Freedom

 Because I prefer not to cede control of my ability to respond to anyone else, I'll deal with this here.  

 

 "Unlike you all, I'm glad to answer questions, fully, clearly, directly."

Starting off with a false statement isn't the best idea you've ever had, but...

"From what I hear from Republicans, they want the nation to be great "again," like it was in earlier times. Am I mistaken?"

Whether or not you are wrong would hinge entirely on what their measurement of greatness is.   As you haven't demonstrated any objective proof of what these "conservatives" you claim to be listening to mean by "great", it's difficult to answer completely.  However, in the sense that many conservatives would prefer to bring back a stronger economy anchored by manufacturing, less polarization, less crime, and the like, sure.   I'm not sure what is inherently wrong with wanting to recapture some of the best aspects of our history.  

"In earlier times, white Christian conservative types held the most power. They don't like that white Christian conservatives are no longer a majority stronghold view like it was, say, prior to 1970. Am I mistaken?"

As you've offered absolutely zero objective evidence of this bizarre claim, I am forced to conclude that it is impossible to determine if you are mistaken or not.   However, there may be some outliers who believe that, although they don't represent some large amount of people.   

"They don't like that gay folks can marry or adopt children. They couldn't do that back before the 90s and they want to go back to that time. Am I mistaken?"

You are not mistaken about the fact that some "conservatives" oppose "gay marriage", gay adoption, and the recent trend of gays essentially purchasing babies from surrogates.   However, you are wrong about the reasons for that opposition.  

"They want abortion to be illegal, like it was prior to 1970s. Am I mistaken?"

Again, some conservatives would prefer that abortion be illegal.  The reasons for that opposition vary to some degree as does the willingness to compromise, but I am aware of no one who cites the fact that abortion was "legal in the 1970's" as their primary reason.   Abortion ends a unique human life at it's earliest and most vulnerable stage of development, we have so much more information about human development than we did 50 years ago, inconsistent application of the law, and abortion for convenience are all good arguments that are being used.  Not your nonsense.  

"They want to see a return to a time when police officers automatically were considered to be trustworthy and that the military wasn't questioned, like before the 1970s. Am I mistaken?"

Yes, you are mistaken.  What is hilarious is that the proliferation of body cameras and the wide dissemination of body camera footage demonstrate that the vast majority of cops handle things properly and show great restraint.  The notion of "questioning" the military has been a part of life sine WW2.   

"Are you suggesting that conservative types - the Maga wing, especially - are not wanting to see a return to a time when white Christian conservative "values" were the dominant worldview?"

I'm suggesting that you have failed to prove your claim, because you haven't.  I'm not suggesting anything beyond pointing out your failure.  

"Am I mistaken?"

In the complete and total absence of objective proof of your claim, I have no way to judge whether or not you're mistaken.  Based on your vague, unsourced claims so far, it seems likely that you are at least partly mistaken"-? 

"I'm just telling you what I hear from conservatives. But maybe you're right. Maybe conservatives WANT to be the minority view and not have the Ten commandments posted and NOT have christian prayers in schools led by teachers, and NOT have any transgender people being recognized and celebrated. Is that what you think?"

 Even with this last bunch of distortions, you are only partially right.  While some hold some version of those positions, the reason for holding those positions has nothing do do with how things were in the 1970's.    In 2026, the push for prayer is schools is primarily coming from the left to allow Muslims greater access to prayer in schools than any other religion.   As far as "trans" it's about the science and the DATA, not nostalgia.   Virtually the entire continent of Europe has stopped most "transing", are you really going to claim the Europe is some hotbed of "White Christian MAGA" folx?   

 Your simplistic, inaccurate, hunches about the reasons why some conservatives hold some positions,  doesn't give me confidence that your original claim is factually accurate.  

 

 "Would you agree that, prior to ~1975 - and certainly prior to 1965 - the predominant worldview in the US, the primary political and social power that held the most sway was a traditionalist conservative worldview."

No.   But feel free to prove your claim.  

"A. They liked for parents to not get divorced;"

With rare exceptions, does anyone "like" parents to "get divorced"?   As we've seen the entire no fault divorce trend has not been particularly good for society.  As well, we've seen the havoc tha single parent households have wreaked in many communities.  

"B. for women to stay home and raise children;"

In a theoretical sense many people do believe that the above is the preferred model for the best outcomes for families.  However, it's not perfect and no one says it is.  There are multiple reasons why the "need" for both parents to work outside of the home, which go beyond some vague sense of nostalgia.  

 
"C. for gay people to NOT be accepted as role models;"

"Role models" for what? Simply being gay, ok.  Should anyone really be a role model based on who they have sex with?   "Role models" based on actual achievement, why not?   Who is suggesting that a gay gold medal winner not be applauded for their achievement?  Who is suggesting that Megan Rapino or other gay athletes not be given credit for what they've accomplished?  

"D. and really, they preferred "converting" gay folks to be good heterosexuals;"

If you mean forced conversion or punishment, that's Sharia.  If you mean allowing "gay folx" who want to live heterosexual lives to do so, sure.  Why would anyone prevent someone from living as they choose, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else?  Does it mean encouraging celibacy for Christians who struggle with sexual sin, sure.  But forcing, nah.  

"E. They wanted policeMEN to be respected (and to be men, see B.);"

What an insane idea.  Respecting people put in positions of authority in society, insanity.   Of course respecting the authority that people are invested with doesn't mean ignoring abuse of that authority.   As far as women cops (etc), the only serious objection I've ever heard is to lowering standards to the point that they can't do the job.  Of course, that applies to anyone who can't meet the standards needed to do the job, not just women.  But, again, these positions are based in reality not nostalgia.   

"F. They were wary of civil rights and equal opportunities for black people and immigrants;"

White Christians were the primary drivers for ending slavery, with the UK spending untold sums and risking the lives of their sailors to stop the slave trade.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to end slavery.  The GOP was the party that provided the votes to pass Civil Rights legislation in the '60, while LBJ cynically wanted to bind the black vote to the DFL for hundreds of years.  The conservative position is equal rights before the law for everyone, and equal opportunity for everyone based on merit not skin color.  

"G. They were wary of black people moving "into their" neighborhoods;"

Strange, liberal icon Franklin Rooseveldt was the one who codified redlining.  But, yeah, many white people across the political and religious spectrum didn't want blacks moving into their neighborhoods.  Redlining and exclusionary covenants have been outlawed, and this has gotten significantly better over the years.  It's certainly not a conservatives only problem, and we're now seeing the opposite as Muslims force non Muslims out of various cities or neighborhoods.  

"H. They didn't want to see/hear/read hints of sexuality or normalization of homosexuality on TV or the radio or in the media;"t

Yes, society has gotten significantly more accepting of all sorts of things in the media that society as a whole disapproved of back in the day.  Because our national life and culture is clearly better because of the lowering of those standards.   You're getting desperate with this one.  Like almost everything, the '50's restrictions were to far to one extreme, while the 2026 free for all is too far to the other extreme.  Part of the reason was that there were only a few broadcast stations and they were chartered to act in the public interest.   Now that we have many more options, it's not the same at all.  

"I. They wanted their politicians to be traditional, conservative churchgoers;"

Again, this was across the board and not restricted to one party or ideology.  Clearly there were liberal "churchgoers" elected throughout the history of the US, so  that might mitigate your complaint.  The fact that no one is demanding that we slavishly go back to exactly how things were in the past is another.  

 
"J. And for the most part, they were. You could hardly be elected if you weren't white, straight, conservative and evangelical/not Catholic..."

Again, this was an attitude that crossed party lines.  Of course, evangelicals weren't much of a factor at all until the '80s, prior to that people wanted mainline churchgoers.   Episcopalians were over represented in government for years.  Again, no one is clamoring to return to this, and certainly not to force such a return.

"Is ANY of that wrong?"

With exceptions, it's less about those things being right or wrong, and more about you disagreeing with them.  It's not wrong for a candidate to run on most of those things if they choose, and it's not wrong for people to vote for them if they freely choose to do so.  Is it wrong for Muslims to attempt to impose Sharia in cities where they control city government?   

"Is this NOT what maga types are wanting to see a return to?"

No, that I've heard.  

"If not, what/when does the AGAIN mean in maga, do you imagine?"

From what I've heard and seen it's more about economic issues.  Increasing manufacturing so the the US is not dependent on countries that are antagonistic to us for vital goods, meritocracy, lower crime, and the like.   In a very broad, general sense.  It's a vague, broad, general term which can mean lots of things to lots of people.  It's not the defined, monolithic, manifesto you seem to think it is.  What is wrong with making America great?  A great America literally saved Europe and Asia from being overrun in the '30s-'40s, was that somehow a bad thing?   Is having pride in American greatness somehow inherently negative?  

"Seems a strange thing to debate that conservatives want to see conservatives who agree with them and obey the president as the dominant political view. WHY would they be fighting so hard to "get america back" if they didn't want things to return to how they were?"

What's strange is  your desire to define for people with whom you vehemently disagree what the term means.  What's even stranger is that you've gone to all this trouble and spewed all this BS, and haven't actually provided the specific, objective, proof of your claim.   Maybe that would be a better option, instead of what you've done.  

As you've demonstrated by deleting Art's comments, I was correct to do this here.   

Straw Men

 

"1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?"

 

No.  

 

"2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?"

 

See answer above.  

 

"3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?"

 

See #1.

 

"4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?"

 

This is impossible to answer.    Without a universal, objective, standard for "justice", this is just asking for an opinion.   define "normally understood" when "justice? for theft runs from amputation of limbs, to probation? 

 

"5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God? "

 

Yes, I believe that those of two of YHWH's immutable attributes.   

 

"6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?"

 

Based on what has been revealed to us about YHWH, the following is a good start.   Having said that demanding an exhaustive, complete definition of something or someone that is completely beyond our ability to comprehend is ridiculous.   

 

 "Perfect means being entirely without flaws, completely correct, or satisfying all requirements to the highest possible degree. It describes something so complete and excellent that it cannot be improved upon."

 

" In the Bible, "perfect" rarely means flawless or sinless. It typically translates from the Hebrew word tamim and the Greek word teleios, which mean complete, mature, whole, or having reached one's intended purpose."

 

" The Bible defines love as a selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional commitment to the well-being of others. Rather than just an emotion, biblical love (agape) is an active choice to show grace, seek the best for someone else, and put their needs above your own."

 

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

 

 "The biblical concept of justice is primarily built on two foundational Hebrew words found in the Old Testament, which are often paired together: [1]

• Mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט): Primarily translated as "justice" or "judgment." It refers to rendering to each person what is due them, punishing evil, and actively protecting the rights of the marginalized—specifically the "quartet of the vulnerable": the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the immigrant.
• Tzedakah (צְדָקָה): Translated as "righteousness." While this involves personal moral uprightness, it also heavily implies acting ethically and fairly in all of your relationships and giving to those in need.
• Dikaiosyne (δικαιοσύνη): The New Testament Greek equivalent, carrying the same dual meaning of personal moral integrity and a lifestyle that seeks fairness and equity for others." 

 

 "7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human?"

 

 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

 

 

Let's start with accurately quoting the scripture you are adding to.   Let's also consider that these are not the words of Jesus from one of His public sermons,  Further, let's look at some of the context.  

 

 

" ² I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles"

 

The author is appealing to Scripture and encouraging the readers to recall both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the teachings of both Jesus AND the "apostles".    

^"3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴ They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” ⁵ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶ By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷ By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

The author grounds his position in the reality of YHWH creating the heavens and the earth, as well as noting the coming judgement and "destruction of the ungodly"  

^"8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ⁹ The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

The phrase you take out of context is focusing on YHWH's patience in giving ample time before the judgement referred to.  

^"10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.^[a]

¹¹ Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives ¹² as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.^[b] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. ¹³ But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells."

Note the call to holiness and godliness as we wait for the ultimate destruction, judgement, and restoration.  

^"14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. ¹⁵ Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶ He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Interesting that the author speaks so highly of Paul and of the message Paul was preaching.  While the author does point out that YHWH's patience does allow for salvation, he does not state unequivocally that salvation is universal.  

When you take a snippet of a verse out of context, add your own editorial spin to it, and pretend like you're actually quoting scripture, it's hard to take you seriously.   As your question is based on your own perversion of scripture, I see no reason to dignify it with any more of an answer.  

"8. Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that any should perish?"

 

I take both seriously.  One wonders why you don't.  Of course, I take the actual verse and it's context into account rather than pulling a snippet out of context and editing it.  

 

"9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively?"

 

I take all verses literally.   

 

"10. Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative verses?"

 

See above.   

"And other questions like these..."

 

Now that I've answered these simplistic, weak attempts at gotcha questions to the extent that time, space, and scripture twisting allow.  I want to note a couple of things.   

 

First, questions 1, 2, and 3, are simply asking the same thing in slightly different ways.   Effectively making them one question.  

 

Second,  likewise 4,5, and 6, are also simply minor variations of the same question.  

 

Third,  questions 7 and 8 are based on a false premise which renders then pointless and irrelevant. 

 

Fourth, questions 9 and 10 are  (again) examples of asking the same question in slightly different ways.   

 

Which leaves us with 4 questions, instead of 10.  All of which have been answered, responded to elsewhere.   

 

Leaving us with the "And other questions like these..." phrase.  Which is idiotic and meaningless.   

 

It's easy to be a mighty keyboard warrior when your opponents are all straw men.   

 

 

Newsome For President

 https://x.com/stevescalise/status/2056111228141899790?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/laurapowellesq/status/2055419186650984764?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The DFL presidential front runner  for 2028 announcing that he has a plan to thwart democracy and act like a king to endure the electoral outcome he desires.  

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2055966565502251294?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Video in link.  

" HERE WE GO California Democrats are making a move to rig the Governor’s race Democrats are putting forth a new ballot initiative to repeal the “Top 2” candidate rule that takes the 2 leading candidates, because the 2 leading candidates are Republicans “A new ballot initiative has been filed to repeal the state's top-two primary and return it to a party-based primary where voters like you would only vote for candidates in your own registered party” The man behind this is Steve Maviglio, he's the former communications director for Governor Gray Davis He's not some random nobody. Steve Maviglio a longtime Democratic insider, he’s a top Democrat operative He filed paperwork with the state to change the rules of the game now that Democrats are losing Keep in mind, this “Top 2” system is the same system that locked out Republicans for 15 years But now that it’s going to lock Democrats out they’re turning to their rigged elections to maintain power and change the rules."

I Love LA

 CA is an example of leftist policies in action, and LA is a big part of the mess.  Who knew that the LA mayoral race would be such a big deal this year.  

 

 "TMZ Founder Harvey Levin finally opens up and tells the truth about what Democrats have done to Los Angeles “I'm not only a born and raised Los Angelino, but I'm second generation. My dad was born and raised in LA, so this is my life. And I have seen this city just fall apart over the last 8-9 years, but especially the last 4 years The homeless problem is out of control in this city. I've been chased by people, a guy with a hammer, walking out of my gym. He chased me with a hammer. I had a mentally ill woman, a homeless woman, take a boulder and trash my car and I caught her doing it, and I realized there is nothing I can do. What am I going to do, get her arrested? I mean, what is that going to do? Am I going to sue her? So I literally looked at my car, watched her walk away, and said, "I live in Los Angeles…." It's really sad when people see stuff like this happening” I want to her very crystal clear. We DO NOT have to live like this. California and Los Angeles do not have to be like this We have to mass deport that insane amount of illegals that have poured across the border from Mexico into California for decades and then put the homeless in mandatory treatment But the most important thing is, new leadership. Vote Red, vote for Republicans California elections are rigged and we all know it, illegals are voting. Fixing California elections must be a federal priority."

 

 https://x.com/raminrealtalk/status/2055815625818378305?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

" California gave ONE nonprofit $1 BILLION. To put solar panels on poor people's roofs. You know how much solar they actually installed? $72 million. That's it. So where the FUCK is the other $928 MILLION? I'll tell you exactly where. The same nonprofit that WROTE the law that gave them the money ALSO got the contract to run "community outreach." Same guy runs the nonprofit AND the program. Chris Walker. Two paychecks. Look it up. And their SISTER organization — same building, same staff, same donors — is a 501(c)(4) that endorses Democrat candidates and runs door-knocking operations in the EXACT SAME NEIGHBORHOODS. Connect the dots, idiot. You pay $7.50 a gallon for gas. Cap-and-trade takes a cut at the pump. That money flows to "climate justice nonprofits." Those nonprofits funnel it into Democrat get-out-the-vote machines. You. Are. Funding. The. People. Who. Are. Robbing. You. Every time you fill up your fucking tank, you're paying for a Democrat campaign volunteer to knock on a stranger's door and tell them how amazing Gavin Newsom is. $928 MILLION. GONE. And not one journalist in this state asked a single question until

@jennyraeca

and CAL DOGE pulled the receipts. You think this is the only one? There's a hundred more like it. This is how California works now. This is how a "blue state" stays blue when only 48% of the voters are Democrats. Wake the fuck up.

@patrickbetdavid

@VincentOshana

@FoxNews

@WallStreetApes

@CalDOGEgov

@elonmusk

@libsoftiktok

We're standing in front of the building right now. http://youtube.com/@raminrealtalk"

 

 

BOT

 https://x.com/nickjfreitas/status/2055527729273950675?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 https://x.com/xfreeze/status/2055321556755038314?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Elon Musk on the left’s fundamental moral flaw: “The fundamental moral flaw of the left is empathy for the criminals and not empathy for the victims” They feel sorry for the criminals but show zero empathy for the actual victims There’s also been immense unconstitutional judicial overreach that was never intended and it’s destroying the public’s faith in the legal system This needs to stop Put the victims first. Restore real justice."

 

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYFZoKXh3FE/

That's settled. 

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DX9tr7hjld7/

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DXppQb0DgdY/

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYPsAzXgH7t/

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYN1npZvcXW/

 

 https://x.com/danfriedman81/status/2053989892917518765?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is the bastion of the "real journalism" Dan goes on and on about. What a joke. 

  

Clapping Back

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2055066150984118319?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" First things first -- "You're party." That is "you are party." The word you were looking for is "your." I know that seems minor, but when someone is about to lecture others on geopolitics, spelling the first word of the accusation wrong does not exactly inspire confidence that the think tank is fully staffed. Second -- I am a CONSERVATIVE. Not a Republican establishment loyalist. Not a party apparatchik. So "your party" does not land where you aimed it. Try again. Now. Ukraine. Yes, it cost real money. YES, that is a legitimate debate worth having. And I am not here to tell you the blank check approach had no flaws. But "absolutely nothing to do with us" is where you prove the point I just made about the think tank. Here is your geopolitics crash course, no charge. In 2012, Mitt Romney said Russia was America's number one geopolitical foe. Obama mocked him on a national debate stage -- "the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back." The entire left laughed. The media praised Obama for the devastating wit. Two years later, Russia annexed Crimea. Then Obama drew a red line in Syria. Chemical weapons were used. Obama drew another red line. They were used again. Then another. The pattern became a punchline -- except to Vladimir Putin, who was not laughing. He was taking notes. He learned something very specific: there are no consequences. Western red lines are decorative. They exist to be ignored. Russia then spent eight years reading that weakness correctly -- probing, pushing, testing -- while the Obama-Biden foreign policy establishment alternated between strongly-worded letters and politely-worded letters. And when the full invasion came in 2022, the response was a blank check with no defined mission, no end state, no victory conditions, and no accountability for WHERE THE MONEY WENT. Sound familiar? Here is what you will NOT hear from the people who mocked Romney in 2012: Trump got a ceasefire. Trump got a negotiating table. Something three years of Biden-era blank checks could not produce. That is not an accident. That is what happens when adversaries believe there are actual consequences for aggression rather than another strongly-worded letter with a red line drawn in chalk on a wet sidewalk. Ukraine matters because Eastern Europe matters. NATO Article 5 matters. What happens when authoritarian regimes successfully absorb their neighbors matters -- because they do not stop there. History has been extremely clear on this point, repeatedly, across centuries, and yet here we are having the same conversation. But yes -- the "80s called" guy's party spent years proving Romney right while mocking him for it. And the people who ran that foreign policy have the nerve to be outraged about anything military-related now. The wheel is spinning, the hamster fell off, and the foreign policy record speaks for itself. But what do I know -- I am only a combat medic who was DEPLOYED to one of the wars that resulted directly from the foreign policy failures you seem entirely unbothered by, which I would argue gives me slightly more standing to discuss global security than someone who cannot spell "your.""

Cognative Diionance Or Something

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2029599963559108712?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" 

I am a science teacher. In science, I teach my students that a hypothesis that contradicts itself is invalid.

So I made a list.

THE COMPLETE (AND GROWING) LIST OF THINGS THE LEFT SIMULTANEOUSLY BELIEVES

Buckle up. This one is going to take a minute.

1. "My body, my choice"... but you MUST get a vaccine or lose your job, your ability to travel, and your right to eat inside a restaurant. Both things. At the same time.
2. "Believe all women"... unless the woman is Tara Reade, Juanita Broaddrick, or Paula Jones. Those women apparently came with an asterisk nobody mentioned.
3. "Tax the rich"... said by a woman worth $120 million (Pelosi), a man worth $9 million (Schumer), and a senator who owns three houses (Bernie) — all while their stock portfolios grow on insider access the rest of us will never have.
4. They are outraged — OUTRAGED — about billionaires having too much power... and then accept $1.6 billion from George Soros without blinking. Quinn's Law #7: it is different when you are a Democrat.
5. "Defund the police"... and then hire private security for themselves. I am not making that up. Multiple city council members who voted to defund their police departments had private, taxpayer-funded security at the same time. You literally cannot invent this.
6. "No one is above the law"... until a federal judge in Wisconsin helped a criminal evade ICE agents and half the party defended her. Judge Hannah Dugan. Look it up. Suddenly "no one is above the law" had an exemption for people who agree with them.
7. "Science is real"... but a biological male who identifies as a woman is medically, biologically, and athletically identical to a biological female. Just go ahead and ignore the entire fields of endocrinology, genetics, and sports medicine while you are at it.
8. "We support the working class"... and then they vote AGAINST no tax on tips. And no tax on overtime. Every. Single. Democrat. Voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill. The party of workers apparently does not want workers keeping their own money.
9. "We need more gun control to stop violence"... but releasing violent criminals back onto the street with zero bail is compassion. The criminal is not the problem. The gun on the shelf of the law-abiding citizen is the problem. I need someone to explain that logic to me using small words.
10. They want a $20 minimum wage to help the poor worker... and then they celebrate the illegal immigration system that lets employers pay $6 an hour in cash with zero benefits to people who cannot say anything without being deported. That is not progressive. That is the economic model of the antebellum South with extra steps.
11. "We are pro-union"... and then they fought tooth and nail against school choice, which would allow poor minority children to escape failing schools. The teachers unions fund the Democrats. The children can stay in the failing building. Their priorities are perfectly clear.
12. "The borders are secure"... announced by Biden's Autopen while EIGHT MILLION people crossed illegally in four years. For comparison, 8 million is the population of Virginia. An entire state's worth of unvetted people. Secure.
13. They call DOGE "an attack on government"... but cannot name a single program it should cut. Not one. They are against cutting fraud. They are against cutting waste. They are against cutting abuse. I am genuinely asking: what exactly are they trying to protect in there?
14. "Reducing the deficit is important"... announced every election cycle by people who have never once voted for a budget that reduced the deficit. Quinn's Law #5 in action: when liberalism conflicts with reality, reality must give way.
15. They want to cancel student loan debt for people who voluntarily signed loan agreements... but they will absolutely NOT cancel your mortgage. Or your car payment. Or your credit card balance. The magical debt cancellation only applies to the demographic that votes for them. Totally not transactional. Not at all.
16. "Latinx"... a word that zero actual Hispanic people asked for, that grammatically violates Spanish, and that studies show roughly 3% of Latinos use voluntarily. Created by and for white progressive academics to describe a community that did not request a renaming. And they wonder why Latino voters started leaving.
17. "We are the party of science"... and then they told you masks did not work, then they DID work, then one was enough, then two were required, then cloth ones counted, then they did not, and anyone who asked a follow-up question was "anti-science." That was not science. That was compliance theater.
18. They supported Luigi Mangione — the guy who murdered a health insurance CEO — as a folk hero and a symbol of justified rage against insurance companies... and now they want you to keep the ACA, which funnels BILLIONS to those same insurance companies. I genuinely cannot keep up.
19. "We need to get money out of politics"... and then they raised $1 billion for Hillary in 2016 and $916 million for Biden's Autopen in 2020. The most expensive campaigns in American history. Both Democrats. The bumper sticker and the bank account are not on speaking terms.
20. They said the economy under Biden's Autopen was GREAT and prices were FINE... and then when the ACA COVID subsidies expired, they screamed that people would not be able to afford their health insurance. So which is it? Was the economy great, or were people so financially destroyed they could not pay their own premiums? Pick a lane.
21. "Diversity is our strength"... but every single diverse thinker who leaves the Democrat reservation — Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Larry Elder — gets called a race traitor, an Uncle Tom, or worse. The diversity of skin color is welcome. The diversity of thought is absolutely not.
22. "We support women"... and then every single Senate Democrat voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act on January 14, 2025. Every one. Girls can lose their scholarships, their safety, and their athletic careers — but at least the Democrats have the correct bumper sticker.
23. They say the January 6th protesters were "insurrectionists who nearly destroyed democracy"... but the people who spent the summer of 2020 burning federal courthouses, attacking police precincts, and occupying city blocks in Seattle with an armed border were "peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights." Funny how that works.
24. "We are the party of the working man"... and they gave us inflation that cost the average American family $34,000 in purchasing power. Grocery bills up 22%. Housing costs through the ceiling. Rent to income ratios at historic highs. And they want credit for a $1,400 check they sent you with money they printed.
25. "We must protect democracy"... and then they tried to remove a candidate from state ballots, weaponize the DOJ against a political opponent, and indict a former president four times before an election. If a foreign government did what they did to Trump, the State Department would call it election interference.
26. They are horrified — genuinely horrified — that Trump talked to foreign leaders without their approved talking points... and then Biden's Autopen handed $6 BILLION to Iran, who then funded Hezbollah, Hamas, and a proxy war against American allies. But Trump's phone call. That was the threat.
27. "Black Lives Matter"... and the BLM organization raised $90 million in 2020 and spent it on mansions, consulting fees, and a production company. Meanwhile black communities where they marched saw record homicide increases. Quinn's Law #1: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
28. They say voter ID is racist because minorities supposedly cannot get an ID... and in the same breath they mandate that same minority population show a vaccine card to enter a restaurant. The ID they cannot get for voting is somehow obtainable for dinner. I leave the logical conclusion to you.
29. "We believe in free speech"... announced right before they pressured Twitter, Facebook, and Google to deplatform their political opponents, flagged parody accounts, asked federal agencies to flag "misinformation," and colluded with social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story — which was verified and real. Quinn's Law #12: liberals do not engage in debate. They try to silence you.
30. They say the rich do not pay their fair share... and then they exempt the rich from their own rules. The Inflation Reduction Act — the one they said would make billionaires pay up — was written by and for corporate lobbyists. The effective tax rate on the top 1% actually went DOWN after its passage. You genuinely cannot make this up.
31. "Children should not be sexualized"... and then they put sexually explicit books in elementary school libraries, hosted drag performances in schools, and any parent who objected at a school board meeting was flagged as a potential domestic terrorist by the FBI under Biden's Autopen. That actually happened. The FBI memo is a matter of public record.
32. They say we need to "save the planet" from carbon emissions... and then Al Gore's mansion uses 21 times the electricity of the average American home. John Kerry — their climate czar — flew on private jets to climate conferences. Bernie flies private. Obama bought an oceanfront mansion on Martha's Vineyard. Apparently the rising seas only affect people who vote Republican.
33. "We stand with veterans"... and then every single year they vote against or table the Major Richard Star Act. This bill would stop the government from stealing retirement pay from combat-wounded veterans who were medically retired before 20 years. FIFTY THOUSAND veterans. It costs $800 million a year — a number they voted to include in a $924.7 billion defense bill the very next day. The money exists. The will does not. Sign the petition:

    https://c.org/29rGbKJphj

    @MajorStarAct

    @StarActEnemies
34. They want to "end income inequality"... and every major American city run exclusively by Democrats for decades — Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles — has some of the worst income inequality, homelessness, crime, and poverty in the developed world. Quinn's Law #3: the amount of wealth in any area is inversely proportional to the number of Democrats running it.
35. "Rent is too high"... announced by the same people who blocked every deregulation and permitting reform that would allow more housing to be built. Restricting supply while demand increases does not lower prices. This is not an opinion. It is basic economics. I teach this to sixteen-year-olds.
36. They say Republicans want dirty air and dirty water... and then California — the progressive paradise — has the worst air quality in the nation, has had more wildfires than any administration in history, and cannot keep its own electricity on in the summer. Their environmental policy has been in place for thirty years. The results are visible from space.
37. "No one should profit off of sickness"... announced by the party that fought to keep the ACA — which mandated that every American PURCHASE a product from a PRIVATE insurance company or pay a fine. They literally made it illegal not to pay the insurance company. And they called that progressive healthcare reform.
38. They are obsessed with "protecting our democracy" from MAGA... while 5.2 million protesters tried to override 77,302,416 votes cast in a free and fair election. That is not protecting democracy. That is a minority faction attempting to nullify the expressed preference of the majority. Madison warned about this specifically in Federalist No. 10. Look it up.
39. "We need common sense gun laws"... and Chicago has had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation for decades, and it also has some of the most violent neighborhoods in the country. You want to know what does not exist in those neighborhoods? Responsible armed citizens who can protect themselves. What does exist? Career politicians from the same party for fifty straight years.
40. They say they want to "tax the ultra-wealthy"... and then they keep giving Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street the exact carve-outs, credits, and loopholes that protect their donors' wealth. The ultra-wealthy you hear about in speeches mysteriously never seems to include the ultra-wealthy who write the checks.
41. "We follow the science on climate change"... and then they told you biological sex is a spectrum, that there is no meaningful physiological difference between male and female athletes, and that puberty blockers are "fully reversible." One of those positions involves chemistry, physics, and atmospheric science. The others involve ignoring endocrinology, anatomy, and a decade of clinical data. But they follow the science.
42. They want immigration to be "humane"... and the cities that declared themselves sanctuaries — New York, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles — screamed for emergency federal aid and started deporting migrants themselves the moment they actually had to house them. The humanity apparently has a geographic radius of exactly "not my backyard."
43. "We need more funding for public education"... announced by the same party that has controlled most major urban school districts for fifty years, produced some of the lowest literacy and graduation rates in the developed world, and fights viciously against any accountability measure or alternative that might actually help the children whose futures are at stake. It is almost like the children are not the actual priority.
44. They say anyone who questions the 2020 election is "an election denier who threatens democracy"... and Stacey Abrams denied her 2018 loss for four years, Hillary Clinton called the 2016 election stolen on national television as recently as 2022, and over 60 House Democrats objected to electoral votes in 2000, 2004, and 2016. The rule about election denial apparently only applies to one party.
45. "Latinx." I know I already put this one on the list. It is so spectacularly disconnected from reality that it deserves to be on there twice.

Here is what all 45 of these have in common.

They are not accidents. They are not oversights. They are not cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes.

They are a PATTERN. And Quinn's Law #2 tells you exactly what to do with a pattern like this: if you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing.

The projection is so consistent it has become predictable.

Save this list. The next time someone tells you conservatives are anti-science, anti-woman, anti-democracy, or anti-worker, scroll back through it. Every single item is documented. Every one is verifiable. Not a single one requires you to believe anything on faith.

Which number surprised you the most? Drop it in the replies."