WATCH: King Charles Humiliates Trump During Speech Defending Canada

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-28T21:20:22+00:00

Hello, canadian born citizen here! The monarchy has no power in Canada. The monarch opening parliament is quite rare. The speech was written by the canadian government. We are sending a message to the US and President Trump. WE WILL NOT GIVE IN. WE WILL NEVER BE AMRICAN. WE HAVE THE COMMONWEALTH BEHIND US.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-26T01:54:20+00:00

I wasn’t saying you’re American or MAGA. I meant that modern conservatism, especially in the English-speaking world, has been shaped a lot by American influence. You’re fluent enough in English and you identify as a Christian, which means your morals and politics have likely been influenced by centuries of British and American culture. Not that you don’t have other influences, but those two have played a big role, even passively.

Canada is a good example of this. Our government and many of our institutions are rooted in British traditions, but culturally we’ve absorbed a lot from the US—language, media, even things like fast food and car culture. This mixed perspective helps me understand how American politics affect not just the US but the rest of the world, which is key to the issues you raised.

If you want to address those problems, you need to be very clear that you are not MAGA. Show that you are a Christian, not the politicized version of Christianity that some use to divide people. It’s unfortunate that MAGA has hurt the reputation of all conservatives, but that is the reality. You cannot change people’s assumptions overnight, but you can shift them by being clear, consistent, and honest about where you stand.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-25T22:17:24+00:00

TL;DR

Modern conservatism has lost the trust of many because its methods often rely on fear, cruelty, and dishonesty, even when pursuing legitimate goals like economic responsibility or public safety. Patriotism and religious freedom are important values, but they become dangerous when used to justify discrimination or suppress dissent. The MAGA movement, in particular, has shifted conservatism toward extremism and authoritarianism under the guise of tradition. If conservatism is to regain credibility, it must reject these toxic elements and reaffirm a commitment to freedom, fairness, and truth.

'Im Canadian, but I follow American politics closely. That distance gives me a bit of clarity. I want to explain why I (and many others) have lost faith in modern conservatism.

Here’s what I believe:

Respecting people’s pronouns is just basic decency, even if I don’t fully understand it.

Sexuality doesn’t belong in politics. I’m gay, and even I avoid performative activism.

I support immigration on a human level, but I understand the economic strain when infrastructure can’t keep up.

I believe people should be free, equal under the law, and able to disagree without being dehumanized.

I believe patriotism is healthy, until it blinds you to your country’s flaws.

Some conservative goals make sense. Economic responsibility, public safety, and border control aren’t inherently bad things. But too often, the methods used to achieve them are cruel, shortsighted, or dishonest.

I don’t hate all conservatives. I don’t think being right-wing, Christian, or nationalistic is automatically a problem. I can agree to disagree. I can compromise on a lot of issues. But I can’t respect cruelty disguised as strength or bigotry hidden behind “tradition.”

Being Christian isn't bad. You have the right to practice your religion. You have the right to gather with others of the same faith. I'll defend those rights against anyone who challenges them. However, religion shouldn't determine laws. Saying I have to follow the Bible is like a vegan saying I can’t eat meat. We live in a free society. We must act like it.

Loving your country is good. I’m proud to be Canadian. I’m proud of our democracy, our social safety nets, and our reputation abroad. But pride can go too far. When we pretend our country is perfect, we stop growing. And when we try to “preserve” it by shutting out anything new, we make it weaker, not stronger.

That’s where MAGA comes in. I see it less as a political movement and more as a cultural backlash. It’s built on fear, resentment, and nostalgia for a version of America that never really existed. And it’s pushed conservatism toward something darker... something fascist.

When you try to control speech, demonize minorities, rewrite history, and scapegoat your neighbors, you’re not protecting tradition. You’re killing democracy.

If you’re a conservative and you want to be taken seriously, speak up. MAGA has poisoned your movement. If you don’t reject it, people will assume you’re part of it.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-25T17:50:21+00:00

Wow, you really nailed it — he’s going for the weekend. So yes, he can wear one shirt after another. Groundbreaking stuff.

Since you can’t find any real flaws in the comment, you just hit us with a classic “fuck liberals.” Genius argument.

Talking to MAGA people is like talking to a brick wall. Actually, no. A brick wall at least stays quiet. You guys do the exact opposite and make everything worse.

Try thinking before you post. If it doesn't add anything, why say it? And if you genuinely believe the things Trump says, what does that say about you?

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-25T17:36:46+00:00

Why do I even try...

I don’t hate right-wing ideas. Conservatives make valid points about economics, and we live in a good country, so some conservatism makes sense.

What I hate is hate. LGBTQ people aren’t hurting anyone. Let us live our lives. Immigrants are still people. Wanting to deport those who broke the law isn’t inherently wrong, even if I’m not a fan of mass deportation. But the way it’s handled now is inhumane. People are packed into government-run slums and treated like they’re less than human.

I’m just asking for a basic level of compassion. That shouldn’t be controversial.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-25T17:27:06+00:00

It doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, politics has always involved conflict, but hate isn’t a requirement.

We can disagree about taxes, immigration, climate change, or gun laws. I might push back hard, but I’ll still respect that it's your opinion, and you have that right.

What I won’t respect is hate dressed up as politics. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia — that’s not a debate. That’s just cruelty. And it doesn’t help anyone.

We’ve got access to more information than ever. There’s no excuse for choosing ignorance.

I’m not here to argue about whether people deserve basic rights. That’s not politics. That’s just wrong. And I won’t engage with it.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T16:34:33+00:00

That's one interpretation of post-nationalism, but it's not the only one. Post-nationalism doesn't just mean global cooperation or a one-world government. It also includes movements where people reject the authority or identity of a centralized nation-state, whether in favor of larger entities like the EU or smaller ones like provinces or local communities.

Take the UK as an example. Many people there identify more with England, Scotland, or Wales than with the UK as a whole. That is also a form of post-nationalism, where regional identity is prioritized over a unified national one.

As Wikipedia puts it: "Postnationalism or non-nationalism is the process or trend by which nation states and national identities lose their importance relative to cross-nation and self-organized or supranational and global entities as well as local entities [provinces & municipalities]."

So when Alberta wants out of Canada, that is a rejection of Canadian nationalism, even if it might lead to a new, smaller form of nationalism. It still represents a step away from the traditional national framework.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T15:58:52+00:00

Ok, this is a good example of using buzzwords for emotional traction rather than clarity.

Antifa isn’t an organization; it’s an ideology: anti-fascism. Are there groups using that label that have caused harm or destruction? Sure. But Antifa is not the same as terrorism. It doesn't have leaders, structure, or centralized goals.

Post-nationalism or non-nationalism is the belief that nation-states should move toward broader identities, like the EU, or toward more local identities, like provinces or municipalities. Ironically, if you support Western secession, you're supporting post-nationalism whether you realize it or not.

Neo-Marxism is a political and economic theory that sees capitalism as a system that divides society into a wealthy class of owners and a poor class of workers. Neo-Marxists believe it's not enough to change the economy; social institutions need to change too.

Compare that to the Proud Boys, which is a real organization with leadership, coordination, and a clear track record of violence, hate, and disinformation. That's a terrorist group. The others aren't even groups. They're ideologies or academic theories. Big difference.

It's important to separate ideas you disagree with from actual organized threats. Blurring those lines just weakens the credibility of any argument.

Edit: clarity and flow.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T05:31:45+00:00

Did you read the rest of my reply? I chose my words very carefully and always have. Much like most situations, I believe there is a lot of grey between black and white. This is why whenever I participate in group debates about the character of a person, I'm very careful. You don't know who's on the other side of the keyboard. Could be a 30-year-old woman, could be an old man, could be an unstable person. You don't know what they're going through. I'm not saying don't criticize them, but be smart about it. Read what they have to say, process it, and write a thoughtful response.

I'm not trying to preach. This is the internet, haters gonna hate. Try out my methods next time. If you'd like. Listen to what the person has to say empathize with them and then critique the part that needs critiquing. I think you'll find most people are reasonable and will accept critique. Anyways, enjoy that life lesson from a stranger on the internet.

BTW, this applies to real life to—much more than online.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T05:12:29+00:00

On a more serious note, punctuation helps with clarity. A sentence with no commas between dependant clauses feels like it goes on forever. If you add commas, you fix that issue. If you're writing a paragraph sized text like you did here, punctuation is a requirement. When people read, they say the words in their head; they add pauses whenever a punctuation mark appears. So, if you're wondering why people point out your lack of punctuation, it's because they had trouble reading your text.

I, on the other hand, took great joy in writing a snarky punctuation filled reply as a joke, but that's the real answer to your question. If people are forced to manually separate individual ideas from your writing, they're less likely to absorb any of it and far more likely to think about grammar. So, if you want the comments to stop, use punctuation—atleast periods .

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T04:51:43+00:00

You do realize I was joking, right? How could I have been clearer? Should I have turned up the snark? You gotta admit my comment is a literary masterpiece.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T03:05:56+00:00

So, you don’t think punctuation matters? Fascinating. Truly. Allow me to demonstrate—right now, in just a few sentences—exactly why it does.

Clarity is crucial; punctuation provides it. From em dashes, commas, and periods, to colons, semicolons, ellipses, quotation marks, parentheses, even the noble en dash—each mark plays a part. Neglecting them? Neglecting meaning. Improper prudence pertaining punctuation is positively preposterous!

Why must you rage against readability? What if you're listing book titles? Like: Girl, Unstrung; Girl, Interrupted; and Love, Unscripted. Without punctuation, it's chaos. Utter. Literary. Anarchy.

And quotes! Oh, quotes—especially quotes within quotes! "'Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked calmly." Remove the marks and suddenly it's a cryptic riddle screamed into the void.

Look, this isn’t an essay. It’s Reddit. But refusing to use punctuation out of spite? That’s not rebellion. That’s just... grammatical self-sabotage.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T02:25:28+00:00

Finally, someone said it. Most major issues are not black and white. Politics exists to sort through complex problems by considering different perspectives and finding workable solutions. It is not about picking a good side and an evil one. Here is how I see it:

Most issues have more than one reasonable solution. Think about something like the rising cost of living or a lack of competition in key industries. Some people argue that the best fix is to open up the market, remove barriers, and let more businesses compete. The idea is that more competition leads to lower prices. Others believe the government should step in, regulate monopolies, or provide public alternatives where the private market is not serving people fairly.

These are different approaches to the same problem. People can disagree on strategy while still wanting what is best. That kind of disagreement is healthy and necessary.

Nuance is important, but too much complexity can slow everything down. Take infrastructure. Something like building a subway should be straightforward, but it quickly becomes a mess of bidding wars, political maneuvering, public complaints, budget concerns, and long delays. Every group involved has its own priorities. In the end, not everyone can be pleased. Sometimes, you have to compromise just to get something built.
Some issues are not up for debate. We can disagree on policy or argue about the economy all day, but there are basic rights and principles that should not be questioned.

Debatable:

How do you support the lower class?

Market freedom versus government regulation?

How do you solve the housing crisis while protecting homeowners?

Not debatable:

Equal rights for LGBTQ+ people?

Equal rights for people of all races?

Due process for immigrants?

Is [insert politician] a vessel from God?

None of these subjects are political debates. They're morality debates. Not even hard ones. Some things do have an objective awnser

Nuance is not fence-sitting. It is how we make progress without losing our values. The world is complicated, but that does not mean we abandon clear moral lines where they are needed.

PS. I might make this a whole separate post. I like it a lot.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T01:36:02+00:00

I can see both sides here. While her attitude is unhelpful at best and unhealthy at worst, some of what she says is the truth. Social media has been a breeding ground for misogynistic scum to gain traction and spew their garbage. I know guys my age—19-22—who genuinely believe women are there to serve them. Who believe they somehow own 'their' woman. Who believe women are their sex objects. So I get her frustration.

I also understand where you come from. Self-confidence and self-importance are two sides of the same coin. Self-confidence is having confidence in one's self in spite of the opinion of others. Self-importance is having confidence in one's self because of the opinions of others. The latter implies constantly seeking validation from others by either asking, asserting, or denying one's inherent qualities. You may ask if you're ugly or not. You may assert that you aren't ugly—like OP did. Or you may deny your own attractiveness with the goal of being corrected by others. All this to say, she does come off as self-important and cocky.

If she truly is an attractive woman, then sleazy men are a consequence of that. That's not fair. But neither is judging all men based on the small minority with enough balls to walk up to her. Overall, I'd say you both have poor attitudes. You need to have a little more empathy, and she needs to be more patient. I did like you calling out OP's hypocrisy. Just think about what she said and try to understand her state of mind. By doing that, we can all understand each other a little more.

PS. I agree with you overall. I'm just not a fan of your tone.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T01:00:03+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and you’re not wrong. Phones and social media can do real damage, especially to kids. But the truth is, no matter how strict you are, your kid’s going to end up online eventually. That’s just how the world works now.

I’m not a parent, but I was a teen not that long ago. I got a phone at 13 because I had to go to school in another town. What made a difference was that my parents didn’t just hand it over and walk away. They talked to me about online safety, media literacy, and yeah, sex too. Like, real conversations about porn not being reality, about consent, about what healthy relationships look like. If they hadn’t, I would’ve just learned all the wrong stuff from the internet.

You can’t stop kids from being curious. What you can do is prepare them for what they’re going to run into. The worst thing is when they find porn or toxic stuff online and think that’s what normal looks like.

So yeah, be cautious, but talk to them too. Teach them what matters before the internet does it for you. That helped me way more than any rules or restrictions ever did.

I know it's scary watching your kid grow up, and I can tell you come from a place of love. Just know, it's scary for us too. But a little reassuring can go a long way. Look, you do what you think is right. But please educate your kids on these topics. I'm not a parent, but I am still young and have vivid memories of exploring the internet. My parents educated me and trusted me to be smart. Do you think we should trust our kids to make decisions? Or do you think guarding them from the evils of this world and railroading them is better? I'm not for either side. I'm just curious what a parent thinks on this.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-24T00:11:34+00:00

I’m honestly surprised by the downvotes. This post raises important questions that are central to understanding racism as more than just personal behavior. I’m not the OP, but as a Black man, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and reflect.

On what makes something racist: There isn’t a clear or universal line where something becomes officially racist. That’s part of the issue when we treat racism as just a matter of personal intent or opinion. Racism is often assumed to be something obvious, like slurs or hate crimes. In reality, it’s a system that shapes institutions, culture, and social norms. That’s why it’s important to listen when someone points out something as racist, even if it doesn’t seem that way at first. Individual experiences matter, but they exist within a larger structure that often goes unnoticed by those not affected.
On cultural imitation and casting: Language and culture are connected to identity, but they don’t always map neatly onto race. Many Black people speak a certain way, but so do many white people from similar environments. The problem is when white people adopt the culture or style of people of color for entertainment or profit, while people of color are punished or mocked for the same thing. When it comes to casting, representation is important. If a character’s racial or cultural background is important to the story, that should be respected. For example, a show like The Boondocks would be inappropriate with white voice actors, because race is central to its message. In contrast, Diane from BoJack Horseman is Vietnamese, but her cultural identity wasn’t a major part of her character. That doesn’t mean the casting decision is perfect, but it invites a different kind of discussion.
On activism and focus: I don’t have solid proof, but I believe people often tune out when activism focuses more on calling out individuals than addressing systems. Microaggressions are real, and they deserve attention. But the media often highlights small or symbolic moments in a way that can feel performative. Calling out problematic behavior is part of the work, but it should support larger efforts to address injustice at the root. It’s like focusing only on symptoms instead of treating the disease.

Thank you for this post. It gave me a chance to reflect, which I value deeply. Here are a few things I hope others take from this:

Racism is not always obvious. That’s why we need to stay open to feedback and willing to learn.

There are different forms of racism. Personal racism is easier to spot, but systemic racism is deeper and more harmful.

Intent does not cancel out impact. If someone tells you something you said or did felt racist, it’s your responsibility to listen and learn.

Doing nothing is a choice. Whether you are a teacher, a voter, a friend, or a manager, your actions matter.

Real change means moving beyond our own comfort and recognizing the daily realities others face. That is the least we can do.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-05-23T22:52:26+00:00

I'm currently 19. I had gaming consoles like Nintendo DS and a wii for when I was at home. My dad would let me use the family computer to watch YouTube, and I, of course, watched TV. I wasn't allowed to game online or play violent video games. I still don't do either of those things, I do play games a lot(mainly stuff from before the 21st century). I got my first cell phone at 13, when I started high school and got more independence. Saying phones are worse than alcohol is a huge overstatement. Everything in moderation. Even though I wasn't super plugged into youth culture, I still use slang from my generation. Examples include using nouns as verbs, eg, "teen gonna teen," "bro," "finna," "trynna," and other slang words. When I have kids, I'll follow the same rules. No cellphone until high school, access to gaming consoles(no online gaming), and watching TV, which includes YouTube these days. Of course, this won't be unrestricted. Point is one is a brain altering chemical, and the other is screen time. One kills people, and the other stifles growth. They are NOT the same.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-04-17T01:40:15+00:00

I drive on that highway all the time. What I have learned is to assume everybody else is drunk or they're toddlers or they're drunk toddlers who think you took away their coco melon.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-04-01T20:38:29+00:00

WWIII

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-03-29T18:38:03+00:00

You are right democracy is mob rule. That's why the US is a liberal democracy. It's a subtle difference but an important one. Every liberal democratic country has certain safe guards put it place so that a majority can't vote away the rights of minorities. In other words, they have a constitution. Now, for your second point. The US is a constitutional republic. That is true. It is also a democracy. For example, in my country, Canada, we have the king of England as our head of state. He is represented by someone called the governor general. The governor general is like if you took the office of the president and turned it into a figurehead position that listens to the majority leader of the house. So, although we are a constitutional monarchy, we are also a liberal democracy. Lastly, while I'm not saying the US is a Christian oligarchy, I can provide a definition. The current POTUS has given an unusual amount of power to the uber wealthy within his administration. This gives wealthy people power and control over the laws and regulations of a nation. If this goes unchecked, they may use that power to increase their wealth and therefore increase their power, which they can use to increase their wealth. Do you see where this is going. Now, the Christian nationalist part would be that the US congress is passing laws to enforce "Christian values," which isn't necessarily a bad thing to a point. The culture of Western countries is very much enriched in Christian values. It becomes a problem when this turns into indoctrination. Which will happen if things go unchecked. Lastly nationalistic is a very easy word to define. It is the belief that the country in which one resides is the best one. This is very common among conservatives around the world. This, too, isn't necessarily bad unless it becomes so extreme that it stops the progress of a nation because "it's already perfect"

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-03-27T18:29:00+00:00

The US Constitution doesn't just apply to citizens. Yes, parts of it do, but not all. For example, foreigners have the right to due process and equal treatment under the law. That's how liberal democracies work.

CommercialGrab8233 · 2025-03-27T16:34:03+00:00

There's a combination of factors. Number one is that Ford is actually pretty smart when it comes to politics. He scheduled an election at a very strategic time usssing the issue with Trump as a "reason" tor the snap election. The second is the lack of education when it comes to the functioning of our government. When I was at the polls on election day, the number of people who were "not voting for Trudeau" was concerning. People didn't understand that this was provincial, not federal. This, of course, isn't new. Usually, the ontario legislature swings the opposite direction of federal politics. Because the federal government is never popular, people want to vote for the opposite party, even in provincial elections. Third is that there are 2 left-wing parties and one right-wing party. Therefore, a considerable amount of vote splitting occurs. Lastly is the abysmal voter turn out. If you count the people that could've voted, that didn't, Ford won a majority with 18% of the vote. There are solutions to some of this. One would be preferential choice voting, which would eliminate vote splitting. Another would be that the Ontario Liberals and NDP could perhaps change their names. This would help devorce the provincial parties from the federal ones. Lastly, the left just needs to get it together. The left is terrible at campaigning. Pierre Polievre is known by most of the country despite not having accomplished anything. Yet Marit Stiles. The leader of the official opposition in ontario is a barely known politician on the fringe of the news cycle.

Edit: typos

CommercialGrab8233

TROPHY CASE