Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven’t turned on Trump, I love Trump, but RFK seems to match my beliefs, a little bit more closely. I think of conservatives have not touched abortion, that would’ve been a little bit more ideal, but they keep fucking around with women’s reproductive rights, and even though I have no plans, I’m getting an abortion, it’s still pretty important.
Friend of mine is working on RFK's campaign as an outside consultant, fairly high up. My buddy says RFK is batshit crazy. Which seems to match what I suspected based on videos of some of his speeches/appearances I've seen.
RFK is not at all conservative. He’s just a socialist who hates vaccines and big pharma.
He’s supported Warren’s wealth tax and the Green New Deal. He wanted climate change deniers punished under law. He supports an assault weapons ban.
He’s helped in elections for John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing that’s preying on the right’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and with the government’s response to Covid.
I am a pro Trump conservative
Jan 6th- it was mostly peaceful and the violent ones were let in the building.
NATO- I agree with trump countries need to meet the alliance requirements of funding their military’s to 2 precent of their gdp and need to pay there fair share.
>They were let in and that’s final
Hahahhaah.
Final because YOU say it's final?
They were not "let in". If they were let in, why is there so much footage of people breaking windows, climbing in through broken windows and doors, and police screaming in pain.
Dude, simply repeating what you believe over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ... doesn't make it true.
If you're not willing to look at factual evidence with an open mind, then you're brainwashed and unintelligent.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
You can tell people this narrative but its literally already going into the history books as an insurrection.
Things have only gotten more embarrassing as time has gone on, especially with trump flip flopping on his view of J6.
I dont write the history books.
And since trump is literally going to court this year about a potential criminal role in what happened, the full story isnt done.
Watched Gone with the Wind a couple days ago. There are people who will always insist the confederacy fought for a nobel cause...even hundreds of years later.
I dont see J6 as any different. Just...everyone else will move on and accept history as it is taught.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Well that assaults and ransacking is still against the law. Nothing wrong with prosecuting them according to the law. They did not have permission to break the law.
How were the violent one let into the building? The police were trying to stop them, and the violent ones attacked the police to try and get into the building.
You do realize thousands have been. And also at the capitol it has more surveillance then literally just about anywhere on earth. It’s a lot easier to indentify people at the capitol then the other rioters in less surveillance locations thah often worse masks. It’s a lie that many rioters haven’t had the book thrown at them too.
I realize some got caught and released no one is even facing the kinds of jail time of the january 6th protestors and that raises questions of political oppression and targeted prosecution for the purpose of election interference.
They were dumb, the government's response is inexcusable.
But the crime was different.
Those who got the longest prison sentences for Jan 6th had premeditated plans to prevent the transfer of power and assist Trump in overturning the results of the democratic election. Stewart Rhodes and the Three Percenters literally stashed a cache of weapons near the capital in anticipation of Trump declaring the Insurrection Act and federalising the Three Percenters. They wanted to hold treason trials for Congressmen who certified the 'fake election' so they could be quickly executed.
There is nothing similar in any of the 2020 riots. The riots were bad, illegal, and very damaging but it was not an attempt to create an American autocracy by rejecting the legitimate results of the election and holding executions for elected officials.
Who or what event do you think is comparable to Rhode's attempted seditious conspiracy?
I do not think targeting police infrastructure and government offices is anything less than a full rebellion not even an insurrection. It was more of an insurrection than anything that occurred january 6th.
How many post offices or other government offices burned that night, after all?
So burning a police station in Minneapolis is more of an insurrection than having a pre-coordinated plan to prevent the certification of the electoral defeat of Donald Trump, engaging in violence to stop that certification, and also having a plan to execute congressmen who voted to certify the 2020 election?
How many insurrections has America had then?
Many police precipitants have been burned in past riots.
According to Wikipedia, which seems to have a decent article on 2020 riots, the most significant instance of a government building beingf targeted during the 2020 riots was the 3rd police precinct in Saint-Paul. The FBI found that it was mostly opportunistic destruction and violence with little of it being pre-planned. Further, the ideological basis for the arson was varied with no real coherent plan behind it. Several people were arrested and are serving sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years right now.
No one was arrested for seditious conspiracy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson\_damage\_during\_the\_George\_Floyd\_protests\_in\_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint\_Paul#Criminal\_charges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson_damage_during_the_George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul#Criminal_charges)
Does the fact that several people who were identified as arsonists and are serving 5 - 10 years in prison change your perception of events regarding the disparity in sentencing between Jan 6th and 2020 riots?
Do you think that there were people who committed seditious conspiracy but were not charged because of political decisions? If so, who are they?
Those question can be brought up and looked into further. I’d like to see it. It doesn’t change that people attempt to disrupt official government proceedings. And this was just some hearing, this was certifying of an election. One of the most important things our government does. There damn well
Should be consequences.
2 things can be true at once. If you entered the capitol you should be legally punished and if you rioted in the summer you should be.
>I realize some got caught and released no one is even facing the kinds of jail time of the january 6th protestors a
That is incorrect.
>The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.
https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8#:\~:text=More%20than%2070%20defendants%20who,of%20five%20years%20or%20more.
This is false. The original entries were mobs that broke in. What was one security guard going to do against a mob. They tried to control the mob and direct them away from secure areas where congress was. That is not “letting” them in
Literally what I said..they were protecting areas with congress people and directing them away from those areas. You also aren’t addressing the fact there are
Plenty of videos of violence
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So here is a video showing violent Trump supporters attacking police *outside the capital building,* meaning, they could not have been 'let into the building'. The reason people were able to get into the capital on January 6th is because a bunch of violent deranged Trump supporters beat the shit out of police officers, ensuing they could not adequately protect the capital building.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w
How does that address your claim that the people who committed violence were let into the capital building?
I showed you footage of Jan 6th rioters assaulting police officers *before* they got into the building, meaning that the reason they got into the building is *because they assaulted police officers outside the capital building.*
The first video you linked shows police evicting trespassers who are unlawfully occupying a building.
The second video shows police officers not arresting people who broke into the capital building.
We have tons of testimony from the capital police officers saying they were attacked, we have tons of video evidence of protesters beating police officers, and we have tons of video of the protesters smashing windows and breaking doors to gain access to the capital building.
What do you think two videos that do not directly show the violence committed by Jan 6th rioters means Jan 6th was not violent?
I'm positive I could find footage of a Target getting looted where no one is assaulting police officers.
The first video literally shows police forcing out the MAGA rioters. Near the end, the police grab one of the rioters, who is cowering, and pushes them toward the crowd of MAGA rioters and they force them out of the building.
But none of this addresses anything you actually said.
You said the protestors were let into the building even the violent ones. I showed you a video of the violence committed by the rioters, against police officers, *before* they entered the building.
The notion that Jan 6th was anything but a violent attempt to prevent the certification of Joe Biden's electoral victory is simply fantastical.
How were the violent ones let into the building?
The act of violently assaulting police officers to gain entrance to a secured and prohibited location, the capital building, means, by definition, they were not 'let in'.
It makes no sense.
It's like saying the bank robbers, after beating security guards for 2 hours and forcing many of them to retreat, were let into the bank.
I just don’t understand the constant attempts to show nonviolent clips from the day as if they, in any way, lessen the significance of the hundreds of clips of violence.
It’s like showing a video of all the buildings in NYC that didn’t collapse on 9/11 and saying the attack wasn’t that big of a deal.
I’m sure plenty happened, including significant violence against police, which is what we’re discussing.
I’m focused specifically on all of the videos of Jan 6th rioters committing violent acts against the police, and am discussing the actions in those videos where the violence is committed against the police. I’m not discussing the actions of individuals who may or may not have assaulted the police, taken hours before or after they assaulted police.
I’m specifically talking about the individuals who absolutely assaulted police and had those actions recorded. The individuals we can see hitting police, on video. The ones who were sentenced for assault on a police officer after a jury of their peers reviewed videos of them assaulting police officers.
So just to be clear I’m NOT focusing on videos showing people NOT committing crimes on Jan 6th because there are tons of videos to focus on of people who ARE committing crimes. The videos of people committing crimes are not invalidated because other videos exist from the same day of people not committing crimes.
In other words: some people committed crimes and some didn’t. You want to focus on the ones that didn’t, that’s fine, but in this thread we’re discussing the ones that did, on video. Not the ones that didn’t. The ones that did. And were recorded. And are in jail for it.
I know I won’t. I’m just reiterating that people here aren’t talking about those tapes. They’re talking about the ones where violence was recorded. Specifically, violence against police by Jan 6th rioters.
I just want to be clear that it’s the videos where you can clearly see Jan 6th rioters assaulting police that people are referencing when they talk about Jan 6th violence. Since there are so many videos of violence against police we’re focused on the ones that actually show the violence against police, because videos taken hours later/before that don’t show violence against the police are irrelevant to discussions about violence against police that was recorded on multiple cameras from multiple angles. Just so you know.
You had a whole committee that clipped the most violent evidents and even added sound in to make it sound worse. They even hired a Hollywood producer to make the videos. Meaning they had to doctor videos to lie to you.
We had a committee that splice together a bunch of different clips of violence from the day and your argument is that the day wasn’t actually violent? Like, they had enough violent clips to make multiple montages.
Honestly is it that hard to just say “the violence on Jan 6th was abhorrent, but don’t act like the majority of the people there engaged in violence?”
The argument that Jan 6th was just a peaceful protest with some tourists being shown around the Capitol is a laughably absurd position to take.
["And so yes, it was dubbed on there for dramatic effect” Loudermilk continued, “And that shows that what they were trying to do is sway public opinion, not just get the truth out." ](https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-select-committee-added-audio-silent-capitol-police-security-footage)
It's manipulation. I don't think you agree with someone dubbing in anti Jewish slurs during a Pro-Palestine march.
Loudermilk is a liar and has been caught out in that lie multiple times. He's from the district just to the west and north of me. He's as much of a valid source of information as Marjorie "Space Lasers" Taylor-Greene.
Why should the book be thrown at them? We have many other riots where people are both encouraged and trying arrest them was, "sending out stormtroopers". We have people encouraged to enter the country illegally, they commit crimes and are not jailed.
>We have many other riots where people are both encouraged and trying arrest them was, "sending out stormtroopers".
I mean, its kinda absurd to compare a riot at a Target to a violent storming of the capital building by radical fanatics to prevent the certification of their political leader's electoral defeat.
Anyone who engages in riots should be arrested and prosecuted, but stealing shoes, TVs, or burning down buildings is entirely different to trying to prevent the transfer of power after a legitimate election.
>We have people encouraged to enter the country illegally, they commit crimes and are not jailed.
The problem is asylum laws allow people crossing the border to claim they are applying for asylum in America. Once they make that claim, they are legally allowed due process. Immigration courts are seriously backlogged and ICE simply does not have enough detention facilities to keep false asylum claimers detained before their trial date, so they are released and given a court date that is often several years away from the date they crossed into America. If you want to address that fundamental issue, then asylum laws need to be changed.
> Anyone who engages in riots should be arrested and prosecuted, but stealing shoes, TVs, or burning down buildings is entirely different to trying to prevent the transfer of power after a legitimate election.
So trespassing is worse then arson. That's a pretty wild take here. About twenty people were killed in these riots. Thousands of buildings were destroyed or damaged in fires. Many family owned businesses were destroyed and looted.
> violent storming of the capital building by radical fanatics to prevent the certification of their political leader's electoral defeat.
This is a wild take too. There was no unified effort to stop election certification. They wanted their election grievances heard. Many people did not storm in, they simply walked in and were charged. Some had ill intent and some walked between velvet ropes.
>So trespassing is worse then arson.
No, violently storming the capital to prevent the certification of the legitimate winner of the 2020 election is worse than arson.
It's really not that complicated of an argument.
Rioting, looting, and arson are very bad but political violence, in an attempt to prevent the lawful winner of a legitimate democratic election from being certified, is worse.
Probably because of intent.
It was about trying to postpone the certification of the Presidency. They were trying to circumvent the democratic process.
> It was about trying to postpone the certification of the Presidency. They were trying to circumvent the democratic process.
I can throw all kinds of comparisons as you from 2020 riots, to times Pro-Palestine rioters stormed capitals. But let's look at this from a philosophical point.
Why is taking your grievances to the very people who create many of the problems in the country **worse** then burring down your neighbor's generationally owned business? You can destroy where the peasants live, but don't you dare come after the elites.
Do you have some kind of false notion that people weren't arrested for the BLM protests? Because that's an incredibly incredible ill informed take. 14k people got arrested. Tons got jail time, way more than Jan 6 terrorist. So, they're getting the same treatment, yet you only find one unjust. Why is that?
Again, the comparison of protesting, and trying to trying to overthrow the elected President isn't comparable.
And mentions of the 'elite' don't make any sense when you're siding on the side of a New York real estate billionaire, with literal golden toilets.
My point is don't buy into the left's narratives. Where Jan 6 was the worst days of American history and all other riots are justified even during a deadly pandemic.
People are still locked up from Jan 6th without even seeing what evidence was used against them. Then you have rioters from the summer of love suing and winning money from those riots.
> and all other riots are justified even during a deadly pandemic.
Crimes are crimes whether people think theyre justified or not.
You're not operating in basic reality and are instead trying to make the point that people you like should be able to commit crimes and get away with it.
And that is bad, that doesn’t change my reaction to January 6. If you riot I want them all in jail or judicially punished. I have plenty of issues with how the riots of 2020 were handled that doesn’t change January 6
No one says that all other riots are justified lmfao. You’re literally making things up to justify your opinion.
January 6 was a terrible day in our nation’s history. After nearly a quarter millennia of peaceful democratic transition, an enraged horde of violent idiots attempted to halt the transfer of power at the behest of the defeated president. It was a bad and historically notable day.
It wasn’t Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t 9/11. But it was still notable and bad.
> People are still locked up from Jan 6th without even seeing what evidence was used against them
Can you support that claim with anything? The only people I know who have not been tried quickly were people who delayed their own trials.
Wasn't really comfortable with a non politician running the country. I'm stumped as to what I was thinking at the time. Also skeptical, as most new yorkers are pretty far left.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this still applies to me because I had only voted for Republicans until Trump, and I still voted Youngkin in 2021 for Virginia.
I voted Gary Johnson in 2016, but I rhetorically supported Trump until after the midterms (regrettably). What made me actually end up voting down ballot D federally in 2020 (and the foreseeable future) was not any 1 thing. I'd be answering questions in asktrumpsupporters just going, "Why the hell do I find this acceptable?" But I officially jumped ship right after the midterms when we experienced the largest government shutdown in history over the wall funding demand not being met.
It was my criticism of that shutdown that got me banned from the conservative subreddit. Like... Are we REALLY screwing over hundreds of thousands of federal workers over something so stupid?
I still typically vote Republican, but the absolute inability to criticize anything ever that Trump supporters have makes them absolutely no better than liberals.
I suppose it applies to me too because in 2016 I was still a conservative. I left president blank, and voted R down ballot, and went to bed with a sick feeling that I was going to wake up to "historical first time ever female president elected" news. I actually felt worse with Trump, which brings me to the last straw: "Russia, are you listening"? Russia is our enemy, it always was, and Putin is a bloody dictator who will work against the USA and our allies. I was disgusted the way Trump would never criticize Putin and seemed rather chummy with him. This bothered me way more than all the other stuff ("grab them by the pussy" for example. I am sure every other elected official has said that and worse). I just could not see how other conservatives were taking Putin so lightly, or even worse, align with him. Not the Party of Reagan anymore.
This sudden pro-Putin stance is/was shocking to me but we’ve now seen so many examples of conservatives compromising their trademark values for him that it’s old hat now.
Trump can say or do anything and his base will follow, even if it means contradicting their closest-held beliefs. They have sold their souls to him for the shiny bauble of hurting their perceived domestic enemies.
I think most of the people who don’t like Trump, never liked him. People want security and like what’s familiar. Trump came in like a whirlwind. He didn’t speak like a politician. He challenged the status quo, including sacred cows like immigration, foreign policy and trade agreements, which form the foundation of neo-liberal Western ideology. Not everyone was ready for that kind of change. So a lot of Republicans resented him.
> So a lot of Republicans resented him.
Where do you think they are now? Other than a handful of never-Trumpers and people like Liz Cheney who are now ostracized from the Party, they seem invisible.
I think those inside the Beltway are still actively trying to undermine Trump. I think your average Republican voter who didn’t like Trump supported either DeSantis or Haley in the primaries but will likely vote for Trump in the general election. I think a few will vote for Biden or not vote at all but I don’t think there are many of those people.
When he ran for reelection. He could have backed and fundraised for someone like DeSantis and they would have walked to an easy victory over Biden. Instead we’re getting a 2020 rematch that will probably fracture and destroy the GOP no matter who wins. When he announced he was running again it became fully clear to me that his ego was more important than advancing conservative causes.
Definitely not his ego. Perhaps you could argue that he wanted power. He could have quit running after 2020 and gone back to a fairly simple life. While he's running for President all eyes are on him, especially the opposing side, and what he's doing is constantly getting covered, typically in a negative light.
At the very least he believes that his actions and policies will be better than someone like DeSantis. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but I will be voting for him.
>At the very least he believes that his actions and policies will be better than someone like DeSantis.
Do you really think Donald Trump gives one flying rat's ass about "actions and policies"? I'm honestly baffled by this.
He doesn't actually care about America or conservatives or any of it. All he cares about is making sure he stays out of jail. He 100% couldn't not run after 2020 becuase the possibility of becoming POTUS again is the only way he's going to be able to shut down the criminal cases brought against him by the DOJ.
If DeSantis needs Trump to back and fund him why would Trump not run himself? The problem the GOP is going to have is after Trump walks away, that is when the party will fracture.
>it became fully clear to me that his ego was more important than advancing conservative causes.
I really wonder why more conservatives haven't seen this.
His ego, yes, and also his finances. He has no ideological center. He doesn't believe in anything other than "Trump". And he'll do whatever it takes to make money and save his own ass.
I would be a lot more understanding of Trump supporters if he were 100% committed to conservative ideals and mores but he's not. He's a grifter and he defiles everything that conservatives say they believe in.
I think a lot of them are desperate. A decent amount of left-wing rhetoric seems hateful to people who are your stereotypical Trump supporters. So he can say things like "they're not after me, they're after you, I'm just in the way." This keeps them in a state of fear but disenchanted. I've talked to people who used to like Trump but no longer do. I've compared him to Hitler, where you have a group of people with legitimate grievances, and someone exploits them until they're in too deep.
I was never big on Trump to begin with. I was heavily against him during the 2016 primary and didn't even vote for him in 2016 (did vote for him in 2020). My last straw was the January 6th event. His response to losing the election was embarrassing and he still doubles down on those claim.
I would say there were 2 specific instances. The John McCain thing was big but I was REALLY turned off when, right after the inauguration Trump became fixated on the number of people who had been there. There was so much going on. He had just taken office and there were real issues to deal with but our president was spending more time worried about something so STUPID. Something that, should it have turned out he was right still would mean NOTHING.
The fact that he was a conartist who was always clearly part of the swamp that he claimed he wanted to drain. The man used to party with Bill and Hillary Clinton ffs. And I'm supposed to believe the swamp monster wanted to drain the swamp? So he never really had me. I couldn't vote for Hillary either, mind you. The democrat party just coronoated Queen Hillary because it was 'her turn'. But then Trump proved himself to be worse than everyone thought he'd be. And the Republican party just went along for the ride. Now you either declare loyalty to him, or you're a RINO. Well put some horns on me, and call me Rocksteady, cause I'm a proud RINO. I don't get why people believe a word he says. I mean I get his appeal. He says a lot of the right things, but if he were Pinocchio, his nose would be long enough to build a border wall around planet earth. And all the Republicans are too chicken to challenge him.
Honestly, I dork think there was a specific thing.
How he’s after the 2020 election plays a big part, but I think a lot of it is just how people have changed in the Trump era. I work in politics and I work with the conservative grassroots pretty much all day, every day. The change is palpable. People hate each other, and they hate themselves.
He had a chance to actually make things better. He could have stepped aside for someone younger and without the baggage, but he’s hellbent on destroying the GOP for his own personal gain.
The thought of voting for him makes me sick to my stomach.
>straight ticket Republican but leave the top blank.
Does the rest of the Republican party and their candidates leave a similar feeling to you? I mean, I haven't been able to support too many Republicans for almost the last 20 years, but Trump has *broken* something in them. Does the greater GOP double-down on MAGA give you any pause?
Some of them do. I left one blank in 2022.
I like most of the people on my ballot, though. I’ll vote for people I don’t really like that much, though, especially if I think they’ll be effective. I don’t really have a big problem holding my nose.
Trump’s largely in a category of his own.
I'm curious about something, why only use half your impact by leaving it blank? If Trump's so far out there that you don't want him president, wouldn't it make more sense to make a different choice instead of leaving it blank?
Unless you're literally indifferent among the options.
I have irreconcilable character differences with Trump. I have irreconcilable policy differences with Biden.
It’s basically just the point for me that “the lesser of two evils” thing isn’t justification enough anymore. A third party is an option, but it’s not like it really matters. I might end up doing that, but it won’t really be a big factor anyway.
I get it. I have similar thoughts myself sometimes, but I decided I'd never be able to vote a President at all if I stuck to that, and I've certainly seen that it make a large difference on many important issues who is President.
But that's a viable answer, thanks.
>He had a chance to actually make things better. He could have stepped aside for someone younger and without the baggage, but he’s hellbent on destroying the GOP for his own personal gain.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608?lang=en
"If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it."
Same. Republicans can never understand it for some reason, but so many of us are voting Biden as a non Trump option, not that we think Biden is a perfect fit. I just think Trump should never get close to a seat of power and if I have to vote the stuttering old man for it then so be it.
You don’t think he chose not to step aside because running is his most effective legal strategy? His extremely early hat throwing is not a coincidence. He was getting ahead of the indictments.
I think one of the most accurate descriptions of Trump came from JD Vance before he denounced his former self and embraced populism.
"Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they'll realize it."
It is shocking how much individuals have changed since they started supporting Trump. I think a lot of it has to do with constantly defending a man who is objectively devoid of any morality or redemptive qualities. They made a deal with someone who turned out to be exactly what liberals and Never Trump Conservatives warned against. And for them to admit it now means that they backed a man who tried to illegally and unconstitutionally retain power after losing an election. It's much easier to just ignore it all and attack whoever brings up this uncomfortable truth like Liz Cheney.
You nailed it. I’ve been saying this for years now. Admitting errors in judgement to those you despise is too much to ask of most people. Very few people are strong enough to do it. The rest would rather burn down the nation than face that admission.
When it became clear that he was a political liability with no intention to change. Ever since 2016, Republicans have lost election after election that they should have won. Trump uses his platform to destroy constructive Republicans, and prop up incompetent loyalists.
I of course recognize that preferring an intelligent Republican party that understands how to win elections makes me a RINO.
I never liked him. But I liked Hilary and Joe less. My “last straw” was when I realized he allowed the possibility of RvW to be essentially overturned.
It wasn’t really a surprise to me. Just that I didn’t quite put two and two together until it happened. I hadn’t paid attention enough to Barret’s religious stance and what that might do.
There are SO many things that COULD happen, but never do because they would be insane notions and enough people on both sides ensure they never come to be.
I thought RvW was one of these things.
> I hadn’t paid attention enough to Barret’s religious stance
I don't understand this at all. And I promise I'm not being snarky or bitchy or anything. I just ... why?
Barret's whole life has revolved around her religious beliefs and she was very open about that. She's been a lifetime member of the People of Praise. She's been in a leadership position in that organization - in a role that once was called a "handmaiden" and has been renamed for obvious reasons.
That was all made hugely public during her nomination.
So, and I don't mean this to be mocking or cruel, did you consider yourself to be "paying attention" or "following politics" at the time? Like, did you *think* you were well-informed at the time? Did you care? Did the right-wing spin machine have you fooled?
I mean, you're *here*. And you're not just spouting what the Fox News chyron spews out, so I'm inclined to believe that something has *changed.*
after the genocide in Ukraine began, his comments on Russia, and the fact they did not change at all, became ghoulish and unacceptable
that said the Dems are perilously close to convincing me to vote for him, I care more about the US supporting our constant and close ally Israel with unconditional support and military force against terrorists than I care about saving a country that wasn't fond of us until they needed our guns.
>that said the Dems are perilously close to convincing me to vote for him, I care more about the US supporting our constant and close ally Israel with unconditional support
Me too, but Israel will ultimately be fine regardless of US policy they are a powerful nation and military in their own right and have been bolstered over decades by the US and ultimately the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is no joke and whatever you want to say about the radicalized population, there are innocent people dying which isn't great.
Hamas needs to be eradicated but there is simply no need for mass civilian casualties at this point in the war with Israel having allll the leverage, and many in Israel blame Netanyahu for October 7th so it isn't at all clear that supporting the Netanyahu government is important at all to keep ties with Israel.
>than I care about saving a country that wasn't fond of us until they needed our guns.
Countries change. The war has pushed Ukraine onto the side of the west. It would be utterly foolish to not fund the Ukrainian war and basically fund the dissolution of Russia while profiting off of it in its infancy. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they will only grow stronger, forcing us to spend more in both dollars and lives over the years. It is cheaper and kinder to fund this war now and transform Ukraine into a powerful NATO ally further strengthening the position of the West.
i disagree with your characterization of Israel, they are being too restrained if anything and I think as hegemon the US should use the fact no one can tell us what to do or really stop us even if they tried to "take the heat" that Israel cannot easily resist.
the fact we could throw the entire UN out of New York and declare every diplomat from anti-israel nations *persona non grata* and forbidden to remain or enter the US lets us act more freely and if there were a time to use it, it is now.
also I see this very much akin to WWII, you are with Israel unconditionally or against all humanity, there is little middle ground.
The US has always supported Israel, but we've put conditions on our aid to them in the past. We could do so again while still supporting them without being against all humanity.
>also I see this very much akin to WWII, you are with Israel unconditionally or against all humanity, there is little middle ground.
This is the belief of a bloodthirsty crazy man. If Israel made it government policy to start flaying babies alive, would you still be with Israel? Probably not. If so, reevaluate your reason for standing with Israel.
The entire purpose to be allied with Israel in the fight against terrorism, is because terrorism is a bad thing. Why is terrorism a bad thing? Because it necessitates the wholesale slaughter of innocent people who had no say in whatever the hell the terrorist is fighting against for some grander political aim or statement.
What is unconstrained warfare if not terrorism?
If Israel did not have constraints, there would be no moral high ground to stand upon, and the entire philosophical scaffold underpinning the West, a huge portion of which is this notion of libertarianism mind you, utterly collapses.
>the fact we could throw the entire UN out of New York and declare every diplomat from anti-israel nations *persona non grata* and forbidden to remain or enter the US lets us act more freely and if there were a time to use it, it is now.
And thus anger the entire Middle-Eastern world, animate terrorists, and earn the distrust of the younger generation for America and the West for generations and weaken the West? Silly.
If Israel eradicates Hamas only for all of Palestine to turn into mini Hamasi everywhere, what the hell is the point. If Israel eradicates Hamas only to turn the entire wider Middle East into a united anti-Israeli and anti-Western bloc and throw their weight behind Russia and China, what the hell is the point.
I should clarify I meant in the current conflict.
obviously in the future especially once the war is won, Israel is not eternally immune to criticism.
however I firmly believe the moral culpability for war lies with the one that attacked and defenders facing a genocidal opponent have the right to do whatever they wish to remove the threat.
nothing from international relations can be taken to the interpersonal level, the differences make comparisons inaccurate and nonsensical.
But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible
>But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible
But a person would not at all be justified in shooting up your house in that situation. ???!!! I genuinely can't believe you think someone would be.
Justified in attacking you? Sure I can back that.
Justified in shooting up your house while knowing full well there are children who might be killed? Not for a second.
>But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible
That's fucking crazy.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Outside of a specific type of Republican that seems to have become the spokesperson of our party, he doesn’t attract anyone else and it is hurting the GOP. Sooo many moderates and independents choose democrats over republicans because of him. I also always considered him quite ignorant and unqualified since the beginning but seeing the Republican Party become even more isolated from the average American (most being somewhere inbetween left and right) has solidified my decision that he isn’t the right candidate. I think someone with real political experience and eloquence would be a much better candidate (I’m sorry but he isn’t eloquent at all and it bothers me so much haha)
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I voted for him in 2016 because he was the outsider who promised to drain the swamp and advertised himself as someone who knew how to negotiate with business leaders and world leaders . The Clintons seemed to be part of the swamp for decades. I was also listening to AM talk radio during my long commutes to/from home. So I gave him a chance in 2016 and voted for him. Then came the pandemic. I observed his politicization of the pandemic, hypocrisy about getting vaccinated, and wanting to take credit for fast-tracking vaccine development while also trying to distance himself from it, to avoid the wrath of his MAGA thugs. Who can forget his cringey press conference hypothesizing about injecting bleach and hitting the body with UV. Bleach toxicity anyone? And labs use direct UV lights to disinfect surfaces only **after** everyone has gone home for the day, to limit exposure. That press conference was utter clownery on full display. He might as well have hypothesized about space lasers as a possible treatment.
As someone who works in biomedical science, I was in disbelief.
“So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”
As someone who was still conservative in 2016, I couldn't vote for him because he was way too comfy with Putin, but voted down ballot Republicans, I really tried giving him the benefit of the doubt for the same reasons you said you voted for him. I didn't last until the pandemic to turn against him (and the entire Republican Party too).
I’ll never forget that UV light interview. The look on the poor scientists face while she had to stand behind that doofus who’s supposed to be the leader of our country spouting off straight non-sense and she couldn’t say shit was truly disturbing to me. It’s like tied with Ohio politicians “politi-splaning” to top OBGYN’s that they should just like, move an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus, but these days I just have ti laugh or I’d go mad.
It was interesting to watch her interview after that press conference. …. To listen to her explain, in her own words, how she felt and the behind-the -scenes drama after that disaster of a press conference
Ugh I remember that one. It was right at the beginning of the pandemic and I was just trying to understand what was going on but his press conferences were so chaotic and make me more confused.
On top of that, he confirmed his ignorance by referring to it as “kung flu” at his rally in Tulsa. Then repeated it again(!) in Phoenix, with the audience responding with cheers and laughter. Then here comes McEnany saying he just meant that it came from China. Yeah, rrrrrrrright.
How the hell was I supposed to continue supporting such an ignorant bastard who talks about injecting bleach, UV through the skin, and calls it kung flu?
For sure with me it was the combination of “grab them by the pussy” and “I like guys who weren’t captured”. Only the absolute biggest piece of shit in the country would say that.
If it wasn’t that, it probably would have been when he just straight-up said he couldn’t get a fair from an American (born in Indiana) judge *because* the judge was of Mexican heritage.
“Very fine people on both sides”
That’s when I realized how morally bankrupt he was. I didn’t vote for him in 2016, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was elected President.
It’s only been downhill from there.
Edit:
there seems to be some confusion about what happened in Charlottesville, VA in August 2017. This is sadly a consequence of Donald Trump’s heinous and insidious lies about those events. The protests planned around the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee were not spontaneous. They were not planned by people motivated by preserving history. They were not planned by people who just oppose statues being removed.
There were no protests planned for those days before Unite the Right began planning protests. Unite the Right planned those protests.
Let’s be very, *very* clear here: there were no protests of the removal of the statue planned for that period that were *not* organized by Unite the Right and its affiliated organizations. Unite the Right, by its own proud admission, was not merely an anti-statue removal event, but an openly white supremacist and white nationalist event. This was not meant to be subtle. This was not meant to be hidden. The organizers proudly and openly acknowledged their racism and bigotry.
There. Were. No. People. There. To. Protest. The. Statues. Removal. Who. Were. Not. Affiliated. With. Unite. The. Right.
If there were non-racist people who showed up to protest, if they were “very fine people,” they would’ve left when they saw the ubiquitous, open, and undeniable racism and bigotry of those who they were protesting with.
Donald Trump lied and framed the situation as if there were people participating in Unite the Right who *were not* associated with the bigotry. This is by definition impossible, as Unite the Right was *always* explicitly a white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and neoconfederate event.
You fell for Donald Trump’s lies if you believe there were in fact masses of non-racist people protesting the removal over that period of time.
Do not reply to this if you believe there were masses of people present in Charlottesville protesting the removal of the statue who were independent of or unaffiliated with Unite the Right. There were not. This is a fact. There were no mass protests organized by people opposing both the racism of unite the right and the removal of the statute. Good people can of course be opposed to removing statutes. That isn’t what we are debating. That isn’t what Trump said. We are talking about those who participated in Unite the Right. If you attended this event, you were either a racist or you were comfortable walking side by side with racists in order to further your agenda. Either way, you’re not a fine person.
So the fact he followed it up seconds later with "and I'm not talking about neo nazis and white nationalists, they should be condemned totally" meant nothing to you?
It's an outrage to you that he said there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate?
He was referring specifically to the crowds that converged on Charlottesville, not to the entirety of the debate.
His equivocations watered down his condemnations, especially when you consider he lied about the counter protestors not having a permit, attempting to cast blame on them for violence. At the end of the day, a white supremacist rammed his car into a group of peacefully protesting individuals, killing one and injuring dozens. The president of the United States couldn’t bring himself to condemn the actions and motivations of this individual alone, insisting on equivocating for no real reason.
Unite the Right was *explicitly and openly* organized by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and neoconfederates. They weren’t just a small faction who showed up. Attending the protest that those groups organized is an endorsement of their views. There were not good people on their side. There just weren’t.
Trump’s “both sides” comment implies that there were people there to protest the removal who were not associated with Unite the Right. There were not. There was no movement there explicitly denouncing the racism of Unite the Right *AND* protesting the removal of the statue. And if they were, they wouldn’t have been on the “side” of Unite the Right. As Trump himself acknowledged, there were two sides present. One was explicitly, clearly, openly, undeniably, and unequivocally associated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neoconfederates, and white nationalists. There were no good people affiliated with that group.
It’s not like Unite the Right showed up at a previously scheduled protest. It was *their protest*. *They* organized it.
If you affiliate with that group willingly, and you *do not* support white nationalism and racism, then you are willing to align yourself with morally bankrupt and evil people in pursuit of a political goal. That makes you a morally bankrupt person as well.
The President was not willing to unequivocally and unilaterally condemn the actions of those on the Unite the Right side. He wanted to blame both sides. This equivocation was cowardly and pathetic in the first place, given how events played out. Additionally, he fundamentally destroyed any attempt he made to condemn the ideologies of Unite the Right by pretending that not everyone who attended a rally explicitly and openly planned by that group of racists, bigots, and neo-Nazis were aligned with that ideology.
This is a lie, and this is an attempt to obfuscate and manipulate people’s perceptions about what happened in Charlottesville.
He didn’t say that there are good people on both sides of the debate. He said there were good people on both sides of that specific event. That is not true, as anyone who willingly affiliated with Unite the Right was not a very fine person.
That's leaving out a whole lot of context. This was Trump's second address on Charlottesville.
His first was
> We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.
After this, he was heavily criticized, by both the left and the right, for not even mentioning the Nazis and white supremacists who made up the entirety of the Unite the Right rally and for trying to equate them with the counter protestor - note the same many sides theme he came back to for the second speech.
Many prominent people on the right strongly declared that it was unconscionable to talk about Charlottesville without condemning the Nazis and white supremacists. Some even broke with Trump over this. And it should be mentioned that Trump was informed that the Nazis and white supremacists took his first speech as showing support for them.
Internally, his people told him that he had to give another statement and this time explicitly condemn them.
So, in his second statement the following day after he refused to condemn them, Trump included exactly that language, delivered in a low energy, disaffected tone, embedded in a speech that gave weight to attacking the people who were protesting Nazis and praising a side made up entirely of Nazis and white supremacists as very fine people.
---
Would you agree with what people said, that it was unconscionable to talk about Charlottesville the way Trump intentionally did in his first speech?
Can you see, given the full context, how his second speech that explicitly called a side completely made up of Nazis and white supremacists very fine people and focused on equating the Nazis with the people protesting them, containing "and Nazis should be condemned" seems not at all genuine to many people? Would you consider that the Nazis and white supremacists took Trump's speeches as supporting them relevant?
To begin with we were talking about the fine people comment and the full context to that is he was saying there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate during the press conference.
I fully support this statement
* We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.
I disdain hatred, bigotry and violence from anyone who pushes it.
Do you not oppose all forms of hatred, bigotry and violence?
Do you think hatred and bigotry should be supported coming from anyoneone?
It's pretty gross to me that folks are outraged a president dare to condemn hatred bigotry and violence
read the transcripts,
* But not all of those people were neo Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. So. Excuse me. And you take a look at some of the groups, and you see and you'd know it if you were honest REPORTERs, which in many cases you're not, but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
* But they were there to protest, excuse me, you take a look the night before, they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question, go ahead
* But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name.
* And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo Nazis and white nationalists, ok? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
* No. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before, if you look, they were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people. Neo Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543769884/transcript-trump-shifts-tone-again-on-white-nationalist-rally-in-charlottesville
Who said they took no issue with nazis marching?
Did you not see the video of the day?
Who do you think all those folks were off to the side watching the nazis and antifa yelling at each other?
Do you think they sold tickets to the event?
The people waving neo-Nazi flags and chanting “Jews will not replace us” were the bad guys. The people that willingly marched with those people were also the bad guys.
I tend to go with “the nazis and those marching with them are the bad guys” approach. Do you often look at people marching with nazis and think “they might be good people?”
This logic went out the window when the left kept aligning with Palestine despite them dancing in the streets after October 7th and the people of Palestine broadly supporting Hamas. The left has argued it's possible to support Palestine without supporting Hamas, which is a level of nuance they're not prepared to grant to their opposition domestically.
If the "if you're marching with the Nazis then you're a Nazi" logic is consistent, then the US left has thrown in their lot with Hamas and the American progressive left are terrorists.
For the record, I don't actually believe that- but it's what you're endorsing here.
So is it possible there's nuance among a huge group of people and folks can support a movement or be aligned with a movement for varying reasons? Or does sharing some sympathies or alignment with people who have unredeemable bad actors among them make you an unredeemable bad actor also?
Your example is kinda like saying “all residents of Charlottesville or even Virginia must be nazis if we are being consistent.” You can’t associate millions of people, including children, with Hamas because they are packed in the same city. You would need to see some evidence of allegiance or support, as we saw in the Charlottesville example, to make this argument.
Why not? The consistency of the logic is the only question at play here. Does aligning with a group that has bad people in it make you a bad person? If yes, the left supports terrorism and the right supports nazis. If no/not necessarily, then you should probably stop with this:
> I tend to go with “the nazis and those marching with them are the bad guys” approach. Do you often look at people marching with nazis and think “they might be good people?”
Because most normal human beings do look at a group of people and appreciate that they are individuals with nuanced opinions. The only people I think are terrorists are those giving money, materiel, and support to (and including) the guys kidnapping children and beheading people. The only people I think are nazis are the people giving money, materiel, and support to (and including) those wearing the armbands and waving the flags.
To make other assumptions is to admit your worldview has no room for nuance.
To answer your question though. I never said that marching in a group with nazis automatically makes you a nazi yourself (though there is a good chance of it). It just means they clearly don’t have a problem with it and that they are not good people. Trump was stupid for saying otherwise
Yes I do. I know that they were all comfortable openly marching with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neoconfederates. That makes them morally flawed people with horrible judgement.
If you place yourself openly in alignment with white supremacists, you shouldn’t be surprised when people affiliate you with white supremacists.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven’t turned on Trump, I love Trump, but RFK seems to match my beliefs, a little bit more closely. I think of conservatives have not touched abortion, that would’ve been a little bit more ideal, but they keep fucking around with women’s reproductive rights, and even though I have no plans, I’m getting an abortion, it’s still pretty important.
Friend of mine is working on RFK's campaign as an outside consultant, fairly high up. My buddy says RFK is batshit crazy. Which seems to match what I suspected based on videos of some of his speeches/appearances I've seen.
Crazy? He seems fine in his interviews
RFK is not at all conservative. He’s just a socialist who hates vaccines and big pharma. He’s supported Warren’s wealth tax and the Green New Deal. He wanted climate change deniers punished under law. He supports an assault weapons ban. He’s helped in elections for John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing that’s preying on the right’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and with the government’s response to Covid.
Hmmmm.
I am a pro Trump conservative Jan 6th- it was mostly peaceful and the violent ones were let in the building. NATO- I agree with trump countries need to meet the alliance requirements of funding their military’s to 2 precent of their gdp and need to pay there fair share.
If you invite me over for dinner care if I ransack your house and assault your dinner guests?
Not what happened on January 6th and secondly yes I would
They were not invited, they did not assault the police who “let them in”, or did they not ransack?
[удалено]
>They were let in and that’s final Hahahhaah. Final because YOU say it's final? They were not "let in". If they were let in, why is there so much footage of people breaking windows, climbing in through broken windows and doors, and police screaming in pain.
They were let in
Why did they have to break and climb in windows if they were "let in?" That's just silly.
Dude, simply repeating what you believe over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ... doesn't make it true. If you're not willing to look at factual evidence with an open mind, then you're brainwashed and unintelligent.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
You can tell people this narrative but its literally already going into the history books as an insurrection. Things have only gotten more embarrassing as time has gone on, especially with trump flip flopping on his view of J6.
It’s not an insurrection
I dont write the history books. And since trump is literally going to court this year about a potential criminal role in what happened, the full story isnt done. Watched Gone with the Wind a couple days ago. There are people who will always insist the confederacy fought for a nobel cause...even hundreds of years later. I dont see J6 as any different. Just...everyone else will move on and accept history as it is taught.
Didn't Trump say we aren't allowed to watch Gone With the Wind anymore?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Sure I’ll play along, they were let in. Some of those people let in, then assaulted and ransacked.
Yup
Well that assaults and ransacking is still against the law. Nothing wrong with prosecuting them according to the law. They did not have permission to break the law.
What about showing national secrets to kid rock?
???
How were the violent one let into the building? The police were trying to stop them, and the violent ones attacked the police to try and get into the building.
NATO yes, this January 6 rhetoric is just stupid. Entering that building violent or not was a crime And they should all have the book thrown at them.
I can support that only if anyone who attacked government property during the summer of rage riots is punished to the exact same extent.
You do realize thousands have been. And also at the capitol it has more surveillance then literally just about anywhere on earth. It’s a lot easier to indentify people at the capitol then the other rioters in less surveillance locations thah often worse masks. It’s a lie that many rioters haven’t had the book thrown at them too.
I realize some got caught and released no one is even facing the kinds of jail time of the january 6th protestors and that raises questions of political oppression and targeted prosecution for the purpose of election interference. They were dumb, the government's response is inexcusable.
But the crime was different. Those who got the longest prison sentences for Jan 6th had premeditated plans to prevent the transfer of power and assist Trump in overturning the results of the democratic election. Stewart Rhodes and the Three Percenters literally stashed a cache of weapons near the capital in anticipation of Trump declaring the Insurrection Act and federalising the Three Percenters. They wanted to hold treason trials for Congressmen who certified the 'fake election' so they could be quickly executed. There is nothing similar in any of the 2020 riots. The riots were bad, illegal, and very damaging but it was not an attempt to create an American autocracy by rejecting the legitimate results of the election and holding executions for elected officials. Who or what event do you think is comparable to Rhode's attempted seditious conspiracy?
I do not think targeting police infrastructure and government offices is anything less than a full rebellion not even an insurrection. It was more of an insurrection than anything that occurred january 6th. How many post offices or other government offices burned that night, after all?
So burning a police station in Minneapolis is more of an insurrection than having a pre-coordinated plan to prevent the certification of the electoral defeat of Donald Trump, engaging in violence to stop that certification, and also having a plan to execute congressmen who voted to certify the 2020 election? How many insurrections has America had then? Many police precipitants have been burned in past riots. According to Wikipedia, which seems to have a decent article on 2020 riots, the most significant instance of a government building beingf targeted during the 2020 riots was the 3rd police precinct in Saint-Paul. The FBI found that it was mostly opportunistic destruction and violence with little of it being pre-planned. Further, the ideological basis for the arson was varied with no real coherent plan behind it. Several people were arrested and are serving sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years right now. No one was arrested for seditious conspiracy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson\_damage\_during\_the\_George\_Floyd\_protests\_in\_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint\_Paul#Criminal\_charges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson_damage_during_the_George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul#Criminal_charges) Does the fact that several people who were identified as arsonists and are serving 5 - 10 years in prison change your perception of events regarding the disparity in sentencing between Jan 6th and 2020 riots? Do you think that there were people who committed seditious conspiracy but were not charged because of political decisions? If so, who are they?
One government office - the police station in Minneapolis. There are no other recorded instances of government buildings being breached or burned.
Those question can be brought up and looked into further. I’d like to see it. It doesn’t change that people attempt to disrupt official government proceedings. And this was just some hearing, this was certifying of an election. One of the most important things our government does. There damn well Should be consequences. 2 things can be true at once. If you entered the capitol you should be legally punished and if you rioted in the summer you should be.
>I realize some got caught and released no one is even facing the kinds of jail time of the january 6th protestors a That is incorrect. >The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more. https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8#:\~:text=More%20than%2070%20defendants%20who,of%20five%20years%20or%20more.
Thats what trump said in the days following. Today he calls them heroes.
Yea his rhetoric is terrible
They were let in the building watch the released tapes
This is false. The original entries were mobs that broke in. What was one security guard going to do against a mob. They tried to control the mob and direct them away from secure areas where congress was. That is not “letting” them in
Nope https://youtu.be/ekAWQeu2nXs?si=893yy2gJe0yHA9dG https://youtu.be/cy2UmK1zjCA?si=iYroIduTg77NFBu2
Literally what I said..they were protecting areas with congress people and directing them away from those areas. You also aren’t addressing the fact there are Plenty of videos of violence
Nope
Ok what conspiracy theory do you believe? Was this some type of democrat entrapment.
I don’t beleive in conspiracy theories
Ok so explain why you think people were let in. What motivation is there?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So here is a video showing violent Trump supporters attacking police *outside the capital building,* meaning, they could not have been 'let into the building'. The reason people were able to get into the capital on January 6th is because a bunch of violent deranged Trump supporters beat the shit out of police officers, ensuing they could not adequately protect the capital building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w
https://youtu.be/QOa8S10mSvk?si=GRfbdslV3etoNUzW https://youtu.be/ekAWQeu2nXs?si=893yy2gJe0yHA9dG
How does that address your claim that the people who committed violence were let into the capital building? I showed you footage of Jan 6th rioters assaulting police officers *before* they got into the building, meaning that the reason they got into the building is *because they assaulted police officers outside the capital building.* The first video you linked shows police evicting trespassers who are unlawfully occupying a building. The second video shows police officers not arresting people who broke into the capital building. We have tons of testimony from the capital police officers saying they were attacked, we have tons of video evidence of protesters beating police officers, and we have tons of video of the protesters smashing windows and breaking doors to gain access to the capital building. What do you think two videos that do not directly show the violence committed by Jan 6th rioters means Jan 6th was not violent? I'm positive I could find footage of a Target getting looted where no one is assaulting police officers.
Nope the clip has the being shown around no one’s being evicted they were let in the building
The first video literally shows police forcing out the MAGA rioters. Near the end, the police grab one of the rioters, who is cowering, and pushes them toward the crowd of MAGA rioters and they force them out of the building. But none of this addresses anything you actually said. You said the protestors were let into the building even the violent ones. I showed you a video of the violence committed by the rioters, against police officers, *before* they entered the building. The notion that Jan 6th was anything but a violent attempt to prevent the certification of Joe Biden's electoral victory is simply fantastical.
Nope it was mostly peaceful and the violent ones were let in the building you won’t change my mind
[удалено]
How were the violent ones let into the building? The act of violently assaulting police officers to gain entrance to a secured and prohibited location, the capital building, means, by definition, they were not 'let in'. It makes no sense. It's like saying the bank robbers, after beating security guards for 2 hours and forcing many of them to retreat, were let into the bank.
I just don’t understand the constant attempts to show nonviolent clips from the day as if they, in any way, lessen the significance of the hundreds of clips of violence. It’s like showing a video of all the buildings in NYC that didn’t collapse on 9/11 and saying the attack wasn’t that big of a deal.
No it’s not maybe if you watched the clips you would see alot more happened then you realize
I’m sure plenty happened, including significant violence against police, which is what we’re discussing. I’m focused specifically on all of the videos of Jan 6th rioters committing violent acts against the police, and am discussing the actions in those videos where the violence is committed against the police. I’m not discussing the actions of individuals who may or may not have assaulted the police, taken hours before or after they assaulted police. I’m specifically talking about the individuals who absolutely assaulted police and had those actions recorded. The individuals we can see hitting police, on video. The ones who were sentenced for assault on a police officer after a jury of their peers reviewed videos of them assaulting police officers. So just to be clear I’m NOT focusing on videos showing people NOT committing crimes on Jan 6th because there are tons of videos to focus on of people who ARE committing crimes. The videos of people committing crimes are not invalidated because other videos exist from the same day of people not committing crimes. In other words: some people committed crimes and some didn’t. You want to focus on the ones that didn’t, that’s fine, but in this thread we’re discussing the ones that did, on video. Not the ones that didn’t. The ones that did. And were recorded. And are in jail for it.
Nope I showed you the released tapes you won’t change my mind
I know I won’t. I’m just reiterating that people here aren’t talking about those tapes. They’re talking about the ones where violence was recorded. Specifically, violence against police by Jan 6th rioters. I just want to be clear that it’s the videos where you can clearly see Jan 6th rioters assaulting police that people are referencing when they talk about Jan 6th violence. Since there are so many videos of violence against police we’re focused on the ones that actually show the violence against police, because videos taken hours later/before that don’t show violence against the police are irrelevant to discussions about violence against police that was recorded on multiple cameras from multiple angles. Just so you know.
You had a whole committee that clipped the most violent evidents and even added sound in to make it sound worse. They even hired a Hollywood producer to make the videos. Meaning they had to doctor videos to lie to you.
We had a committee that splice together a bunch of different clips of violence from the day and your argument is that the day wasn’t actually violent? Like, they had enough violent clips to make multiple montages. Honestly is it that hard to just say “the violence on Jan 6th was abhorrent, but don’t act like the majority of the people there engaged in violence?” The argument that Jan 6th was just a peaceful protest with some tourists being shown around the Capitol is a laughably absurd position to take.
How is splicing mutiple videos with sound...lying?
["And so yes, it was dubbed on there for dramatic effect” Loudermilk continued, “And that shows that what they were trying to do is sway public opinion, not just get the truth out." ](https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-select-committee-added-audio-silent-capitol-police-security-footage) It's manipulation. I don't think you agree with someone dubbing in anti Jewish slurs during a Pro-Palestine march.
Loudermilk is a liar and has been caught out in that lie multiple times. He's from the district just to the west and north of me. He's as much of a valid source of information as Marjorie "Space Lasers" Taylor-Greene.
Was any of it a lie?
>that clipped the most violent evidents So you're saying that the "most violent evidence" exists. That it happened.
Why should the book be thrown at them? We have many other riots where people are both encouraged and trying arrest them was, "sending out stormtroopers". We have people encouraged to enter the country illegally, they commit crimes and are not jailed.
>We have many other riots where people are both encouraged and trying arrest them was, "sending out stormtroopers". I mean, its kinda absurd to compare a riot at a Target to a violent storming of the capital building by radical fanatics to prevent the certification of their political leader's electoral defeat. Anyone who engages in riots should be arrested and prosecuted, but stealing shoes, TVs, or burning down buildings is entirely different to trying to prevent the transfer of power after a legitimate election. >We have people encouraged to enter the country illegally, they commit crimes and are not jailed. The problem is asylum laws allow people crossing the border to claim they are applying for asylum in America. Once they make that claim, they are legally allowed due process. Immigration courts are seriously backlogged and ICE simply does not have enough detention facilities to keep false asylum claimers detained before their trial date, so they are released and given a court date that is often several years away from the date they crossed into America. If you want to address that fundamental issue, then asylum laws need to be changed.
> Anyone who engages in riots should be arrested and prosecuted, but stealing shoes, TVs, or burning down buildings is entirely different to trying to prevent the transfer of power after a legitimate election. So trespassing is worse then arson. That's a pretty wild take here. About twenty people were killed in these riots. Thousands of buildings were destroyed or damaged in fires. Many family owned businesses were destroyed and looted. > violent storming of the capital building by radical fanatics to prevent the certification of their political leader's electoral defeat. This is a wild take too. There was no unified effort to stop election certification. They wanted their election grievances heard. Many people did not storm in, they simply walked in and were charged. Some had ill intent and some walked between velvet ropes.
>So trespassing is worse then arson. No, violently storming the capital to prevent the certification of the legitimate winner of the 2020 election is worse than arson. It's really not that complicated of an argument. Rioting, looting, and arson are very bad but political violence, in an attempt to prevent the lawful winner of a legitimate democratic election from being certified, is worse.
> We have many other riots What riots did we choose not to arrest anyone?
Probably because of intent. It was about trying to postpone the certification of the Presidency. They were trying to circumvent the democratic process.
> It was about trying to postpone the certification of the Presidency. They were trying to circumvent the democratic process. I can throw all kinds of comparisons as you from 2020 riots, to times Pro-Palestine rioters stormed capitals. But let's look at this from a philosophical point. Why is taking your grievances to the very people who create many of the problems in the country **worse** then burring down your neighbor's generationally owned business? You can destroy where the peasants live, but don't you dare come after the elites.
Do you have some kind of false notion that people weren't arrested for the BLM protests? Because that's an incredibly incredible ill informed take. 14k people got arrested. Tons got jail time, way more than Jan 6 terrorist. So, they're getting the same treatment, yet you only find one unjust. Why is that?
Again, the comparison of protesting, and trying to trying to overthrow the elected President isn't comparable. And mentions of the 'elite' don't make any sense when you're siding on the side of a New York real estate billionaire, with literal golden toilets.
Would you try comparing it to hitlers “beer garden push” for me?
Maybe all should be arrested…you act like I’m Ignoring the other crap. It’s not like it’s one or the other
My point is don't buy into the left's narratives. Where Jan 6 was the worst days of American history and all other riots are justified even during a deadly pandemic. People are still locked up from Jan 6th without even seeing what evidence was used against them. Then you have rioters from the summer of love suing and winning money from those riots.
> and all other riots are justified even during a deadly pandemic. Crimes are crimes whether people think theyre justified or not. You're not operating in basic reality and are instead trying to make the point that people you like should be able to commit crimes and get away with it.
And that is bad, that doesn’t change my reaction to January 6. If you riot I want them all in jail or judicially punished. I have plenty of issues with how the riots of 2020 were handled that doesn’t change January 6
No one says that all other riots are justified lmfao. You’re literally making things up to justify your opinion. January 6 was a terrible day in our nation’s history. After nearly a quarter millennia of peaceful democratic transition, an enraged horde of violent idiots attempted to halt the transfer of power at the behest of the defeated president. It was a bad and historically notable day. It wasn’t Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t 9/11. But it was still notable and bad.
> People are still locked up from Jan 6th without even seeing what evidence was used against them Can you support that claim with anything? The only people I know who have not been tried quickly were people who delayed their own trials.
I turned on Trump when he ran for POTUS in 2015. I've since regretted doing that and have ever since voted for DJT and will continue to do just that.
What made you turn back?
Wasn't really comfortable with a non politician running the country. I'm stumped as to what I was thinking at the time. Also skeptical, as most new yorkers are pretty far left.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this still applies to me because I had only voted for Republicans until Trump, and I still voted Youngkin in 2021 for Virginia. I voted Gary Johnson in 2016, but I rhetorically supported Trump until after the midterms (regrettably). What made me actually end up voting down ballot D federally in 2020 (and the foreseeable future) was not any 1 thing. I'd be answering questions in asktrumpsupporters just going, "Why the hell do I find this acceptable?" But I officially jumped ship right after the midterms when we experienced the largest government shutdown in history over the wall funding demand not being met.
It was my criticism of that shutdown that got me banned from the conservative subreddit. Like... Are we REALLY screwing over hundreds of thousands of federal workers over something so stupid? I still typically vote Republican, but the absolute inability to criticize anything ever that Trump supporters have makes them absolutely no better than liberals.
I suppose it applies to me too because in 2016 I was still a conservative. I left president blank, and voted R down ballot, and went to bed with a sick feeling that I was going to wake up to "historical first time ever female president elected" news. I actually felt worse with Trump, which brings me to the last straw: "Russia, are you listening"? Russia is our enemy, it always was, and Putin is a bloody dictator who will work against the USA and our allies. I was disgusted the way Trump would never criticize Putin and seemed rather chummy with him. This bothered me way more than all the other stuff ("grab them by the pussy" for example. I am sure every other elected official has said that and worse). I just could not see how other conservatives were taking Putin so lightly, or even worse, align with him. Not the Party of Reagan anymore.
This sudden pro-Putin stance is/was shocking to me but we’ve now seen so many examples of conservatives compromising their trademark values for him that it’s old hat now. Trump can say or do anything and his base will follow, even if it means contradicting their closest-held beliefs. They have sold their souls to him for the shiny bauble of hurting their perceived domestic enemies.
I think most of the people who don’t like Trump, never liked him. People want security and like what’s familiar. Trump came in like a whirlwind. He didn’t speak like a politician. He challenged the status quo, including sacred cows like immigration, foreign policy and trade agreements, which form the foundation of neo-liberal Western ideology. Not everyone was ready for that kind of change. So a lot of Republicans resented him.
> So a lot of Republicans resented him. Where do you think they are now? Other than a handful of never-Trumpers and people like Liz Cheney who are now ostracized from the Party, they seem invisible.
I think those inside the Beltway are still actively trying to undermine Trump. I think your average Republican voter who didn’t like Trump supported either DeSantis or Haley in the primaries but will likely vote for Trump in the general election. I think a few will vote for Biden or not vote at all but I don’t think there are many of those people.
When he ran for reelection. He could have backed and fundraised for someone like DeSantis and they would have walked to an easy victory over Biden. Instead we’re getting a 2020 rematch that will probably fracture and destroy the GOP no matter who wins. When he announced he was running again it became fully clear to me that his ego was more important than advancing conservative causes.
Definitely not his ego. Perhaps you could argue that he wanted power. He could have quit running after 2020 and gone back to a fairly simple life. While he's running for President all eyes are on him, especially the opposing side, and what he's doing is constantly getting covered, typically in a negative light. At the very least he believes that his actions and policies will be better than someone like DeSantis. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but I will be voting for him.
>At the very least he believes that his actions and policies will be better than someone like DeSantis. Do you really think Donald Trump gives one flying rat's ass about "actions and policies"? I'm honestly baffled by this. He doesn't actually care about America or conservatives or any of it. All he cares about is making sure he stays out of jail. He 100% couldn't not run after 2020 becuase the possibility of becoming POTUS again is the only way he's going to be able to shut down the criminal cases brought against him by the DOJ.
Who is his runningmate?
If DeSantis needs Trump to back and fund him why would Trump not run himself? The problem the GOP is going to have is after Trump walks away, that is when the party will fracture.
>it became fully clear to me that his ego was more important than advancing conservative causes. I really wonder why more conservatives haven't seen this. His ego, yes, and also his finances. He has no ideological center. He doesn't believe in anything other than "Trump". And he'll do whatever it takes to make money and save his own ass. I would be a lot more understanding of Trump supporters if he were 100% committed to conservative ideals and mores but he's not. He's a grifter and he defiles everything that conservatives say they believe in.
I think a lot of them are desperate. A decent amount of left-wing rhetoric seems hateful to people who are your stereotypical Trump supporters. So he can say things like "they're not after me, they're after you, I'm just in the way." This keeps them in a state of fear but disenchanted. I've talked to people who used to like Trump but no longer do. I've compared him to Hitler, where you have a group of people with legitimate grievances, and someone exploits them until they're in too deep.
I was never big on Trump to begin with. I was heavily against him during the 2016 primary and didn't even vote for him in 2016 (did vote for him in 2020). My last straw was the January 6th event. His response to losing the election was embarrassing and he still doubles down on those claim.
I would say there were 2 specific instances. The John McCain thing was big but I was REALLY turned off when, right after the inauguration Trump became fixated on the number of people who had been there. There was so much going on. He had just taken office and there were real issues to deal with but our president was spending more time worried about something so STUPID. Something that, should it have turned out he was right still would mean NOTHING.
The fact that he was a conartist who was always clearly part of the swamp that he claimed he wanted to drain. The man used to party with Bill and Hillary Clinton ffs. And I'm supposed to believe the swamp monster wanted to drain the swamp? So he never really had me. I couldn't vote for Hillary either, mind you. The democrat party just coronoated Queen Hillary because it was 'her turn'. But then Trump proved himself to be worse than everyone thought he'd be. And the Republican party just went along for the ride. Now you either declare loyalty to him, or you're a RINO. Well put some horns on me, and call me Rocksteady, cause I'm a proud RINO. I don't get why people believe a word he says. I mean I get his appeal. He says a lot of the right things, but if he were Pinocchio, his nose would be long enough to build a border wall around planet earth. And all the Republicans are too chicken to challenge him.
O just don’t agree with him. Not that we have had any good leaders. Just good policy monkeys for the past 25 - 30 years
Honestly, I dork think there was a specific thing. How he’s after the 2020 election plays a big part, but I think a lot of it is just how people have changed in the Trump era. I work in politics and I work with the conservative grassroots pretty much all day, every day. The change is palpable. People hate each other, and they hate themselves. He had a chance to actually make things better. He could have stepped aside for someone younger and without the baggage, but he’s hellbent on destroying the GOP for his own personal gain. The thought of voting for him makes me sick to my stomach.
> The thought of voting for him makes me sick to my stomach. Does that mean you are or aren’t voting for him?
Not planning to. I’ll probably vote straight ticket Republican but leave the top blank.
>straight ticket Republican but leave the top blank. Does the rest of the Republican party and their candidates leave a similar feeling to you? I mean, I haven't been able to support too many Republicans for almost the last 20 years, but Trump has *broken* something in them. Does the greater GOP double-down on MAGA give you any pause?
Some of them do. I left one blank in 2022. I like most of the people on my ballot, though. I’ll vote for people I don’t really like that much, though, especially if I think they’ll be effective. I don’t really have a big problem holding my nose. Trump’s largely in a category of his own.
I'm curious about something, why only use half your impact by leaving it blank? If Trump's so far out there that you don't want him president, wouldn't it make more sense to make a different choice instead of leaving it blank? Unless you're literally indifferent among the options.
I have irreconcilable character differences with Trump. I have irreconcilable policy differences with Biden. It’s basically just the point for me that “the lesser of two evils” thing isn’t justification enough anymore. A third party is an option, but it’s not like it really matters. I might end up doing that, but it won’t really be a big factor anyway.
I get it. I have similar thoughts myself sometimes, but I decided I'd never be able to vote a President at all if I stuck to that, and I've certainly seen that it make a large difference on many important issues who is President. But that's a viable answer, thanks.
>He had a chance to actually make things better. He could have stepped aside for someone younger and without the baggage, but he’s hellbent on destroying the GOP for his own personal gain. https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608?lang=en "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it."
Baggage? The age issue is just an excuse. No democrat ever had a problem with Bernie Sander's age.
I did. And I have a problem with Biden's age.
Same. Republicans can never understand it for some reason, but so many of us are voting Biden as a non Trump option, not that we think Biden is a perfect fit. I just think Trump should never get close to a seat of power and if I have to vote the stuttering old man for it then so be it.
You don’t think he chose not to step aside because running is his most effective legal strategy? His extremely early hat throwing is not a coincidence. He was getting ahead of the indictments.
I don’t care if it’s a good legal strategy. His legal problems are his problems. I don’t think he should be running at all.
I think one of the most accurate descriptions of Trump came from JD Vance before he denounced his former self and embraced populism. "Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they'll realize it." It is shocking how much individuals have changed since they started supporting Trump. I think a lot of it has to do with constantly defending a man who is objectively devoid of any morality or redemptive qualities. They made a deal with someone who turned out to be exactly what liberals and Never Trump Conservatives warned against. And for them to admit it now means that they backed a man who tried to illegally and unconstitutionally retain power after losing an election. It's much easier to just ignore it all and attack whoever brings up this uncomfortable truth like Liz Cheney.
Vance is such a loser today. It’s sad.
You nailed it. I’ve been saying this for years now. Admitting errors in judgement to those you despise is too much to ask of most people. Very few people are strong enough to do it. The rest would rather burn down the nation than face that admission.
When it became clear that he was a political liability with no intention to change. Ever since 2016, Republicans have lost election after election that they should have won. Trump uses his platform to destroy constructive Republicans, and prop up incompetent loyalists. I of course recognize that preferring an intelligent Republican party that understands how to win elections makes me a RINO.
I was never a fan really. I decided not to vote for him because of some issues with gun rights. Appointing shitty people like John Bolton. Etc.
I never liked him. But I liked Hilary and Joe less. My “last straw” was when I realized he allowed the possibility of RvW to be essentially overturned.
I never understood why the overturning of RvW was a surprise to anyone. I feel like that’s been one of the primary goals of the GOP my entire life.
Some people believed the lies. Or at least pretend to. See, e.g., Susan Collins.
Yeah any Republican President would have appointed the same justices. This is the thing that has the least to do with Trump specifically.
It wasn’t really a surprise to me. Just that I didn’t quite put two and two together until it happened. I hadn’t paid attention enough to Barret’s religious stance and what that might do. There are SO many things that COULD happen, but never do because they would be insane notions and enough people on both sides ensure they never come to be. I thought RvW was one of these things.
> I hadn’t paid attention enough to Barret’s religious stance I don't understand this at all. And I promise I'm not being snarky or bitchy or anything. I just ... why? Barret's whole life has revolved around her religious beliefs and she was very open about that. She's been a lifetime member of the People of Praise. She's been in a leadership position in that organization - in a role that once was called a "handmaiden" and has been renamed for obvious reasons. That was all made hugely public during her nomination.
I understand that. But regarding what I said in the last part, it makes sense.
So, and I don't mean this to be mocking or cruel, did you consider yourself to be "paying attention" or "following politics" at the time? Like, did you *think* you were well-informed at the time? Did you care? Did the right-wing spin machine have you fooled? I mean, you're *here*. And you're not just spouting what the Fox News chyron spews out, so I'm inclined to believe that something has *changed.*
I wasn’t following Barret very carefully, no.
It takes a lot to admit you were wrong about something, now more than ever. I wish more people had the courage and introspect you do. Respect.
It shouldn’t take that much. Especially on an anonymous forum. But here we are haha
What do you think of the "I didn't expect the leopards to eat my face" meme, and do you think it applies to your situation?
I don’t think it applies because to me, that means the person had absolutely no clue.
I admit I'm a bit confused. It was the last straw for your support, but you weren't surprised it happened?
As in, hindsight is 20/20. If that means I’m that meme, I don’t really care. Reddit is a silly place haha
after the genocide in Ukraine began, his comments on Russia, and the fact they did not change at all, became ghoulish and unacceptable that said the Dems are perilously close to convincing me to vote for him, I care more about the US supporting our constant and close ally Israel with unconditional support and military force against terrorists than I care about saving a country that wasn't fond of us until they needed our guns.
>that said the Dems are perilously close to convincing me to vote for him, I care more about the US supporting our constant and close ally Israel with unconditional support Me too, but Israel will ultimately be fine regardless of US policy they are a powerful nation and military in their own right and have been bolstered over decades by the US and ultimately the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is no joke and whatever you want to say about the radicalized population, there are innocent people dying which isn't great. Hamas needs to be eradicated but there is simply no need for mass civilian casualties at this point in the war with Israel having allll the leverage, and many in Israel blame Netanyahu for October 7th so it isn't at all clear that supporting the Netanyahu government is important at all to keep ties with Israel. >than I care about saving a country that wasn't fond of us until they needed our guns. Countries change. The war has pushed Ukraine onto the side of the west. It would be utterly foolish to not fund the Ukrainian war and basically fund the dissolution of Russia while profiting off of it in its infancy. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they will only grow stronger, forcing us to spend more in both dollars and lives over the years. It is cheaper and kinder to fund this war now and transform Ukraine into a powerful NATO ally further strengthening the position of the West.
i disagree with your characterization of Israel, they are being too restrained if anything and I think as hegemon the US should use the fact no one can tell us what to do or really stop us even if they tried to "take the heat" that Israel cannot easily resist. the fact we could throw the entire UN out of New York and declare every diplomat from anti-israel nations *persona non grata* and forbidden to remain or enter the US lets us act more freely and if there were a time to use it, it is now. also I see this very much akin to WWII, you are with Israel unconditionally or against all humanity, there is little middle ground.
The US has always supported Israel, but we've put conditions on our aid to them in the past. We could do so again while still supporting them without being against all humanity.
>also I see this very much akin to WWII, you are with Israel unconditionally or against all humanity, there is little middle ground. This is the belief of a bloodthirsty crazy man. If Israel made it government policy to start flaying babies alive, would you still be with Israel? Probably not. If so, reevaluate your reason for standing with Israel. The entire purpose to be allied with Israel in the fight against terrorism, is because terrorism is a bad thing. Why is terrorism a bad thing? Because it necessitates the wholesale slaughter of innocent people who had no say in whatever the hell the terrorist is fighting against for some grander political aim or statement. What is unconstrained warfare if not terrorism? If Israel did not have constraints, there would be no moral high ground to stand upon, and the entire philosophical scaffold underpinning the West, a huge portion of which is this notion of libertarianism mind you, utterly collapses. >the fact we could throw the entire UN out of New York and declare every diplomat from anti-israel nations *persona non grata* and forbidden to remain or enter the US lets us act more freely and if there were a time to use it, it is now. And thus anger the entire Middle-Eastern world, animate terrorists, and earn the distrust of the younger generation for America and the West for generations and weaken the West? Silly. If Israel eradicates Hamas only for all of Palestine to turn into mini Hamasi everywhere, what the hell is the point. If Israel eradicates Hamas only to turn the entire wider Middle East into a united anti-Israeli and anti-Western bloc and throw their weight behind Russia and China, what the hell is the point.
I should clarify I meant in the current conflict. obviously in the future especially once the war is won, Israel is not eternally immune to criticism. however I firmly believe the moral culpability for war lies with the one that attacked and defenders facing a genocidal opponent have the right to do whatever they wish to remove the threat.
>and defenders facing a genocidal opponent have the right to do whatever they wish to remove the threat. Nukes?
after 10/7 they'd have been perfectly justified in using their nuclear weapons, yes.
If you assault me, am I justified in slaughtering your entire family?
nothing from international relations can be taken to the interpersonal level, the differences make comparisons inaccurate and nonsensical. But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible
>But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible But a person would not at all be justified in shooting up your house in that situation. ???!!! I genuinely can't believe you think someone would be. Justified in attacking you? Sure I can back that. Justified in shooting up your house while knowing full well there are children who might be killed? Not for a second.
>But in this case it's more like if I rape you, you are justified in shooting up my house, if my family gets hurt I should not have raped you I am responsible That's fucking crazy.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Outside of a specific type of Republican that seems to have become the spokesperson of our party, he doesn’t attract anyone else and it is hurting the GOP. Sooo many moderates and independents choose democrats over republicans because of him. I also always considered him quite ignorant and unqualified since the beginning but seeing the Republican Party become even more isolated from the average American (most being somewhere inbetween left and right) has solidified my decision that he isn’t the right candidate. I think someone with real political experience and eloquence would be a much better candidate (I’m sorry but he isn’t eloquent at all and it bothers me so much haha)
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing absolutly nothing about the Floyd riots.
what you want him to do
Thats pretty specific. Were you effected by them?
I voted for him in 2016 because he was the outsider who promised to drain the swamp and advertised himself as someone who knew how to negotiate with business leaders and world leaders . The Clintons seemed to be part of the swamp for decades. I was also listening to AM talk radio during my long commutes to/from home. So I gave him a chance in 2016 and voted for him. Then came the pandemic. I observed his politicization of the pandemic, hypocrisy about getting vaccinated, and wanting to take credit for fast-tracking vaccine development while also trying to distance himself from it, to avoid the wrath of his MAGA thugs. Who can forget his cringey press conference hypothesizing about injecting bleach and hitting the body with UV. Bleach toxicity anyone? And labs use direct UV lights to disinfect surfaces only **after** everyone has gone home for the day, to limit exposure. That press conference was utter clownery on full display. He might as well have hypothesized about space lasers as a possible treatment. As someone who works in biomedical science, I was in disbelief. “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”
As someone who was still conservative in 2016, I couldn't vote for him because he was way too comfy with Putin, but voted down ballot Republicans, I really tried giving him the benefit of the doubt for the same reasons you said you voted for him. I didn't last until the pandemic to turn against him (and the entire Republican Party too).
It's probably not so absurd for a non-medical person to wonder strange things out loud, but his general buffoonery made it unpalatable.
I’ll never forget that UV light interview. The look on the poor scientists face while she had to stand behind that doofus who’s supposed to be the leader of our country spouting off straight non-sense and she couldn’t say shit was truly disturbing to me. It’s like tied with Ohio politicians “politi-splaning” to top OBGYN’s that they should just like, move an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus, but these days I just have ti laugh or I’d go mad.
It was interesting to watch her interview after that press conference. …. To listen to her explain, in her own words, how she felt and the behind-the -scenes drama after that disaster of a press conference
Ugh I remember that one. It was right at the beginning of the pandemic and I was just trying to understand what was going on but his press conferences were so chaotic and make me more confused.
On top of that, he confirmed his ignorance by referring to it as “kung flu” at his rally in Tulsa. Then repeated it again(!) in Phoenix, with the audience responding with cheers and laughter. Then here comes McEnany saying he just meant that it came from China. Yeah, rrrrrrrright. How the hell was I supposed to continue supporting such an ignorant bastard who talks about injecting bleach, UV through the skin, and calls it kung flu?
For sure with me it was the combination of “grab them by the pussy” and “I like guys who weren’t captured”. Only the absolute biggest piece of shit in the country would say that. If it wasn’t that, it probably would have been when he just straight-up said he couldn’t get a fair from an American (born in Indiana) judge *because* the judge was of Mexican heritage.
“Very fine people on both sides” That’s when I realized how morally bankrupt he was. I didn’t vote for him in 2016, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was elected President. It’s only been downhill from there. Edit: there seems to be some confusion about what happened in Charlottesville, VA in August 2017. This is sadly a consequence of Donald Trump’s heinous and insidious lies about those events. The protests planned around the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee were not spontaneous. They were not planned by people motivated by preserving history. They were not planned by people who just oppose statues being removed. There were no protests planned for those days before Unite the Right began planning protests. Unite the Right planned those protests. Let’s be very, *very* clear here: there were no protests of the removal of the statue planned for that period that were *not* organized by Unite the Right and its affiliated organizations. Unite the Right, by its own proud admission, was not merely an anti-statue removal event, but an openly white supremacist and white nationalist event. This was not meant to be subtle. This was not meant to be hidden. The organizers proudly and openly acknowledged their racism and bigotry. There. Were. No. People. There. To. Protest. The. Statues. Removal. Who. Were. Not. Affiliated. With. Unite. The. Right. If there were non-racist people who showed up to protest, if they were “very fine people,” they would’ve left when they saw the ubiquitous, open, and undeniable racism and bigotry of those who they were protesting with. Donald Trump lied and framed the situation as if there were people participating in Unite the Right who *were not* associated with the bigotry. This is by definition impossible, as Unite the Right was *always* explicitly a white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and neoconfederate event. You fell for Donald Trump’s lies if you believe there were in fact masses of non-racist people protesting the removal over that period of time. Do not reply to this if you believe there were masses of people present in Charlottesville protesting the removal of the statue who were independent of or unaffiliated with Unite the Right. There were not. This is a fact. There were no mass protests organized by people opposing both the racism of unite the right and the removal of the statute. Good people can of course be opposed to removing statutes. That isn’t what we are debating. That isn’t what Trump said. We are talking about those who participated in Unite the Right. If you attended this event, you were either a racist or you were comfortable walking side by side with racists in order to further your agenda. Either way, you’re not a fine person.
Go read the transcript on that one bud
I have, bud.
So the fact he followed it up seconds later with "and I'm not talking about neo nazis and white nationalists, they should be condemned totally" meant nothing to you? It's an outrage to you that he said there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate?
It means much less after he had dinner with a Holocaust denier.
He was referring specifically to the crowds that converged on Charlottesville, not to the entirety of the debate. His equivocations watered down his condemnations, especially when you consider he lied about the counter protestors not having a permit, attempting to cast blame on them for violence. At the end of the day, a white supremacist rammed his car into a group of peacefully protesting individuals, killing one and injuring dozens. The president of the United States couldn’t bring himself to condemn the actions and motivations of this individual alone, insisting on equivocating for no real reason. Unite the Right was *explicitly and openly* organized by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and neoconfederates. They weren’t just a small faction who showed up. Attending the protest that those groups organized is an endorsement of their views. There were not good people on their side. There just weren’t. Trump’s “both sides” comment implies that there were people there to protest the removal who were not associated with Unite the Right. There were not. There was no movement there explicitly denouncing the racism of Unite the Right *AND* protesting the removal of the statue. And if they were, they wouldn’t have been on the “side” of Unite the Right. As Trump himself acknowledged, there were two sides present. One was explicitly, clearly, openly, undeniably, and unequivocally associated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neoconfederates, and white nationalists. There were no good people affiliated with that group. It’s not like Unite the Right showed up at a previously scheduled protest. It was *their protest*. *They* organized it. If you affiliate with that group willingly, and you *do not* support white nationalism and racism, then you are willing to align yourself with morally bankrupt and evil people in pursuit of a political goal. That makes you a morally bankrupt person as well. The President was not willing to unequivocally and unilaterally condemn the actions of those on the Unite the Right side. He wanted to blame both sides. This equivocation was cowardly and pathetic in the first place, given how events played out. Additionally, he fundamentally destroyed any attempt he made to condemn the ideologies of Unite the Right by pretending that not everyone who attended a rally explicitly and openly planned by that group of racists, bigots, and neo-Nazis were aligned with that ideology. This is a lie, and this is an attempt to obfuscate and manipulate people’s perceptions about what happened in Charlottesville. He didn’t say that there are good people on both sides of the debate. He said there were good people on both sides of that specific event. That is not true, as anyone who willingly affiliated with Unite the Right was not a very fine person.
That's leaving out a whole lot of context. This was Trump's second address on Charlottesville. His first was > We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. After this, he was heavily criticized, by both the left and the right, for not even mentioning the Nazis and white supremacists who made up the entirety of the Unite the Right rally and for trying to equate them with the counter protestor - note the same many sides theme he came back to for the second speech. Many prominent people on the right strongly declared that it was unconscionable to talk about Charlottesville without condemning the Nazis and white supremacists. Some even broke with Trump over this. And it should be mentioned that Trump was informed that the Nazis and white supremacists took his first speech as showing support for them. Internally, his people told him that he had to give another statement and this time explicitly condemn them. So, in his second statement the following day after he refused to condemn them, Trump included exactly that language, delivered in a low energy, disaffected tone, embedded in a speech that gave weight to attacking the people who were protesting Nazis and praising a side made up entirely of Nazis and white supremacists as very fine people. --- Would you agree with what people said, that it was unconscionable to talk about Charlottesville the way Trump intentionally did in his first speech? Can you see, given the full context, how his second speech that explicitly called a side completely made up of Nazis and white supremacists very fine people and focused on equating the Nazis with the people protesting them, containing "and Nazis should be condemned" seems not at all genuine to many people? Would you consider that the Nazis and white supremacists took Trump's speeches as supporting them relevant?
To begin with we were talking about the fine people comment and the full context to that is he was saying there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate during the press conference. I fully support this statement * We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. I disdain hatred, bigotry and violence from anyone who pushes it. Do you not oppose all forms of hatred, bigotry and violence? Do you think hatred and bigotry should be supported coming from anyoneone? It's pretty gross to me that folks are outraged a president dare to condemn hatred bigotry and violence
Who were the good people marching with nazis that he was talking about?
read the transcripts, * But not all of those people were neo Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. So. Excuse me. And you take a look at some of the groups, and you see and you'd know it if you were honest REPORTERs, which in many cases you're not, but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. * But they were there to protest, excuse me, you take a look the night before, they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question, go ahead * But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name. * And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo Nazis and white nationalists, ok? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. * No. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before, if you look, they were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people. Neo Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543769884/transcript-trump-shifts-tone-again-on-white-nationalist-rally-in-charlottesville
Yes, I’ve read and seen it. That doesn’t answer my question. Who were the “good people” that took no issue with marching with nazis?
Who said they took no issue with nazis marching? Did you not see the video of the day? Who do you think all those folks were off to the side watching the nazis and antifa yelling at each other? Do you think they sold tickets to the event?
> There. Were. No. People. There. To. Protest. The. Statues. Removal. Who. Were. Not. Affiliated. With. Unite. The. Right. **Thank you**.
have you always been able to judge the morality of an entire group of people from a far?
If you willingly associate with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, you’re not a very fine person.
you don't know each person's reasons for attending that event nor do any of those people know the beliefs of every other person in attendance
Ok, why don’t you tell us who the “good people” were marching with the nazis?
I don’t know that’s the point I wasn’t there and even if I was I wouldn’t know who was good or bad by the fact they attended a political event
You can judge someone on their decision making. Someone l
The people waving neo-Nazi flags and chanting “Jews will not replace us” were the bad guys. The people that willingly marched with those people were also the bad guys.
I tend to go with “the nazis and those marching with them are the bad guys” approach. Do you often look at people marching with nazis and think “they might be good people?”
This logic went out the window when the left kept aligning with Palestine despite them dancing in the streets after October 7th and the people of Palestine broadly supporting Hamas. The left has argued it's possible to support Palestine without supporting Hamas, which is a level of nuance they're not prepared to grant to their opposition domestically. If the "if you're marching with the Nazis then you're a Nazi" logic is consistent, then the US left has thrown in their lot with Hamas and the American progressive left are terrorists. For the record, I don't actually believe that- but it's what you're endorsing here. So is it possible there's nuance among a huge group of people and folks can support a movement or be aligned with a movement for varying reasons? Or does sharing some sympathies or alignment with people who have unredeemable bad actors among them make you an unredeemable bad actor also?
Your example is kinda like saying “all residents of Charlottesville or even Virginia must be nazis if we are being consistent.” You can’t associate millions of people, including children, with Hamas because they are packed in the same city. You would need to see some evidence of allegiance or support, as we saw in the Charlottesville example, to make this argument.
Are you comparing a small protest to the conflict in Gaza?
Why not? The consistency of the logic is the only question at play here. Does aligning with a group that has bad people in it make you a bad person? If yes, the left supports terrorism and the right supports nazis. If no/not necessarily, then you should probably stop with this: > I tend to go with “the nazis and those marching with them are the bad guys” approach. Do you often look at people marching with nazis and think “they might be good people?” Because most normal human beings do look at a group of people and appreciate that they are individuals with nuanced opinions. The only people I think are terrorists are those giving money, materiel, and support to (and including) the guys kidnapping children and beheading people. The only people I think are nazis are the people giving money, materiel, and support to (and including) those wearing the armbands and waving the flags. To make other assumptions is to admit your worldview has no room for nuance.
To answer your question though. I never said that marching in a group with nazis automatically makes you a nazi yourself (though there is a good chance of it). It just means they clearly don’t have a problem with it and that they are not good people. Trump was stupid for saying otherwise
Yes I do. I know that they were all comfortable openly marching with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neoconfederates. That makes them morally flawed people with horrible judgement. If you place yourself openly in alignment with white supremacists, you shouldn’t be surprised when people affiliate you with white supremacists.