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.
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].
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.
"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."
Pam Bondi might have grounds for such arrest where warranted.
"The “true threat” doctrine is the primary test courts use to distinguish protected speech from an illegal threat. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm or take a life. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that true threats are not protected by the First Amendment to prevent fear, disruption, and the potential for violence."
Just let me know when a citizen is arrested for speech other than threats of violence. The only ones I know of are abortion and school board peaceful protesters.
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.
Steve. Wake up. The Uniparty Elite called for someone to Kill Trump. See Robert Kagan’s Opinion Piece in the Washington Post in November 2023. He was calling for an American Brutus and said we lived in Caesarian times. Trump was almost assassinated twice. The Left’s response, I’m missing you but my aim’s gettin better ;). They killed Charlie Kirk. In Elite world it’s Free Speech to say MAGA did it and not get fired. Incredibly on the left, 55% of Progressives believe political violence, against Trump, and assasination are legitimate. The Progressive Elite has long lied and used Lawfare. They Cancelled all of their opponents including the former President. They called half the country deplorable, Nazi and Fascist. But it was Ok because the Elite and Heather Cox said it was.
If none of these were the acts of lone people who are mentally ill or murderous for various reasons, you’re saying they are all agents of a centralized organization? Who runs it? Who issues the orders?
Steve wake up. Biden. Bulls eye, Kagan, Brutus, Fascist, fascist, Nazi. The left has been encouraging it. The fringe acts on it. Charlie Kirk, DT, and who’s next?
If that text message chain is true can we finally start talking about what actually led to this assassination?
A conservatively raised Mormon ended up meeting a trans person he happened to like. He listened to endless hate from not just the right but probably his family and church as well. Then he watched as they won the election and actually started talking away said persons rights. He got sick of it and decided to use the skills he was taught by those same people to kill one of the loudest voices of the hatred. When his trans love found out they were horrified. I would guess because they understood that would just lead to more hate against trans people. Which is obviously exactly what is happening.
So you have to ask, which rhetoric actually led to this killing?
From your comment I must ask: do you think Christians are even capable of loving people who are not living in accordance with the Bible? Because there’s no mention of love in your comments. Somehow Tyler got radicalized. Are you claiming it was 100% self radicalization through hate from his family, his church and conservative allies? Nothing from liberal sources or his gaming community or media. Is that really your position?
You cannot call something evil and claim to love it. You cannot those are opposing things. And spare me the love the sinner and hate the sin because in this case the sin is the sinner. You are talking about their very essence. So no, Christians are not capable. At least the ones who claim that homosexuality is evil. Christians who understand that the Bible was written in a different time and place by sinful people may be able to but they don't use words like evil and abomination when talking about gay and trans people.
I'm a gamer. I'm in those communities. This will probably shock you but most of them are actually pretty right wing. Especially men this kids age.
Let me put it like this. Which would push you to violence first. Your family, church, and most everyone in your state denying your wife access to health care, making her use the bathroom of the opposite gender, calling her evil to your face every time you talk to them, and countless other micro aggression. Or watching Hasan Piker for 6 hours a day?
I think it's a mistake to consider either being LGBT or supporting LGBT rights as being inherently leftist. That's like saying being pro-Civil Rights is leftist: it's not.
While I don't disagree, I also think that - when it comes down to it - left and right don't really track well for US politics. Firstly there's the basis for the US itself - liberalism - and the immense diversity of views within.
Sometimes it just doesn't come down to political ideology.
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.
Leftists project. They always, only, ever project.
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.
Literally any religion that seeks to impose their beliefs on others through either force or rule of law or coercion.
Islamists, yes. Islam: no.
This can be expanded to any religious supremacist group: Christian Nationalists, Kahanists, etc...
What words would those be?
Bigot.
"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.
Pam Bondi might have grounds for such arrest where warranted.
"The “true threat” doctrine is the primary test courts use to distinguish protected speech from an illegal threat. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm or take a life. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that true threats are not protected by the First Amendment to prevent fear, disruption, and the potential for violence."
https://legalclarity.org/when-does-making-a-threat-become-illegal/
I do not believe that J.D. Vance urging outing of factually violent people as coercion.
Actual threats are not legal - but they must be actual threats, not just rhetoric.
That is not the rhetoric being used by Trump/et al, and that's the issue: they are targeting legal speech too.
Just let me know when a citizen is arrested for speech other than threats of violence. The only ones I know of are abortion and school board peaceful protesters.
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.
Steve. Wake up. The Uniparty Elite called for someone to Kill Trump. See Robert Kagan’s Opinion Piece in the Washington Post in November 2023. He was calling for an American Brutus and said we lived in Caesarian times. Trump was almost assassinated twice. The Left’s response, I’m missing you but my aim’s gettin better ;). They killed Charlie Kirk. In Elite world it’s Free Speech to say MAGA did it and not get fired. Incredibly on the left, 55% of Progressives believe political violence, against Trump, and assasination are legitimate. The Progressive Elite has long lied and used Lawfare. They Cancelled all of their opponents including the former President. They called half the country deplorable, Nazi and Fascist. But it was Ok because the Elite and Heather Cox said it was.
And you blame Trump for a Hate War. That’s rich.
If none of these were the acts of lone people who are mentally ill or murderous for various reasons, you’re saying they are all agents of a centralized organization? Who runs it? Who issues the orders?
Steve wake up. Biden. Bulls eye, Kagan, Brutus, Fascist, fascist, Nazi. The left has been encouraging it. The fringe acts on it. Charlie Kirk, DT, and who’s next?
https://x.com/CapVere/status/1967105288789782650
If that text message chain is true can we finally start talking about what actually led to this assassination?
A conservatively raised Mormon ended up meeting a trans person he happened to like. He listened to endless hate from not just the right but probably his family and church as well. Then he watched as they won the election and actually started talking away said persons rights. He got sick of it and decided to use the skills he was taught by those same people to kill one of the loudest voices of the hatred. When his trans love found out they were horrified. I would guess because they understood that would just lead to more hate against trans people. Which is obviously exactly what is happening.
So you have to ask, which rhetoric actually led to this killing?
From your comment I must ask: do you think Christians are even capable of loving people who are not living in accordance with the Bible? Because there’s no mention of love in your comments. Somehow Tyler got radicalized. Are you claiming it was 100% self radicalization through hate from his family, his church and conservative allies? Nothing from liberal sources or his gaming community or media. Is that really your position?
You cannot call something evil and claim to love it. You cannot those are opposing things. And spare me the love the sinner and hate the sin because in this case the sin is the sinner. You are talking about their very essence. So no, Christians are not capable. At least the ones who claim that homosexuality is evil. Christians who understand that the Bible was written in a different time and place by sinful people may be able to but they don't use words like evil and abomination when talking about gay and trans people.
I'm a gamer. I'm in those communities. This will probably shock you but most of them are actually pretty right wing. Especially men this kids age.
Let me put it like this. Which would push you to violence first. Your family, church, and most everyone in your state denying your wife access to health care, making her use the bathroom of the opposite gender, calling her evil to your face every time you talk to them, and countless other micro aggression. Or watching Hasan Piker for 6 hours a day?
God can (do whatever he wants).
Translation: God makes me be a bigot.
I think it's a mistake to consider either being LGBT or supporting LGBT rights as being inherently leftist. That's like saying being pro-Civil Rights is leftist: it's not.
I think its fair when talking about divisive rhetoric to say its all coming from one way when discussing lgbt issues.
While I don't disagree, I also think that - when it comes down to it - left and right don't really track well for US politics. Firstly there's the basis for the US itself - liberalism - and the immense diversity of views within.
Sometimes it just doesn't come down to political ideology.
I still haven't seen evidence the roommate/alleged lover is actually trans.