Some friends I just can’t shake
hard enough
around the neck
with a firm grip
I have conservative friends. Almost all of them oppose Trump. The point you think you’re making isn’t as clear as you think. The narrative of someone using the “I’m a conservative and I’m being silenced/discriminated” isn’t coming from actual conservatives but rather from MAGA and white nationalist clowns pushing a hateful, un-Christian, not actually classic conservative agenda.
I think it’s a joke at the expense of many who deserve it.
Yyeap that is how it feels to be a conservative today… Cant say you are a conservative cause people will call you “rasist” “bigot” “sexist” “transphobic” and so on. Just because you think a 9 month old baby should have the same rights as a newborn. Or because you think we should have rules (and we do) behind how people cross the border. Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Just some thoughts that will get you banned from social media.
I would agree that some people have become hyper-sensitized towards any statement that might be interpreted as “racist”, “sexist” or “transphobic”, no thanks to a definite rise of those sentiments, mainly amongst conservatives. But I firmly believe this “they call anyone conservative a nazi/a racist/a transphobe/a xenophobe” claim is a persecution complex installed onto conservatives by the media to disarm the accusations and instead turn them into anger against the “other side.”
If this is about the USA, abortion used to be legal up to 12 weeks after conception, 9 months would be crazy. Also, there is no open border, nor does the current government want that (they merely insist on proper procedure, aka rules, rather than letting people drown). Republicans will likely continue to reject border deals in order to keep the topic cooking until election day and to aid America’s enemies in Russia.
If people are calling you racist, bigoted, sexist, and transphobic simply because you identify as a conservative, you should probably reevaluate your positions and if you truly identify with conservative values.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody thinks there shouldn’t be any rules about crossing borders, even the fringe people that are for open borders. What people disagree with is intentionally drowning people via razorwire as a deterrent, and instead want an easier path to citizenship.
Everyone thinks paying debts is a good thing, but may disagree on what constitutes a faulty, predatory system of debt that ought to be abolished in the first place, like medical debt and school debt.
The thoughts you listed alone will not get you banned from social media (outside of specific communities for specific purposes), what would is how you express those views, which can in fact be sexist, bigoted, or perhaps even racist or transphobic.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody is aborting 9-month-old fetuses at all. Unless that fetus is already dead or dying, 9 months is well past the point of viability.
24 weeks (5 months and some change) is when a fetus could viably survive outside the womb with medical intervention. 9 months is at the point of being fully developed, even if it is a couple weeks premature.
Almost all abortions happen at 10 weeks or less, well before the point of viability. Almost no abortions happen after 24 weeks. Definitely none happening at 9 months.
Yes, absolutely correct, thanks for expanding.
Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Except of course PPP loans. Student loans for sure need to be paid back, but the free money the wealthy got from the gubermint is fine.
Not not saying its fine, all Im saying its you should be responsable its all. Seems like its not a popular opinion today…
I agree with a lot of your opinions here, I just don’t understand what makes these examples intrinsically conservative.
I’m a liberal, but I don’t believe in the breakdown of structure. A lot of those rules are in place for a reason - I’d argue the difference lies more in response.
…you were banned from a social media site for saying someone should pay back a debt?Which one, I’ll stay as far away as possible, that’s crazy fr 😯
I’m assuming he’s referring to student loan forgiveness. I could see him getting banned from certain communities for saying he’s against it.
Yeap that is correct. Creating irresponsable individuals (in my opinion you should be responsable for your acctions)
From a non-US standpoint I’d have to ask you why university costs money to attend in the first place. Shouldn’t you instead give students money to cover living expenses etc. so that they can focus on their studies? So that everyone who might be able to graduate gets a go at it, regardless of their socio-economic background?
Universal education isn’t exactly a new, radical position, Luther was advocating for a broad education for everyone back in the 1500s.
I wish nobidy had to work and everything was “free”, but as they say everybody has to " eat". Profesors, personal, etc… Not to take in to account the equipment needed to run the clases (labs etc…).
Nothing is “free”
Yeah but from the perspective of a government paying for your citizens education reduces crime, increases revenue and helps your country stay on top from a technology point of view. It’s a pretty safe investment that pays for itself. I graduated 5 years ago, university and college isnt free where i am but is subsidized (and also access to low interest gov’t loans) I have already paid in taxes more than my education cost the government. If I work for another 20yrs that’s easily a 4x on the initial investment.
Nothing is “free”
Indeed not. Streets, for example, need building and maintenance… yet they are free to use. Why would you handle education any differently?
Why stop at education? Why not housing, or food, or cars, or vacation? Why work at all?
I think two things make up the core of the student loan problem.
-
Kids in high school are surrounded by rhetoric from every adult they might trust near-constantly insinuating that if you don’t go to college you’ll never make anything of yourself (this has been better recently, with more and more high school graduates being made abundantly aware of non-college options available to them)
-
Student loans are designed to spiral into lifelong debt. This one is a bit more anecdotal for me but a good few of my high school friends have paid back well beyond the initial sum of their student loans, yet their remaining balance is greater than they started.
Now I’m not saying this is what you’re doing, but those who frame the issue as purely one of personal responsibility (i.e. “you took out a loan pay it back”) are at best being unhelpfully reductive and at worst gaslighting.
Set aside, just for a moment, the abstract moral aspect of this position, and consider the purely utilitarian side. If such a huge portion of an entire generation’s earnings are being funneled up to banks that talked them into a maybe-not-so-necessary college education when they were 17, they’re not exactly enabled to spend money in local commerce. Money spent in local commerce is pretty good if you want an economy to thrive, and if you ask me, student debt forgiveness would substantially contribute to that. If you disagree then you disagree, but framing that disagreement as a moral superiority is immature.
A 3rd thing you forgot to mention People will take a loan and study a carriers that dont pay enough for them to be able to pay back. Meaning people will not study the market when they ask for a loan. If you need such a big loan you better be sure that you are going to be anle to pay it back. How much money do people make right out if collage from the profession Im intented to study? Not enough? Then its nit a good invesment of time and money…
-
What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.
Depends on the state, some mothers are able to kill their 9 month baby (does notmatter what the father opinion is)
Do you know how they abort a 9 month old baby? A 6 month old, even?
They induce delivery or do a c section. You can’t just vacuum it out or poison it or something - it’s several pounds of flesh and bone, and (as always) the biggest issue is the skull. It’s gotta come out, or the mother will die… Babies can die at any moment, and it will decompose. All that bacteria gets into the blood, and that bacteria poisons the blood… Sepsis is a death sentence - whether it’s an organ or a fetus, it has to come out or your chances aren’t good.
So you have to get the skull out - it’s the widest part. So either induced delivery (the quicker, easier option), or it’s surgery.
A C section is something that is extremely common and relatively safe - there’s not really a third option unless the mother is likely to die from that or induced birth.
There’s a whole approval process for non-standard procedures (or you’d lose your license and be begging for malpractice to drop you), and you’d need a specialist, probably a pediatric surgeon who does en-utero surgery. They’d also have to go through review and defend why it was medically necessary - they’d be risking their license and being dropped by malpractice insurance if they didn’t have a very good argument.
It would be grueling too - it would be a long, physically intensive surgery for everyone involved. Extremely expensive too…
So you’re doing an induced birth or a c section. It’s also likely going to be automatically classified as a risky birth, because it’s premature, so you’ll be getting a more experienced surgeon and experienced nurses who have specialized in pre-mature births (possibly a special team, depending on the size of the hospital… But it’ll be the most experienced people available).
These are going to be the people who devoted their life to giving babies every chance possible. I know several well… Let me share a couple stories I’ve heard.
An older couple was almost 9 months into the pregnancy, and very much wanted the child, especially knowing it was probably their last chance. It was an at risk pregnancy so they were watching closely, but seemed to be going along pretty well… They’d picked out a name and decorated the nursery, it could come any day now. Then suddenly, the woman felt pain, and they rushed in… The baby had died without warning. They were crushed, but they had to induce delivery. The nurse was delivering the corpse, and as the head came through it fell off.
The nurse blocked their view as she delivered the body, and took it over to the washing station. In cases like this, she’d clean and dress it, take a footprint and picture to give them something to keep, and let them hold their child once to give them a chance to say goodbye. So she did all that, bundled it in a blanket and covered the neck with a ribbon, and gave them that chance without them ever realizing.
In another case, a younger mother’s health was going downhill midway through the pregnancy and she came in - the baby had died inside her some time ago, and she didn’t realize. She was in bad shape because of sepsis, so immediately they induced delivery. It had rotted… The arms had already fallen off, and she delivered it in decomposing pieces. The nurse did a footprint, but didn’t show the body.
But mostly, she delivered pre-mature births - babies that may or may not make it if she did everything she could. Even if it wasn’t breathing or the heart wasn’t beating, she put it on a ventilator and do infant CPR. Over the years she even learned to do weird things as a last ditch effort, like pricking the baby’s foot with a needle or holding them at a certain angle… Giving dying babies every chance is what she’s spent her life doing.
I did also ask about what they do in that situation, with a super late term abortion - they’d deliver the baby, and as soon as it was stable she’d whisk it away to the NICU. They then never mentioned it to the mother unless she directly asked… Apparently the mother usually doesn’t, and so if it survives it goes up for whatever processes for adoption. If there’s any kernel of truth in these stories, women might be leaving the hospital thinking their child is dead.
So I mentioned non-standard procedures risking everything - so there’s a clear line here too. Part of the modern Hippocratic oath is to minimize harm… They can prioritize the mother’s autonomy or health over the baby, but the baby has to come out. Maybe there’s some crazy situation where killing the baby would improve the mothers chances, but without a pressing reason, the baby is going to get any chance they can give it.
But forget the laws. There’s no way in hell they’re killing babies just because the mother told them to… I’ve heard them talk shit about weird or stupid parents, but the only complaint I’ve ever heard about the babies is “it was really troublesome, it kept trying to die every time I looked away”
deleted by creator
There is no restriction on some states. No matter if there are medical danger or not :( Really sad to be honest https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court
deleted by creator
Nobody wakes up at the 40 week mark and says fuck it, let’s abort this bitch. That’s pure fox news fiction.
1% of people who kill the baby do.
What about the 93% perform before week 13. Is that not “I didnt want the baby but I was horney last weekend and I fucked without a condom so now Im killing the baby” acctitude?.
People are just not responsable for their own actions its all.
Cant say you are a conservative cause people will call you “rasist” “bigot” “sexist” “transphobic” and so on. Just because you think a 9 month old baby should have the same rights as a newtborn.
What about the 93% perform before week 13. Is that not “I didnt want the baby but I was horney last weekend and I fucked without a condom so now Im killing the baby” acctitude?.
lol. Interesting how you just shift to saying the quiet part out loud that you were just crying about being called sexist for even though you started off pretending you actually cared about babies.
So easily too, all it took was being proved wrong on the most surface-level inflammatory argument that fox has been able to manufacture through lies and deception, relying on their audience’s extremely poor understanding of how the medical system interacts with the legal system. An understanding which you clearly have no intentions of improving just so you can stay mad.
“😭 Just because…” my ass. You ain’t slick. We can see through your shit.
I’d go on, but I don’t think you need to be told what’s wrong with your new argument. Otherwise you would have started with it.
deleted by creator
Have you ever considered that, at that late in the term, most of those mothers wanted their babies but had to abort to survive or because the fetus was already either dead or may as well have been? You talk like they’re just wantonly killing babies (just to spite men for some reason) because, idk, this is the future liberals want, drink blood, hail gay satan, whatever
If the babie is death then its not an abortion. If the baby dies by natural reasons its not an abortion.
Drink blood? Hail gay? What are you talking about
If the babie is death then its not an abortion
Except that plenty of surgical abortions happen because the baby is already dead in the mother’s uterus though.
Being dead doesn’t magically teleport it away and it needs to be taken out for the mother to survive.
Which is, medically speaking, the same procedure as a surgical abortion.From wikipidia: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy
If the baby is dead the pregnancy has finished already.
The states that ban surgical abortions don’t care about that and ban the procedures in talking about.
Not that you’d give a shit anyway.
I’m gonna charitably guess he means a unborn baby at nine months, but… Does he think those are aborted or some?
You are somehow correct. I do mean nine month unborn baby, its not my opinion if they are killed or not, depends on the state some will allow you to kill your 9 month old baby.
Sorry but that’s not true… either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a “late term abortion” is?
No, this is what I mean: [ Viability: 14 states ban abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Some laws that don’t specify a limit say it’s up to the abortion provider’s “judgment” to determine whether a fetus is viable. Third trimester: Virginia is the only state that prohibits abortions in the pregnancy’s third trimester, which starts at around 25 weeks, per Guttmacher. It’s also the lone southern state that hasn’t banned or restricted abortion since the end of Roe.
No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court)
Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.
There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.
“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.
It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.
I wish you were correct. But that is not the case. “No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.” No matter what the case is you dint have restictions.
Qe have to understand that the reason we have some laws is to protect the most inosent, specially those who cant defend themselfs. We do this with the older, handicaped and kids. Kids are not able to drink, why? Why cant they smoke? They are not mature enough to make desitions for themselves, so we take that responsability upon their parents.
So, should laws be put to protect the unborn babies? Is their life worth more or less then yours? Why can you kill the baby before 9 months but not after? What is different? “If the baby continues to develop it will kill the mother so lets kill the baby so the mother can live” is the argument before 9 months but never after 9 months.
No they fucking don’t. Unless there’s lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother, no one is aborting babies at 9 months. Ffs turn off Fox News already.
I wish you were correct. That is not thw case :( (No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.)[https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court]
fyi you keep linking to this site but it says the article no longer exists
A quick google search you can find out the states where is legal to kill a 9month old baby
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There’s nothing a conservative hates more than being judged by who they are as people. They think that tolerance means being a complete moral vacuum and accepting any sort of malevolence and violence. This is because they see people being tolerant of PoC, queer people and non-Christians and they also see membership in those categories as moral failings.
I don’t have conservative friends because I’m not friends with toxic people. I wish them
wellall deadshifts uncomfortably
Nope! I know what conservatives want and what they stand for, when I tell them to fuck off it’s with pride and volume. Conservative isn’t a race, a color, a religion or a sexuality. It’s not beyond your control. It’s a series of moral decisions made by a fully competent adult who can absolutely be held responsible for what they believe and what they try to do with their power in the world.
Isn’t Islam technically Conservative? I’m confused
Religion should be opposed via education, culture, and general science, not via the state. Religion is conservative, but there are good religious people.
All religions are technically conservative. Individuals have individual relationships with their religions though.
The point is to not be tolerant of intolerance…
I don’t agree with the fascist lifestyle. I think they should keep it behind closed doors. On another planet. Not this one.
Do you want moon nazis? 'Cuz that’s how ypu get moon nazis.
You don’t choose sexual orientation, race, nationality, body you’re born into.
Conservatism is a choice! And it’s arguably the wrong one
Ehhh. I understand their logic at this point. It makes sense to them.
That being said, the basis for that logic is rather insane, so take that as you will.
Look, I don’t agree with them either, but if you understand them, then you can pre-empt their arguments. This doesn’t seem to be something that politicians on “the left” can do… So they put forward these very sensible and logical motions, and get torn to shreds by the opposition.
Not even that moldy tbh. just not cracked and deep fried enough for non mondays.
It’s ok not tolerating intolerant people.
Fuck building bridges. Everybody start digging a graveyard for the things that need to die.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=ZBAQFzMKpdA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You’ve become the intolerant. I can’t tolerate that. Repeat.
You’ve become the intolerant. You can’t tolerate that.
error: success
The paradox of tolerance says if we tolerate intolerance, then intolerance will dominate. Or something.
I’ve heard tolerance is more of a social contract
If I go hey black guy I’ll tolerate you if you tolerate me We agree Hey gay person I’ll tolerate your differences if you tolerate my differences Hey nazi-
He doesn’t tolerate us so he is not protected by the social contract and then we don’t have to tolerate Mr Nazi
The social contract solution is pretty solid. If you are intolerant of other people first, you lose protection of the contract and others will be intolerant of you without penalty.
The problem on Lemmy is that this gets combined with overgeneralized binary thinking, and all loosely “conservative” people get strawmanned as the intolerant outgroup, which, when this happens, actually does make you the guilty party.
Then maybe it’s time to start considering if conservative values have a place in our world? What does being conservative entail other than limiting the freedoms of other humans and refusing to spend money on anything but the military? Please give me a legitimate reason why we need to resist progress?
Well, there is a value in conserving nature and the environment. It’s just that somehow conservative values generally contradict conserving things that are in danger, really.
Yeah, my mind has completely separated conservation with conservative. Most folks I know concerned with conservation efforts, are progressive. Most conservatives I know, want to watch the world burn to turn a profit.
There’s a general difference between conservative and regressive, or reactionary. Being conservative in the true meaning of the word can simply mean that you have a preference to wait and see, to, if in doubt, stick with the old and trusted. And there’s nothing wrong with that: It’s a good idea to have new ideas, but following every new idea blindly? Not so much. Society needs inertia, and that means both moving forward and not moving faster than we can actually adapt to ourselves changing. And we all have that in us. To different degrees, but it doesn’t get more than 70% progressive or 70% conservative, in my observation.
That’s because there’s absolutely nothing wrong with lentil stew. It is, like so many things, tradition, “tradition” in the sense of a sum of successful innovations. Does anyone here have any problems with traditional woodwork? No? Thought so. Even the woodworking innovators respect it.
How to distinguish reactionaries from such true conservatives? Easy, actually: Reactionaries will invoke a past that never was, trying to move there, betraying that they’re actually terminally misguided progressives. They do that in defence of failed innovations – such as the nuclear family, or capitalism, or whatever.
I appreciate your honest response but, I haven’t heard those intentions from anyone claiming to be conservative until just now.
I think it’s fine to celebrate traditions, even fine to share them when asked, or offer to share them with people you know. My family makes these really specific pancakes for holidays, I love making those, great tradition. Some families deny their children basic healthcare because, traditionally their faith tells them to and that’s child abuse, awful tradition. I get what you mean but it’s a pretty shaky argument. As for waiting and reacting, how much longer do we need to wait to react to things like climate change, the homelessness epidemic, the opioid crisis, childhood cancer? If any of your traditions are against solving those problems, I’m sorry but I’m against those traditions and they aren’t compatible with modern society.
I’m curious, why not find a new title for your political beliefs, and shame modern conservatives who line their pockets with money from big corporations? Sounds like the conservative badge isn’t quite reflecting what you’d like it to anymore.
I’m curious, why not find a new title for your political beliefs, and shame modern conservatives who line their pockets with money from big corporations? Sounds like the conservative badge isn’t quite reflecting what you’d like it to anymore.
I’m an Anarchist, a widely misunderstood term. I thus emphasise with actual conservatives who are similarly misunderstood, is all.
how much longer do we need to wait to react to things like climate change, the homelessness epidemic, the opioid crisis, childhood cancer?
We don’t. Oh wait opioid crisis you mean the US, and your use of epidemic isn’t hyperbole.
E.g. farmers over here don’t mind environmentalism, they mind being told what to do by Greens who fail to care about farmers still being able to earn a living – they’re getting squeezed by supermarkets and agricultural subsidies, for decades, were designed to kill off family-sized farms. People don’t mind electric cars they mind having to pay for a new one, doubly so while absolutely nothing got invested into rail over the decades and the FDP penny-pinched the 49 Euro ticket. People don’t mind new building developments they mind that what gets built (by private developers) is way too expensive. People, and this is very telling, don’t mind wind mills as such they mind not owning them: In SH, on the countryside, where mills are largely owned by municipal cooperatives, everyone is in favour, in MV, where they don’t have much money at all to invest, they do mind as it’s big corporations from the city who put the mills there. And this goes deep, studies show how subsonic noise emissions from those mills are calming to one group and a stressor for the other.
Things like cars and intensive, import-dependent agriculture aren’t actually successful innovations, but mobility of people and everyone being fed are successful innovations. It’s especially in these areas where trouble arises when so-called progressives declare the unsuccessful part evil but don’t bother to protect the successful parts, thinking their part is done by fighting something, instead of building something new to replace it.
So, how long do we need to take until the US gets its act together? Exactly as long as it takes for progressives to realise that everything is going to change much faster if they care about being popular with the conservative crowd. Not the MAGAs and crazy evangelicals, forget about them, they’re a symptom, not a cause.
Oh, last thing: Jehovah’s Witnesses over here accept blood donations etc. for their kids. They had to change doctrine to get the status of a public-law church. I think they used an anabaptist-like “religious duty only starts when you’re old enough to practice it” kind of reasoning – that’s a good innovation, isn’t it?
I think you fail to account for the people that just don’t care or are too (morally or otherwise) corrupt to care. You will not get a CxU voter to vote for anything else than their christian conservative values where anything against the status quo is bad.
A simple fact is that actions to minimize climate change will never be popular because it will affect most people in significant ways and it will hurt. We still need to do this, though. Conservatives are so hyperfocused on not changing anything and making other people’s lives miserable that they cannot see what is coming to all of us not in the far future but potentially really soon.
There is no time to appease the conservatives and do things more their way to be more popular, because as the Americans say “if you give an inch they take a mile”. Nothing will happen and that is something we all can’t afford.
What it ultimately comes down to is corporate interest. Conservative parties will do nothing until it is in the interest of the corporations that fund them and their corrupt politicians. As you can see with the 49€ ticket, the railway maintenance or basically anything in control of FDP, CxU or SPD
Because the feelings of the people who would be affected negatively by progress are as valid as yours.
Okay but if progress means validating people who are made to feel invalid by a lack of progress, we’re just in the tolerance paradox with different words.
Yeah, notice how you are now talking like “them”.
Like who?
Who would be affected negatively by progress but the extremely wealthy?
Somebody that’s actively trying to end my existence isn’t a friend.
Aw come on… they’re not trying to end your existence. They just don’t want to be alive or exist.
Okay wait actually some DO want to end your existence directly. But most wished if you just died.
Most of them would be fine if you just denied everything about yourself that didn’t conform and pretended to be just like them.
Editors note: This only applies if you’re a white man. Other demographics are not allowed to conform.
No, you forget about, “the good ones.”
Just don’t ever expect your existence to change their beliefs. Hell you could climb the ranks in the party even make it to the Supreme Court. As long as you have no problem shutting the door on people who look just like you because of the way they look.
I love that they excuse their vote as anything else.
I just want a tax cut. (and don’t care about the republic or my friends’ lives)
And said tax cut will work like this:
Step 1: Before it happens, you’re asked to publicly dream about what an extra $4000 will do for you on social media. Step 2: Once it passes, you get a 0.1% tax cut. Enough for one extra pizza. Per year. The bill will also includes 3 tax raises only for the poor, one every 4 years that follow. Step 3: The corporation you work for, meanwhile, gets a 16% tax cut. With it, they’ll announce a $2000 one-time payment to all workers. Which will be rescinded as soon as it’s been reported about on local news. The bill also includes 3 further, even bigger tax cuts for the rich, one every 4 years.
End result: taxes raised on the poor, taxes lowered for the rich, but lots of social media euphoria from the working class, lots of newspaper clippings of bosses giving their workers generous one-time payments (that never materialized). And next election cycle, Fox News can dig up all the happy reports and the truth of the matter has never even entered the attention span of the royally-effed-over working class voters.
If you were to try to argue their view, I think they would say that their only problem is when you exhibit immortal behavior. Their definition of immoral behavior isn’t the only historic definition but is certainly a prominent one.
I exhibit immortal behavior every day by not dying.
Sure, but the Christian/MAGA view of morality is a shit one that I don’t subscribe to. They can fuck off with their moralizing of my decisions.
A conservative you are guilted into seeing occasionally? We call that family
If anyone knows about toxic family dynamics it’s Neptune.
Honestly Neptune could be pretty toxic himself sometimes
To be clear: I’m not going to bat for any gods over here, but a lot of his bad pr was from the Greek franchise.
![[Moldy Monday] I Have Friends Rule](https://media.kbin.run/22/4d/224d61d35b90894e9f602eb7887c1b71e80ebcf262d1ef50db6acbb2dc269a38.jpg){kind=link}