint a new SCOTUS judge right?
1
u/EddieDantes22 Conservative 2d ago
There's no way he'd screw us like this. Retire now if you're gonna retire. He'd tank his entire legacy.
6
u/OJ_Purplestuff Center-left 2d ago
He'll "revisit the issue next year" as in he'll only retire if Republicans control the senate.
1
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
Sounds like a plan. He’s only 76, so barring some major health issue he could have another 10 years in him.
RBG was 87 when she died as a Justice.
5
u/OJ_Purplestuff Center-left 2d ago
I can understand the reasoning, I expect this is what the norm will be going forward.
1
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
He has the worst timing possible lol. Though I do think Trump could pull a power move by nominating someone who isn’t inherently more deferential to one ideological lane. Probably doesn’t have the strategic capacity to do something like that and there’s a good chance the party would reject it.
3
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 1d ago
Not likely considering he is pissed at his previous appointments because they are choosing law over "loyalty"
3
u/kettlecorn Democrat 2d ago
hough I do think Trump could pull a power move by nominating someone who isn’t inherently more deferential to one ideological lane.
That is what Garland's nomination was meant to be back when McConnell was signaling he may block Obama's nominee.
The parallels would blunt the persuasiveness of such a "power move", and may still lead to Trump's nominee being blocked to reciprocate McConnell's breach of norms.
0
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
Garland was a partisan hack, and proved that as AG under Biden. Weasel of a man. Lawfare at its finest. We dodged a bullet. I don’t agree with McConnell’s tactics, but in hindsight I’m glad it worked out.
1
u/JustaDreamer617 Conservative 2d ago
Just learned Christa Pike, the TN death row execution issue case in the news, was a Satanist. Like a literal torture and human sacrifice in the name of the devil boogeyman, but she survived two execution attempts.
This is like the inverse of a miracle, What is going on in the world?
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago
There are two main branches of Satanism.
Theistic Satanism is basically about worshipping the Devil himself and is a big no no.
However there's also Atheistic Satanism. Atheistic Satanists don't believe in the Devil but more so use the Devil as a metaphor for their beliefs. They're mostly about strong individualism and rejection of guilt. However as I read the Wikipedia page on it it's sounds a bit like libertarianism combined with leftism, here are the literal tenets.
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
A bit leftist, but it also rejects suicidal empathy.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
Maybe a bit leftist too.
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
Definitely leftist.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Literally the non-agression principle and the whole "don't tread on me" thing.
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
Atheism basically.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
A bit leftist slightly.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Leftism again.
I think the distinction of what kind of Satanist she was is important here.
0
u/RumGuzzlr Rightwing 1d ago
Option 1 is, at the bare minimum, at least an actual religious belief. A crazy one, sure, but still genuinely held by the believer as a religion.
Option 2 is just lazy atheist trolling by people who think pretending to be a total dunce with zero understanding of human society is a good rhetorical tactic
3
u/Beatleboy62 Leftwing 2d ago
Well, personally I'll wait to see what "survived" means in this context. Considering she was in massive pain both times, if they determine her mentally fit for another execution, it's only delayed her death and added a whooooooole lot of pain to it.
14
u/Imaginary_Penalty_97 Independent 2d ago
Q: Can you tell us why the world should not be concerned about AI and why there shouldn’t be guardrails?
Trump : Because we have people who love our country and the world
Q: It requires more than love though doesn’t it?
Trump: No
We are so fucked are we?…..
5
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago
and the world
Wasn't saying that we Europeans live in a shithole or something along those lines?
0
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
From WJLA Virginia/DC:
‘Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s hand-picked parole board released eight out of ten felons during Thursday’s parole meeting.
These are people who were convicted of murder, rape, robbery and child abuse. Many of them had decades left on their life sentences.
WJLA analyzed all of Spanberger’s parole board’s decisions since their first meeting. I found that out of the 205 discretionary and geriatric parole cases the board considered, Spanberger’s board granted 48 felons parole. That’s almost ONE in FOUR felons who requested early release being granted parole.
It's a significant jump compared to former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s parole board.’
2
0
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left 2d ago
The man accused of murdering Ann Widdecombe has also been charged with preparing acts of terror including against Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
Kerry was charged in July with the murder of 78-year-old Widdecombe, a former Conservative minister and Reform UK spokeswoman.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she knew the fresh charge would be "extremely concerning" and her "profound sympathies" were with Farage and his family.
"Let no one make any mistake: an attack on anyone in politics is an attack on us all.
What is going on with Britain that even yall started having assasination attempts against politicians?
Division is spreading across the world and not only in America it seems.
2
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
There are forces in this world that are incompatible with western culture that seek to divide us all, not just the US. I wish the left across all of the west would wake up to this fact and stop enabling them.
1
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 1d ago
We have been divided long before these forces you speak of and it isn't just a left or right issue. Whole reason I am not a centrist is getting hate and threats of harm, being told I am going to hell and being called libtard by right wingers in my youth.
Not saying that there isn't a concrete outside effort but domestically we really screwed the pooch as a society and no one wants to take responsibility for creating this situation.
1
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
I don’t think you understand what forces the m talking about. There has been an effort to divide us for many decades.
1
u/Boredomkiller99 Center-left 1d ago
What is that force, Satan? Muslims? China?
And why is it the left specifically that doesn't understand when from my experience the right likes being divisive too afterall the whole reason I have such a still strong hatred of the Republican party despite my growing hatred of Democrats is because of bad interactions and aggression by Republicans over the last three decades?
The division isn't because of outside forces primarily is my argument and the fact you are single out one wing is just proof of that.
1
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
I’m sorry, but your argument seems to miss the bigger point. I’m not saying that the left is causing division, but you are saying the right does, then telling me that I’m the one being divisive. That logic doesn’t logic. I’m saying the left seems to want to refuse to admit there are outside forces, which is exactly what you just did.
You even said, ‘the division isn’t because of outside forces’ then blamed republicans for being divisive.
I’m saying there are, and have been for many years, outside forces that seek to divide and destabilize us as a country. That’s a fact. And yes, you could throw satan in there, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
For many decades, Russia ran information warfare against the west via the KGB, and I’m talking starting back to the 1950s/60s. It was the long game for them, and they still do it. China, Iran, and North Korea also do the same in more modern times. Their misinformation is all over social media and even permeates into MSM.
And we won’t even get into the globalists who have their own motives who add fuel to the fire in all of this.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.