212
We didn’t kill enough Ann Coulters.
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
212 points (97.7% liked)
People Twitter
7647 readers
875 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wait, so this crosses the line but all the other awful shit they say doesn't? Where is the line, anyways?
...they posted, on the Nazi's social media platform.
"We still identify with the party of hate, but that is just too hateful!"
"Can we please go back to quiet, polite hatred? This is quite undignified I say, harrumph even."
There's hate, and then there's hate, you know?
It's easy to say that, but it's not that simple. Some traditional Republican viewpoints are valid. NOTE - I said valid, not correct or best. The problem is that they don't fill the void when they take things away or compromise to find a middle ground.
An example is a smaller government. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. Is it a valid opinion? Yes. As we see with the current administration, things are being chopped left and right. The real problem is that they aren't replacing the void left by these services.
As an example, if you hold the opinion that the government shouldn't be responsible for mail services, you can't just cut it without making sure that there is something else well regulated there to pick up the slack. Regulation does not equate to unprofitable.
Not all party members feel that things should be stripped without replacement. This is just a small example.
Some traditional Republican viewpoints are valid. NOTE - I said valid, not correct or best.
And every single one of them is part of the Democratic Party platform, at this point.
Edit: I see I've collected some downvotes. I would love for one of the folks who thinks I'm wrong to cite a counterexample of a traditional Republican viewpoint that is simultaneously (a) valid and (b) not shared by Democrats.
smaller government (..) Is it a valid opinion? Yes
Nope. The size of government is a COMPLETELY arbitrary way to measure liberty and lack thereof. It sounds good when you don't think that deeply about it and have had it drilled into your head by people you undeservedly respect, but it's demagogue nonsense.
It's not the SIZE of the government, it's what it's used for and how well.
Example: Republicans just increased the budget of the domestic terrorist group ICE more than 48-fold and "small government" drones are convinced that it'll make government smaller by kidnapping and/or murdering all "illegal aliens on welfare" in spite of the fact that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for any government assistance and it's near-impossible for most people who ARE eligible and satisfy all criteria for aid to get through all the hoops.
And that's not even going into the whole abortion rights issue or the enormity of the military industrial complex, the prison slave labor trade, and the for profit health insurance industry..
Government size actually matters. Right now it fits in yoyr doctor's office and bedroom, soon it will fit in your blood.
As an example, if you hold the opinion that the government shouldn’t be responsible for mail services, you can’t just cut it without making sure that there is something else well regulated there to pick up the slack. Regulation does not equate to unprofitable.
That's because they're trying to privatize everything, and I mean everything. For your example, Amazon, Fed Ex (Post office, mail dude hired by trump was CEO of one of the majors) or something similar will take it over. They don't want to replace it. They think all that tax money is their personal bank accounts or toy funds, and they can give it to anyone they want. They also use it for extortion and honey pots because they run themselves like the mob.
I hope you understand your comment is not constructive. I understand the rage and that it is a fact, but it doesn't add to the conversation. You ignored that I said "regulated". Some Republican ideas work "ok" under the assumption there is regulation.
Uncool that it doesnt have timestamps.
Cool that it's a link to archive.is and not that cesspool
timestamp could be at any point between 1625 and 2025, but seems we're having currently a local maximum of these kind of statements