Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Repubs should run a better candidate if they don't want people voting for a third party. Maybe someone who isn't racist, geriatric, suffering from dementia, or an insurrectionist.
Broken record.
What does that even mean? We’re supposed to find new flaws to call out about Trump rather than recounting the most obvious serious ones?
I agree, that also. Constantly going on about superficial crowd size nonsense and his 2020 election lies.
"Just run someone we won't call mean names" is an impossible demand, because Democrats will never stop calling conservatives these things.
Not to say that Trump is the best Republicans have, he certainly is not. But the MSM would just say the same thing about the next guy. We're already seeing this with how JD Vance is getting treated.
Ted Cruz, one of my favorite presidential candidates, would never survive the current left wing media landscape. Neither would Vivek Ramaswamy or Rick Santorum, some of my other favorite presidential candidates.
He couldn't survive Trump insulting his wife and calling him a liar.
So you're just a terrible person? Got it.
And no, this doesn't prove your point. You could have mentioned old school McCain and I wouldn't be thinking you're a terrible person, but the current Republican climate only lets the loudest, most hateful people rise their ranks. There are some stinkers in the Democrat's ranks, but I can't think of a single Republican of note that isn't terrible.
It’s amazing that anyone in the world can look at gigantic losers and pricks like Jim Jordan and think “oh yeah! Definitely voting for that guy”
If McCain were running, the MSM would be saying horrible shit about him.
I remember when he did run, before Palin was picked as his running mate, he tried to keep things civil.
Maybe you're too young or too old to remember McCain going against a support of his when they called Obama an Arab. Could you ever imagine Trump doing that? Especially when his was the loudest one on the whole "birther" movement.
Like saying he wasn't a war hero since he got captured? Which is still better than dying since only "losers" and "suckers" get killed in war.
Seriously, to paraphrase, “he’s just a hero because he got captured. Well I like the ones who weren’t captured”. And this from a giant asshole who never served after claiming to have “bone spurs” and called STDs in the 70s “his personal vietnam”. It’s unimaginable that basically anyone supports that insanely stupid windbag, but here we are.
What wretched asshole would say such a thing? Unimaginable.
Still, it could be worse than the media saying it. Like it would take some of the lowest scum on the planet for someone in the context of running for or acting as president to say such a thing.
Pretty absurd to say Democrats call people "mean names" given this list of "mean names" trump has used over the years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump
Not really. Trump calling people names doesn't disprove that others have called him names.
Sure. Nobody was trying to prove that. However, whining about it in his support is hypocrisy.
True. To be fair though, I don't support his namecalling.
Yet you highlight this:
Which are responses to his constant barrage of insults based on looks/race/whatever else he makes up. Is no one allowed to retort now? You can't bemoan the "MSM" and "Democrats" when he is instigating this shit.
Retorting to some extent is understandable, but when insults are all you have left, it betrays a weakness of your political position.
You will hear Trump criticize left wing policies day in and day out, but rarely will Democrats criticize Trump's policies.
What policies does he have?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform
https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
Harris criticises those quite regularly, as well as the policies he hasn't added to his platform which everyone understands to be something critical to a lot of one-issue voters: abortion.
A reminder that Trump pushed insults as his modus operandi from the very start; when people start pushing back in the same style you seem to have an issue.
When did she do that last?
I wouldn't care if there was substance in some of the attacks as well. Like, Trump put in X policy, and that hurt the country in Y way. Honestly I complain more about Trump's policies than Democrats do, there are multiple things he's done that have hurt the country although I still think he was a net positive. The only policies I've heard Democrats criticize Trump for during this election cycle were tax breaks for the wealthy and moving the embassy to Israel.
The problem is his policies I have gripes with are all things Democrats supported. The COVID-19 stimulus checks were the biggest thing to me since they're the primary catalyst for our looming economic crisis IMHO, but the Democrats were all on board with that. Trump also signed off on multiple gun control regulations, including the ban on bump stocks. His worst policies are left wing policies (the guy is a moderate, after all), so it makes sense that Democrats don't attack him over them.
At her DNC speech.
I... what.
I've seen speeches/interviews where they criticised the plan to deport millions of people, criticised as being unworkable and whatnot.
Okay, but they’re qualitatively different. Saying Trump is geriatric, an attempted insurrectionist, sexist etc are sober descriptions of his behavior. The nicknames he comes up with like “Liddle Adam Schiff” are befitting of a preteen on a playground.
Trump brought us to this level of discourse - the constant juvenile practice of using demeaning nicknames for anyone he doesn’t see as on his side. It has cheapened our politics, like he has in general. What you’re complaining about is labeling. It’s not “mean names”, which seems to trivialize the serious intent in pointing out someone is racist or senile.
It’s snowflake shit.
They're not just names, unless you are deliberately ignoring reality.
He's not even a conservative. He just wants to shovel as much money as he can into his own pockets. He's stealing classified documents. He's completely unfit.
They mostly are, they are mostly just mean names propped up by lies/conspiracy theories. The tactics used by the MSM against Trump and a bully or abusive parent are almost identical.
The one thing we agree on is that Trump is not a conservative, so I'll take that common ground with you. He is comically farther to the left than almost anybody in the MAGA camp.
What about MSM like Fox
Mean names like "felon" and "rapist" and "insurrectionist" and "traitor"? Those sorts of mean names.
Appropriate names...
Yes
Those aren't names, they are factual descriptions.
I mean he has been proven in a court of law to be at least 2 of those, so... you know...
Trump's recent non-civil convictions will very likely be overturned on appeal.
He's bragged about gropping women. The fuck do you want?
Consensual fingering becomes rape when Trump does it 😂
Proving this is the only honest thing Trump has ever said.
Maybe you could call him a “gropper” instead?
Not at all likely, and until then, is still 100% factually accurate.
That still leaves "rapist" as indisputably factually accurate.
Not indisputably, as that was a civil case and therefore does not require evidence of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If there was stronger evidence, he likely would have been tried criminally instead.
I’m starting to think these dems don’t take rape seriously, given how they failed to try to criminally convict someone they know is a rapist.
Who are you referring to here?
I'm a conservative but I'll admit that Democrats seem to care more about rape than Republicans. Most rape apologist rhetoric actually comes from the right not the left.
I’m referring to the fact that they know for sure Donald Trump is a rapist, but they’re not using whatever evidence convinced them of this fact to bring a criminal conviction.
Sounds like they’re not taking the obvious next step, given they know he raped someone.
This is, in case you’re going to commit to the playing dumb, not my actual point. My actual point is that while people want to believe it, they don’t have the actual reason to believe it, which is known as evidence.
You think evidence is why leftists call Trump a rapist? Ha!