>How come the only freedoms being advocated for are the freedoms to turn gay, become trans, and then preorder your suicide pod from the next Dr. Kevorkian! But at least you can abort your kid and not need an ID when you vote! Lol I’m pro-choice but can you see how the masses would find these solutions to their problems… distasteful?
>So we shouldn't have the freedom to choose these things or what's the point here? I think the only retarded policy democrats have regarding trans-issues is trans athletes.
I’ll acknowledge that you dodged the no ID when voting, like California where it’s expressly illegal for a poll worker to request an ID. Voter ID laws keep people from double-voting or voting more than once.
No, why are the only freedoms being advocated ones that most Americans can expect to never meaningfully utilize? What those two freedoms have in common is that they prevent people from creating a family, which is why they are being benevolently offered.
Yeah being gay is fine, being trans is fine. Few are against those. None of the candidates or vice presidential candidates are against those freedoms. I’m too liberal to be against them either. Who knows, in 12-16 years we may all have to turn gay or trans to feel pride in our own skin color, lol
Yeah Trans athletes isn’t okay with most people. Perhaps you saw Boxing in the Olympics where a transman won by pummeling all of the women to death. Though some like that kind of entertainment. Not you and I though. Considerations to spend our tax dollars for sex reassignment surgeries (sometimes in prison or with illegal immigrants) isn’t very popular.
Let’s have freedoms most Americans can reasonably expect to utilize — freedom of speech, freedom for each American to own land, freedom for a business to be open during Covid, freedom to not grow up to be a debt slave because of the national debt, freedom to give a great country to our kids. Ones that aren’t just globalist agendas but national ones too.
>Are you really improving women’s lives by becoming the party of Islam? Or is that talk about women just propaganda and lip service?
>Lol, by that metric the Republicans IS the party of Islam with wanting to:
* Ban abortion
* Ban LGBT people
* Limit women's rights such as voting
* Teaming up with Muslims to enact these policy changes
etc. etc.
*Wanting to ban abortion is a lie that Kamala kept reciting at her rallies. It’s really a trap to talk about that because we know Trump wanted to leave it up to the states to decide — and that is the most moderate position a candidate can take.
*Who the F is banning LGBT people? Lol yet another lie.
*Limiting women voting rights is probably the most proposterous thing of these 4 though they all preposterous. Show me one time in 2016 when Trump motioned to reduce women’s voting rights or any video of him saying so. [Citation Needed].
*Teaming up with Muslims? lol where do you get this from?? Lol, you can keep all of your pro-hamas protesters. Maybe you forgot the Trump Muslim travel bans during Covid. However, many Muslims did vote for Trump this time around and they said because they want peace in the Middle East.
>Are pro-Palestine flags virtue signaling or do they advocate Hitler-level genocide as their supporters chant “from the river to the sea” as they aim to wipe an entire group people off the map?
>I don't support Palestine, beyond that they should work together with Israel as it is in Bosnia.
>Out of all of the things the left-leaning NPR can talk about, why did they give an “From to the river to the sea” advocate the microphone? Is NPR where we want our tax dollars to continue going to?
>Left-leaning in what way is publicly funded NPR left-leaning? Because they invited on 1 person who has crazy views? You should check into C-SPAN then.
C-Span is neutral, they usually don’t even have any commentary. NPR has a hard time even pretending they are neutral, especially during election seasons. NPR has always been available to listen to for the entirety of my lifetime.
>But again how very centrist of you, judging others.
Nice try attempting to gaslighting me. Recognizing bias or disagreeing with programs on the radio is something anyone should be able to do. It takes critical thinking skills though, which correlate with not always voting for the same side every election.
>There’s a reason the right is always more welcoming of the left than the left is of the right.
>There is a reason the right, this election cycle, was willing to have those open debates and go on the most podcasts & talk shows and have the tough discussions. The campaign strategy of the Trump & Vance campaign was to go on so many podcasts that they were uncensorable by the legacy media. As we all know, their campaign strategy worked and people were able to hear both sides. A campaign running on emotions like “Joy” vs. a better economy that benefits all.
Democrats have had their head in the sand when it comes to new media, that's about it, just like Republicans used to have their heads in the sand about cable TV being important.
>If you want to learn more, don’t debate me. Listen to an episode of Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, or David Sacks instead.
>I'll do whatever I want, and I sure as hell will not be listening to charlatans as you suggest.
If you want to read about real conservatives here's a few names:
* Emmanuel Mounier
* Heinrich Pesch
* Wilhelm Röpke
* Hilaire Bel-
I don’t recognize their names or know anything about them. Those names don’t even sound like they’re from the country of America! I also know that your view on who good republicans are is more than questionable. I trust that while you may have a list of good liberals, I don’t trust that you have a list of good people on the “right” side. IDK about them but some people are paid to be dufuses to make the rich Left feel good.
I’m informative but I’m not persuasive. While I’m good at providing and sharing information, I almost never convince anyone of changing any views. Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, or David Sacks can and likely will challenge and change your views.
>How come the only freedoms being advocated for are the freedoms to turn gay, become trans, and then preorder your suicide pod from the next Dr. Kevorkian! But at least you can abort your kid and not need an ID when you vote! Lol I’m pro-choice but can you see how the masses would find these solutions to their problems… distasteful?
>So we shouldn't have the freedom to choose these things or what's the point here? I think the only retarded policy democrats have regarding trans-issues is trans athletes.
I’ll acknowledge that you dodged the no ID when voting, like California where it’s expressly illegal for a poll worker to request an ID. Voter ID laws keep people from double-voting or voting more than once.
No, why are the only freedoms being advocated ones that most Americans can expect to never meaningfully utilize? What those two freedoms have in common is that they prevent people from creating a family, which is why they are being benevolently offered.
Yeah being gay is fine, being trans is fine. Few are against those. None of the candidates or vice presidential candidates are against those freedoms. I’m too liberal to be against them either. Who knows, in 12-16 years we may all have to turn gay or trans to feel pride in our own skin color, lol
Yeah Trans athletes isn’t okay with most people. Perhaps you saw Boxing in the Olympics where a transman won by pummeling all of the women to death. Though some like that kind of entertainment. Not you and I though. Considerations to spend our tax dollars for sex reassignment surgeries (sometimes in prison or with illegal immigrants) isn’t very popular.
Let’s have freedoms most Americans can reasonably expect to utilize — freedom of speech, freedom for each American to own land, freedom for a business to be open during Covid, freedom to not grow up to be a debt slave because of the national debt, freedom to give a great country to our kids. Ones that aren’t just globalist agendas but national ones too.
>Are you really improving women’s lives by becoming the party of Islam? Or is that talk about women just propaganda and lip service? >Lol, by that metric the Republicans IS the party of Islam with wanting to:
* Ban abortion
* Ban LGBT people
* Limit women's rights such as voting
* Teaming up with Muslims to enact these policy changes etc. etc.
*Wanting to ban abortion is a lie that Kamala kept reciting at her rallies. It’s really a trap to talk about that because we know Trump wanted to leave it up to the states to decide — and that is the most moderate position a candidate can take.
*Who the F is banning LGBT people? Lol yet another lie.
*Limiting women voting rights is probably the most proposterous thing of these 4 though they all preposterous. Show me one time in 2016 when Trump motioned to reduce women’s voting rights or any video of him saying so. [Citation Needed].
*Teaming up with Muslims? lol where do you get this from?? Lol, you can keep all of your pro-hamas protesters. Maybe you forgot the Trump Muslim travel bans during Covid. However, many Muslims did vote for Trump this time around and they said because they want peace in the Middle East.
>Are pro-Palestine flags virtue signaling or do they advocate Hitler-level genocide as their supporters chant “from the river to the sea” as they aim to wipe an entire group people off the map?
>I don't support Palestine, beyond that they should work together with Israel as it is in Bosnia.
>Out of all of the things the left-leaning NPR can talk about, why did they give an “From to the river to the sea” advocate the microphone? Is NPR where we want our tax dollars to continue going to? >Left-leaning in what way is publicly funded NPR left-leaning? Because they invited on 1 person who has crazy views? You should check into C-SPAN then.
C-Span is neutral, they usually don’t even have any commentary. NPR has a hard time even pretending they are neutral, especially during election seasons. NPR has always been available to listen to for the entirety of my lifetime.
>But again how very centrist of you, judging others.
Nice try attempting to gaslighting me. Recognizing bias or disagreeing with programs on the radio is something anyone should be able to do. It takes critical thinking skills though, which correlate with not always voting for the same side every election.
>There’s a reason the right is always more welcoming of the left than the left is of the right.
>There is a reason the right, this election cycle, was willing to have those open debates and go on the most podcasts & talk shows and have the tough discussions. The campaign strategy of the Trump & Vance campaign was to go on so many podcasts that they were uncensorable by the legacy media. As we all know, their campaign strategy worked and people were able to hear both sides. A campaign running on emotions like “Joy” vs. a better economy that benefits all. Democrats have had their head in the sand when it comes to new media, that's about it, just like Republicans used to have their heads in the sand about cable TV being important. >If you want to learn more, don’t debate me. Listen to an episode of Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, or David Sacks instead. >I'll do whatever I want, and I sure as hell will not be listening to charlatans as you suggest. If you want to read about real conservatives here's a few names:
* Emmanuel Mounier
* Heinrich Pesch
* Wilhelm Röpke
* Hilaire Bel-
I don’t recognize their names or know anything about them. Those names don’t even sound like they’re from the country of America! I also know that your view on who good republicans are is more than questionable. I trust that while you may have a list of good liberals, I don’t trust that you have a list of good people on the “right” side. IDK about them but some people are paid to be dufuses to make the rich Left feel good.
I’m informative but I’m not persuasive. While I’m good at providing and sharing information, I almost never convince anyone of changing any views. Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, or David Sacks can and likely will challenge and change your views.