-12
Is there anywhere on this site you've found decent discussion across the aisle?
(self.conservative)
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
-12 points (26.9% liked)
conservative
953 readers
2 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I haven’t said a single lie all day, nor have I trolled anything.
I answered your question, then you decided to go on some unhinged rant telling me to kill myself because I disagree with you
You've told multiple lies throughout this thread you worthless rat. Go jump off a bridge
Give specific examples
Oh wait, you can’t
Edit: The juvenile name calling makes this so much more entertaining
https://lemmy.world/comment/3919192
I already called you out directly retard
There isn’t a single lie there. If you voted for trump (which I’m not saying you did) you’re explicitly supporting homophobia, transphobia, racism and sexism. There’s no other interpretation of voting for a party that actively promotes those ideas.
Objectively false, per usual.
The party supports those ideas, supporting the party is supporting those ideas. Not that hard of a concept, but I think it might be too much for you to handle
Once again, objectively false. The party does not support those ideals.
Except they do
The repeal of Roe v Wade
Endorsement of a president who has had multiple sexual assault suits against him
The GOPs refusal to adhere to court orders about redistributing Alabama because it’s gerrymandered to have the majority of the black population in one district. This minimizes the representation they’re able to have.
Florida trying to ban healthcare for adults because they’re afraid of trans people
The Supreme Court openly saying that gay marriage is something the conservative justices would like to revisit
There’s countless more examples of the party endorsing and supporting racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist policies.
But evidence doesn’t matter to you, so I’m sure this will fall on deaf ears
Which has nothing to do with the topic. The fundamental question of the abortion debate is one of life and responsibility. Not the spam CNN feeds you about sexism.
Irrelevant, not a policy position
The court is not an automatic source of justice. Frequently the opposite.
Isn't happening
Because it was an insanely flimsy case on crappy logic.
If they're as bad as your last set of examples, don't bother
I could spend a half hour getting sources for all of those and more, but I’m sure it’d be wasted effort on you.
You also conveniently worked around the most major aspect of every point to attempt to make it about something else.
Roe v Wade is very relevant. It is an anti-science position that actively harms women. That’s very clear, especially as the Republican Party is very worried about the fact that it has galvanized a large contingent of the population against them.
Endorsement of a president who is a serial sexual assulter is a policy position, and like it or not, who you endorse is a major part of how politics work. The person and their views are then reflected on you.
The court may not be right every time, but it is right this time. This is the second map that has been rejected by a different court for still being racially based and used to disenfranchise black voters.
Florida absolutely is trying to ban gender-affirming surgery for adults. They just do it in roundabout ways like requiring a form that has not (and likely will not) be created. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4050524-trans-adults-scramble-for-care-under-new-florida-law/amp/
Obergefell was a sound case and there’s no need to revisit it unless the goal is removing legal protections for gay marriage.