Conservatism

HenrySwanson
Apparently porn stars can't be conservatives

www.salon.com

"Conservative pornstar" derails Turning Point USA gathering

The adult entertainer Brandi Love was banned from a right-wing gathering after mounting pressure online
www.salon.com www.salon.com
Click to expand...

I just watched Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, Rick Scott, Kat Timpf, speak about freedom, censorship, how inclusive the 'movement' is," she stated. "And then they had me thrown out of the Turning Point USA conference. The Republican Party is broken."
Click to expand...

Not sure she had to attend the gathering to figure that out, but better late than never.

While many right-wingers cheered the ban on Love, an unlikely opposition force led by Federalist co-founder and frequent Fox News guest Ben Domenech also emerged: "I'm disappointed that TPUSA kicked out Brandi Love for no reason whatsoever. She's a Florida conservative businesswoman who loves America," he tweeted. "The right has an opportunity to be the big tent party. Don't be a bunch of prudes."
Click to expand...

Big tent party 🤭
 
HenrySwanson
www.dailymail.co.uk

Brave Books launches with anti-trans book 'Elephants are Not Birds'

Brave Books' first book, called Elephants are Not Birds, follows an elephant named Kevin and a vulture named Culture that tries to convince him he's actually a bird because he can sing well.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Takes a real "brave" person to go after gender confused kids :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The article only has a few pages from the book, but based on what I can see in there, I actually don't mind any of the big messages in that book. You can be an elephant and sing well - what's wrong with that message? Some of it is heavy handed, like "most of the animals felt like heaven", that's a tangential message that's not really particularly healthy. I'm sure I could pick on it more if I had more pages, but on the surface it comes off ok in my view.
 
Danoff
The article only has a few pages from the book, but based on what I can see in there, I actually don't mind any of the big messages in that book. You can be an elephant and sing well - what's wrong with that message? Some of it is heavy handed, like "most of the animals felt like heaven", that's a tangential message that's not really particularly healthy. I'm sure I could pick on it more if I had more pages, but on the surface it comes off ok in my view.
Click to expand...
While I'm relying on the Daily Mail to provide an accurate analysis of the book since there aren't any excerpts showing the struggles the elephant has identifying as a bird I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (I know, I know). Remember this is from the person who has this as her pinned tweet
 
controversial topic

At its heart conservatism is about preserving the status quo of people who are the 'chosen people'.

If you're wealthy invariably white with capital then you want to preserve your standing.

If that means putting out wedge issues like abortion to rally your cause then so be it.

Its also about exerting power on those deemed 'lesser'... the whole thing about govt. being strong on the weak, weak on the strong.

The only important thing is to have YOUR place in the economy, keep it run and keep feeding it victims to run it.

Its also about controlling mindshare. I see a general need to keep people stupid, uneducated ("I love the poorly educated") so that people are easy to manipulate.

Keep people away from any meaningful education and whatever limited compulsory education they have to have, dont make them analyse past issues.

Did slavery occur? We dont care. What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Doesnt matter.

Conservatism is exclusionary. Its fear of the 'other' and sense that conservatism is a superior ideology to any other.

Rally people around nationalism. Question science. In fact, mix it with evangelism.

My question would be what progress has conservatism and/or evangelism brought as a positive to the world?

Covid has brought up a mirror to governments state and national. Why do some govts. fail so spectacularly at this current crisis? I wonder.
 
Did they time-travel from 1970s Ireland?
 
HenrySwanson
www.independent.co.uk

At CPAC, GOP casts blame for Russia’s Ukraine invasion — but not on Putin

Republicans are placing blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on a certain commander in chief – but not the one who gave the order to attack, Andrew Feinberg writes
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

This is more a spotlight on American conservatism than conservatism in general but damn is it a sorry sight.
Click to expand...
That's because they want to rile up their base so they can fleece money out of them.

If any American president(s) is/are at fault here it's Obama for not taking a tougher stand in 2014 and Trump for bending over for Putin. This situation would be ten times worse if Trump was president too since he'd either continue to bend over for Putin or his ego would get the better of him and he'd pressure Congress to declare war.

I don't think Biden is the right person for the job, but if it's between him and Trump I'll take Biden's weak response over whatever cluster Trump would throw out.
 
Joey D
That's because they want to rile up their base so they can fleece money out of them.

If any American president(s) is/are at fault here it's Obama for not taking a tougher stand in 2014 and Trump for bending over for Putin. This situation would be ten times worse if Trump was president too since he'd either continue to bend over for Putin or his ego would get the better of him and he'd pressure Congress to declare war.

I don't think Biden is the right person for the job, but if it's between him and Trump I'll take Biden's weak response over whatever cluster Trump would throw out.
Click to expand...
This and... I'm not sure that the response is "weaker" than I'd like.

Trump would be pressuring congress to declare war on Ukraine.
 
Those dummies aren't even on the same page. Kirk claims there's no need for troops over there & Cruz says, "Whilst there's no need for troops in Ukraine, more must be done than Biden's weak response". Biden's "weak" response includes an additional 7,000 troops overseas towards the NATO borders.

Then you have Fuentes in front of a group all chanting, "Putin". I'll trade the Ukrainian refugees for them.
 
McLaren
Then you have Fuentes in front of a group all chanting, "Putin". I'll trade the Ukrainian refugees for them.
Click to expand...
Nick Fuentes was allowed at CPAC this year? I...I'm not sure why that surprises me but it does.

Edit: I misunderstood this. Here's a relevant clip from AFPAC.

 
Last edited:
Danoff
This and... I'm not sure that the response is "weaker" than I'd like.

Trump would be pressuring congress to declare war on Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Perhaps "weaker" isn't the correct word here. I feel like the sanctions Biden has pushed out should've been done prior to the attack, doing it punitively doesn't seem to be very effective. What should've been done after the attack was the US's full support of barring Russia from SWIFT. I know Europe needs to be on board with that too and not everyone is, but the US is sort of going back and forth on it. Hell, we probably should've enacted those sanctions after Russia very clearly launched cyberattacks against US infrastructure.

I know we can't use military intervention here and I'm not sure the US even should, but we should do everything in our power short of actually putting boots on the ground. Imposing a ban on SWIFT in Russia would definitely send a strong message and likely cripple the Russian economy. And while we might be doing this already, I think a counter cyberattack from our side would be justified here. But the fact that Russia hasn't accused the US of doing this yet leads me to believe we aren't. I know that's kind of a gray area though, but I have to assume our cyber-warfare is exponentially better than Russia's.
 
Well, I mean we knew MTG was a terrible politician and had no redeeming qualities. I can't even say I'm surprised that she completely buys into Jews = Nazis. I'm more surprised they haven't tried to invite the leader of GoyimTv.
 
Blitz24
I can't even say I'm surprised that she completely buys into Jews = Nazis.
Click to expand...
Well, when the Jews have a space laser to start California wildfires how can they be anything but?

I'm still upset that my wife won't tell me about the space laser too.
 
FMc4KZmWQAUNgUK.jpg

FMc4KaGXIAEgQiY.jpg

FMc4KdJWYAA1yfE.jpg


Modern American conservatism is a mental illness.
 
Last edited:
Blitz24
Well, I mean we knew MTG was a terrible politician and had no redeeming qualities. I can't even say I'm surprised that she completely buys into Jews = Nazis. I'm more surprised they haven't tried to invite the leader of GoyimTv.
Click to expand...
It's glaringly obvious that she only supports Israel because she has to...
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Well, when the Jews have a space laser to start California wildfires how can they be anything but?

I'm still upset that my wife won't tell me about the space laser too.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Have to join the tribe to learn about it sir.
 
TexRex
FMc4KZmWQAUNgUK.jpg

FMc4KaGXIAEgQiY.jpg

FMc4KdJWYAA1yfE.jpg


Modern American conservatism is a mental illness.
Click to expand...
Some libertarians are weird when it comes to abortion and it's definitely something that splits the ideology for sure. Personally, I'm under the impression that it should be up to the mother and father of the child to make the decision along with a medical professional. Past that it's no one's business. However, there are some libertarians that claim that a fetus has rights and by aborting it, you're denying them those rights. I pretty much draw the line at, can the child survive outside the womb? If so, then it likely has some rights, if it can't, then it's really part of the mother's body.
 
Joey D
Some libertarians are weird when it comes to abortion and it's definitely something that splits the ideology for sure. Personally, I'm under the impression that it should be up to the mother and father of the child to make the decision along with a medical professional. Past that it's no one's business. However, there are some libertarians that claim that a fetus has rights and by aborting it, you're denying them those rights. I pretty much draw the line at, can the child survive outside the womb? If so, then it likely has some rights, if it can't, then it's really part of the mother's body.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that a libertarian would abhor the government weighing the rights--legitimate rights--of one against those of another.

I'm opposed to abortion. It'd be my preference that women carried the unborn to birth and then, if they choose, give it up for adoption. But I recognize that I don't--nor should I--have a say. I'm pro-choice first and foremost with my anti-abortion views trailing to some indeterminate degree.

This isn't about abortion. This isn't about libertarianism. This isn't even about ****-knuckle Charlie Kirk calling for the state to suppress speech in the form of advocacy (which he labels "promotion" in an effete-but-for-the-staggering-idiocy-of-the-modern-right strawman) for bodily autonomy by those who call themselves Satanists, but it's closer to that.

This is about the sort of toxic conservatism adopted by the right these days, fueled by moral panic and culture war grievance, that leads to this sort of lunacy. It's a mental illness.
 

Latest Posts

Back