Just when conservatives have the chance to show that the liberal narrative offered for so many years is completely wrong, we now have to deal with the Trump administration making the liberals right.
It shouldn't be so hard to understand. When practicing your faith means other people just living their lives loses freedoms your faith is the problem. It's becoming more and more obvious that most "christians" just use christianity as a shield against being called the words that describe what you all seem to be.
If free speech was Charlie Kirk’s mantra I am at a loss to explain why this administration feels to honor him they must end free speech. I know ending free speech and most other God given rights enshrined in our founding documents, has been their goal since day one. But doing it to honor Kirk? Now Vance and Noem want us to be “brown shirts” turning in people who say something maga disapproves of and turning in immigrants. No thanks. My parents fought against this ideology and so will I and my children and their children too.
I am finding it harder every day to pretend we are living in a “normal” world. Nothing about this is normal!
As for Israel. I can bless Israel without blessing the administration that seems hell bent on killing every last person in Gaza and the West Bank. Have you bought your timeshare in Trump’s riviera there yet? I truly believe this is the goal.
Regarding "free speech", let me recite Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
That said, a thinking rational conservative would have recognized how Trump, Bondi, and Vance's pronouncements have the implicit tendency to blow back on them (I saw some polling that had Trump's approval underwater in TEXAS earlier this morning), but we also have to remember that 2025 "conservatives" are little more than sh!tposting cosplayers wearing conservative skin suits, as JVL pointed out VERY well yesterday[1].
"I’m supposed to say “nothing could be further from the truth” here. But J.D. Vance and President Trump have made it impossible, because they’re putting teeth to the Handmaid’s Tale."
How? It sounds to me like the Administration is using its own freedom to speak against what they consider a harmful trend. Even Stephen Miller's words do not threaten more than legal action where warranted.
Pam Bondi, USAG: "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime."
Or this conversation between Jon Karl and Trump: "JON KARL: What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she's gonna go after hate speech? A lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech
TRUMP: We'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. You have a lot of hate in your hate. Maybe they'll have to go after you."
Funny enough, to quote Charlie Kirk in response: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment."
We can dig into more of Trump's/Vance's/Miller's/other elected GOP statements as well, but they all amount to using the power of the government against legal speech.
Also: JD Vance telling people to report those speaking negatively about Charlie Kirk to their employers is also unconstitutional per NRA v Vullo, which finds that "a government official cannot do indirectly what [they are] barred from doing directly."
Let people *say* they think XYZ is wrong per their religious beliefs: that's freedom of speech and religious belief. Trying to enshrine that in law is the problem, one that removes other's freedom of religious belief.
If institutionalizing one's bigotry is wrong - as we were discussing yesterday re: racism - then institutionalizing one's religious dogma is also wrong.
But then again, I think there's a lot of picking and choosing in what is claimed as Christian dogma - especially when it is not even agreed upon between the different Christian denominations.
It shouldn't be so hard to understand. When practicing your faith means other people just living their lives loses freedoms your faith is the problem. It's becoming more and more obvious that most "christians" just use christianity as a shield against being called the words that describe what you all seem to be.
So you’d agree, Islam is a problem.
Islamists, yes. Islam: no.
This can be expanded to any religious supremacist group: Christian Nationalists, Kahanists, etc...
If free speech was Charlie Kirk’s mantra I am at a loss to explain why this administration feels to honor him they must end free speech. I know ending free speech and most other God given rights enshrined in our founding documents, has been their goal since day one. But doing it to honor Kirk? Now Vance and Noem want us to be “brown shirts” turning in people who say something maga disapproves of and turning in immigrants. No thanks. My parents fought against this ideology and so will I and my children and their children too.
I am finding it harder every day to pretend we are living in a “normal” world. Nothing about this is normal!
As for Israel. I can bless Israel without blessing the administration that seems hell bent on killing every last person in Gaza and the West Bank. Have you bought your timeshare in Trump’s riviera there yet? I truly believe this is the goal.
Regarding "free speech", let me recite Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
That said, a thinking rational conservative would have recognized how Trump, Bondi, and Vance's pronouncements have the implicit tendency to blow back on them (I saw some polling that had Trump's approval underwater in TEXAS earlier this morning), but we also have to remember that 2025 "conservatives" are little more than sh!tposting cosplayers wearing conservative skin suits, as JVL pointed out VERY well yesterday[1].
[1] https://www.thebulwark.com/p/conservatism-is-now-just-a-domination
Wow. JVL didn’t mince words. Thanks for the link. I don’t have as much time since I am homeschooling and totally missed that one.
"I’m supposed to say “nothing could be further from the truth” here. But J.D. Vance and President Trump have made it impossible, because they’re putting teeth to the Handmaid’s Tale."
How? It sounds to me like the Administration is using its own freedom to speak against what they consider a harmful trend. Even Stephen Miller's words do not threaten more than legal action where warranted.
It's not legal for the government to prosecute people for legal speech.
Who said it was. Quote please.
Pam Bondi, USAG: "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime."
Or this conversation between Jon Karl and Trump: "JON KARL: What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she's gonna go after hate speech? A lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech
TRUMP: We'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. You have a lot of hate in your hate. Maybe they'll have to go after you."
Funny enough, to quote Charlie Kirk in response: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment."
We can dig into more of Trump's/Vance's/Miller's/other elected GOP statements as well, but they all amount to using the power of the government against legal speech.
Also: JD Vance telling people to report those speaking negatively about Charlie Kirk to their employers is also unconstitutional per NRA v Vullo, which finds that "a government official cannot do indirectly what [they are] barred from doing directly."
This is government coercion by proxy.
Let people *say* they think XYZ is wrong per their religious beliefs: that's freedom of speech and religious belief. Trying to enshrine that in law is the problem, one that removes other's freedom of religious belief.
If institutionalizing one's bigotry is wrong - as we were discussing yesterday re: racism - then institutionalizing one's religious dogma is also wrong.
But then again, I think there's a lot of picking and choosing in what is claimed as Christian dogma - especially when it is not even agreed upon between the different Christian denominations.