Lookin4GoodArgs

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

You don't have to imagine. Just ask a question: why would a court release someone with an immigration detainer on them?

Now, if you're so inclined, you can research that answer. No imagination required!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Companies that buy single-family homes say their businesses provide renters the opportunity to live in desirable neighborhoods where they otherwise couldn’t afford to buy.

That's true, because companies buying SFHs make it unaffordable to buy homes in desirable neighborhoods. They are the solution to the problem they created.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Eran_Morad: Warning for violation of Rule #1.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is clearly false, but let's assume it's true...how is this different DeSantis's own dumping of immigrants into Martha's Vineyard?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (15 children)

There is nothing in the article that supports the headline. As far as I can tell, it's just another way of saying 'Americans are worry about the economy'.

I'm specifically worried about jobs, though. We need more jobs with better conditions and higher taxes on them. That sounds like a recipe for disaster, but that's only true if we continue to allow the 1% to own more than the entire middle class. An excess of private wealth necessarily leads to an excess of public squalor.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (10 children)

All the science agrees; being sexually attracted to children isn’t something a person has control over, any more than a person can choose to be straight.

Okay, does it really say this? Where?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Always go to the study!

The disparity between red and blue states has little to do with anything Biden has done, experts interviewed by ABC News said, noting that federal policy typically holds minimal influence over state-by-state economic trends.

Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and Democrat-leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.

Warm weather and Democrat-leaning cities are responsible for economic growth in red states.

Or on the flip side

"Dating back to when the president took office, he has enacted a set of historic legislative accomplishments that have very directly driven the historic labor market recovery and historic economic growth we’ve had,” Daniel Hornung, deputy director at the National Economic Council, a Biden administration group that advises the president, told ABC News.

Moreover, Hornung rebuked the notion that Biden's policies have little to do with the particularly strong performances among red states, citing** legislative achievements that, in some cases, have disproportionately benefited red states. ** Biden's legislative accomplishments are responsible for economic growth in red states.

OR, on even a third side, somehow..

"Presidents don't really have a lot to do with state economic performance," Terry Clower, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, told ABC News.

Instead, experts said that relatively strong red state performance results in part from business-friendly policies and attractive weather.

But George Mason University is basically a conservative school, so he would say something like that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

So what?

Do you think the solution to mis-/dis-information is censorship or otherwise attempting to marginalize what you believe are "garbage and lies"? What makes his arguments invalid? Which of his statements are false and lies? How do you know? And why are you definitely right and why is he definitely wrong?

There's this really interesting humans do. We become convinced of some viewpoint, whether through reason or, more likely, uncritical acceptance of some framework. It's the right viewpoint. We assume others must also share our viewpoint. The truth is obvious to us. So disagreement is often treated as lies. The one who disagrees knows the truth, but chooses to say otherwise. They're nefarious, despicable, and disrespectful for their duplicity in the face of an obvious truth.

But here's the thing: people genuinely hold beliefs different than you. What you see as "faulty, intentionally dishonest foundations" can only be true if you are of the mind of Pizzamane and can definitively say he believes in something else entirely. You must have the mind of Pizzamane. Unless you're really a psychic, you cannot do that. He may actually believe the foundations of his beliefs and you've been wrong this whole time. You can't know that's true either.

So what to do?

As hard as it might be, you have no choice but to except Pizzamane and other liberals and leftists at face value. You can consider our beliefs as garbage all you want. But leftists have every right to participate in this community, just as you do. And, I assure you, we often consider your beliefs garbage. When we disagree, then we should argue about the arguments, the statements and conclusions.

In short, he, or anyone else for that matter, will not be banned by me as long as they bring arguments. (...and don't tell people to fuck off...😠)

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person wereof the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.—John Stuart Mill

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Okay, now do the genocidal anti-Palestinian support.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

NewPerspective

Warning. Violation of Rule #1.

Your post was 100% until that very, very last line.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Originalism strikes again!

By using the Bruen ruling, the judge can ignore that very real safety issues of drug users getting guns, and just say "Well, drug tests weren't historically required for getting a gun. And today is the same as the era of the Thirteen Colonies, so, they should still have fun! I mean, guns!"

Originalism as a legal doctrine is incredibly stupid. It basically boils down to 'We can have everything nice they had in early American history and no more! Don't like them apples? Probably shouldn't have been born in...modern America, where embryos are children, which wasn't true in early American history!"

 

Obviously, this should be here for easy reference. Instead of reading politicized punditry, you can just read Project 2025's roadmap directly.

 

The purpose of lemm.ee/c/conservative is to discuss conservative politics. That’s why the posts need to be from or about American right-wing, preferably in a neutral or positive light, and you can be as lefty as you want in the comments. The mods really do want the community to talk about conservatives, their values, and related things.

This isn’t r/conservative, r/TheDonald, and especially not r/Politics. It’s not Reddit at all. It’s Lemmy. Here, we’re supposed to beyond the totalitarian moderation of Reddit, not focused on profit, and wanting to create a community of real people. Ideally, we didn’t move from Reddit to recreate it elsewhere. We moved to Lemmy for something better.

The mods, Takeaway and I, view our role as very limited. We take the conservative approach. We don’t want to pulverize the community with the heavy-handed control that defined Reddit moderation. Nor do we want to create a safe space for conservative views, where they go unchallenged. We want posters to assume good faith, to earnestly argue with each other, seek points of agreement, and, probably most important, explore points of disagreement. This goes beyond mere civility: it’s about treating each other with dignity, understanding that we’re not all just a bunch of ideologues, and that we have reasons behind our beliefs worth understanding. As long as these discussion are earnest, even if a bit emotional, it’s all good.

So, it’s disappointing when the mods were greeted with 22 reports, most from the same thread. It was as if some of you were trying to get each other banned, the mods being merely an instrument of your will to silence. That is not our job. How can we be conservative in moderation while some of you bait each other into abusive language and then report the responses? Are we here to recreate Reddit?

Consider this a general warning to not do that again, a request to be better members of the community, and a chance to provide your input as to how we should proceed. We want you to talk about conservatives and conservativism. So, how can we help you do that while taking a conservative approach to moderation?

Signed,

Your /c/conservative mod team

 

You perhaps think your identity as a Christian is essential to your identity and actions as a citizen, because—though Christ’s kingdom is not of this world—you are a Christian citizen in a country that is made a nation by the rule of “we the people.” Thus, being your authentic self just like a good liberal, you believe you are your best as an American when you don’t hide your faith in public, especially in participating in political life. You are a good citizen because you try to be a good Christian, and it wouldn’t occur to you to pretend that’s not the case. You probably think America has been “a Christian nation,” or at least had a Christian society, and that God has blessed this country.

view more: next ›