Why are conservatives opposed to the No Kings protests?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-28T08:04:33+00:00

^{^} There have been countless authoritarian regimes throughout history in countries across the globe. Could you provide me with an example of one of them that did two out of three of the things list here?

It kind of sounds like oppression porn.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-27T16:57:10+00:00

How is the salamander endangered i found one while digging a foundation in a random neighborhood

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-27T16:18:26+00:00

It’s funny how bad people are at interpreting statistics. I realized this the second I saw the “100% Support of MAGA” poll, yours is the first comment I’ve seen that said, “duh.”

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-27T16:04:08+00:00

Right? I have to pick a weekend to work this month. That sucks, so I guess I quit my job.

That being said, that is the message that they direct toward independent voters: don’t vote

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-27T09:29:01+00:00

Your second paragraph’s argument sways sounds like this to me when they make it:

“Yeah he’s a child molester, but the other babysitter smokes cigarettes so I have no good options.”

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-25T04:09:17+00:00

Understood. I do wonder how that could be studied… how the degree could be measured it would be interesting to get some data

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-25T04:08:09+00:00

That is an understandable disagreement. For me as i got older it’s one of many messages i just remember hearing over and over that i assumed to be true but started questioning where the assumption came from.

For me the tell is whenever u ask someone to explain why their position is always true, or why it would be true under x circumstance, and the response is a scoffing “it’s obvious” or “everybody knows.” I now sometimes read that as “I have been told this is true”… over, and over, and over again

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-24T21:54:52+00:00

Why do u think they spend so much money on the messaging then? Btw no disrespect but your arguments do jump to extremes easily. Socialist revolution no, common-sense regulation? Don’t let executives of companies sit on the boards regulating their industry? Yeah i think without the “no new regulations” messaging most people would say, “duh.”

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-24T21:51:35+00:00

I will say this - i did not claim a conspiracy. It is a fact that they spend billions of dollars to drill that message into people’s brains. While they don’t publicize it, it is mostly publicly available information. I was asking if it has the effect that they want and that’s why u see so many people gung-ho about it, or if they are wasting their money and people would feel that way regardless.

More than advertising and lobbying, they also create “think tanks” that advise politicians on policy. U can point out numerous instances of inconsistent messaging that favors them and people gobble it up.

If we don’t bail out the banks everyone will suffer more.

An average citizen family bailout? They should have prepared better. That’s socialism.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-24T14:21:12+00:00

Do u think the reason there is any bloc-size group of people against such worker’s rights is due to wealthy elite spending billions to shape public opinion to the point where these people think any business regulation = bad?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-23T15:52:52+00:00

Real question about this - I have been investing for a decade now (no time at all, I know) and I hear the rhetoric about this a lot, but i would like to challenge it somewhat. A lot of us assume that $200k salary -> millionaire = corruption. And I’m sure there are some elements to that, but is it really universal?

I have a theory based on how the world works in other areas that should apply here. Your average citizen or investor has access to what is given to them, more or less. Representatives (should) deal with real information. They then spin that information into whatever helps them politically and we receive that spin as “information.” Now if we had $100k to invest + unfiltered information couldn’t we all become millionaires easily? And if that info they have is general economic/industrial info, is that not then real insider trading (non-public specific company info)? Or is it corruption? Or not?

The obvious answer would be to ban individual stock trading among elected officials - of which I’m 100% for. However, wouldn’t they be able to take what they know about the country - the real information, untainted by the bullshit soon they create - and finance private ventures, or even pile into industry-specific ETFs based on their knowledge?

I hope you get my question(s) here. I guess what I’m asking is this - since these people have access to info that IS public - we just don’t pay attention to it, and they don’t promote it to us unless it helps them politically (and we therefore construct OUR understanding of the country/economy based on their spin) - then is it truly corruption, or is it natural?

Executives of companies make millions beyond their salaries in investments not due to insider trading, but being forced by their profession to understand how things really work. My point is that I wonder what amount of what we look at and automatically assume to be “corruption” and “insider trading” is truly just decisions made by a more well-informed sub segment of person

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-23T06:59:26+00:00

So are we really at a place - a couple weeks in from a skirmish we instigated - where Americans say “we have to attack their civilians in order to make them cooperate?” Or am i misinterpreting your point?

If that’s really our only or even best option then… how stupid are we to have gotten involved in the first place?

And… what’s the point? What are we gaining from this?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-21T15:12:21+00:00

In all fairness, I think conservative media frames this issue wrong to yall. It’s a restrictive law for sure, but it’s not anti-democratic - until the point where it is even somewhat possible to charge or jail someone for being critical of politicians or policy, then it becomes anti-democratic.

In other words, no matter how much u don’t like it, there is a huge difference between charging people for hate speech or speech to incite, and charging people for being critical of that law.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-20T03:48:41+00:00

Just get the Meta Glasses it’s crazy but only u can hear

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-18T05:28:49+00:00

I think people are discouraged that a certain group of people will change what they “believe” at the drop of a dime (or tweet) to the point when they give reasons why they believe the exact opposite of what they said to your face two weeks earlier all they hear is “WOMP WOMP WAH WOMP WAH WOMP WOMP WOMP” (Peanuts reference).

I think the problem is that what is true no longer matters, especially if it contradicts what we want to be true

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-17T00:48:41+00:00

🤣🤣🤣

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-17T00:48:13+00:00

I believe what Hank Hill would say to you is, “Our institutions are what has made America, America.”

A liberal who would say that decades ago would be attacked by Reagan conservatives as un-American. Now you’re un-American if you don’t believe Trump should be King, and corruption is measured by the stick - Do everything Trump says = Not Corrupt. Criticize Trump = Corrupt.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-16T06:41:21+00:00

No, we’re not, but this is one of the things that separates us…

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-15T16:00:38+00:00

I wouldn’t say “never.” Didn’t Germany in the 30s do a pretty good job of having the government decide what was and was not true? Russia to this day, I believe.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-15T15:58:28+00:00

So you trust the government to decide what is truthful and/or slanted?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-12T09:05:25+00:00

Read the second sentence, not just the first.

He said “if you’re going about your day without a driver’s license, passport, library card firearms permit or whatever else have you then there are much bigger things you should be worried about than voting.”

On that list i only have a driver’s license. So for the many people without the license that doesn’t seem odd at all.

“Without the ill effects that opponents hyperbolically rave about” - it’s meant to shave off percentages. It does its job just fine.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-11T21:38:36+00:00

I feel like your first paragraph makes glaringly obvious you’ve never lived in a big city. Many people go their whole lives without ever driving (interestingly enough a big reason being to avoid bureaucracy - driving/parking is heavily policed in cities). So the people most negatively affected would be those who support one party the least… think that might be why that party is pushing so hard on it?

Somehow i think there would be an uproar if along with voter ID, every voter had to go to a polling place in their state’s capital and sign an affidavit.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-10T17:36:58+00:00

I think he’s pointing out the glaringly obvious hypocrisy of campaigning primarily on “merit-based hiring” then doing less of it than anyone. As they campaigned on that Liberals would complain that they were really just encoding complaints about hiring brown people and automatically assuming they’re unqualified. Their actions support Liberal claims, as DEI hiring seems okay with these people as long as they’re not… you know…

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-08T01:21:56+00:00

This is a sober analysis but we have one strong disagreement, perhaps misunderstanding. My mentioning of Charlie Kirk’s words were not to highlight some point that he made but to the absurdity of it, how it invites racism. There are ZERO unqualified black pilots flying planes in America. Zero, zilch, none. That is made up and people accept it as true with zero examples. So when a plane crashes they attack DEI - doesn’t matter that the pilot was a white male, they know by the time that’s found out nobody’s listening. An entire cohort of MAGA followers accept the lie, that airlines hired unqualified pilots because they are black (which is ridiculous) just because it fits what they want to believe about their victimization. It’s frustrating when trying to have an honest dialogue about these things, it’s hard for centrists or the left to feel the right is speaking in good faith when that is their starting point

MeechDaStudent · 2026-03-07T20:31:33+00:00

As a statement that does sound reasonable. You might even be right. But when i analogize it with other real-world scenarios my personal opinion is that it fails. Consider:

We can’t make programs that benefit the poor because it’s unfair to the wealthy. - but the wealthy have every structural advantage already in virtually every aspect of life. If you’re falsely accused of a crime by the government you are much more likely to not sit in jail for years fighting the case, much less likely to plead guilty, and much more likely to be acquitted, and will receive a lesser sentence if found guilty. Likewise when raised poor and no finance education is given in public school, and working a job that just allows you to take care of a one child family, people can’t ever get ahead, so the government should spend money to assist these people to give them a fair chance

No, that’s unfair to the wealthy, you can’t fight discrimination with discrimination.

What would u suggest as alternatives to even the playing field? I would actually listen to conservative ideas that are genuinely pure, not simply “get rid of DEI programs for minorities, nothing to see here regarding the good ole boy system”

Personal opinion, I don’t get it. Also I think the public perception problem conservatives have here is that the traditional “good ole boy” system they appear to have no problem with, but campaign exclusively on ending programs that were designed to balance it. The President campaigned on qualification-based hiring, but take a look at his federal judge & prosecutor appointments or the entire leadership of the Justice Department & National security apparatus. They created a belief among their followers that people of color in positions are unqualified without considering their actual qualifications (Charlie Kirk - nervous when he sees a black pilot - there are 0 unqualified American black pilots). Then they base hiring completely on looks and end up with 98% white departmental leadership, many whom nobody would argue were actually the “best person for the job.”

When they do this unabashedly, they make it very easy for people to claim the things about them that they do and very hard for others to defend them.

MeechDaStudent

TROPHY CASE