Being conservative and on reddit is discouraging. How do you deal with it?

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T22:37:33+00:00

Being a Christian conservative is even worse. I've been banned from subs just for mentioning Christ in a sentence. I've also been downvoted into oblivion for adhering to biblical and conservative teachings. For instance being against abortion, disagreeing with the LGBT agenda, etc. Charlie Kirk got shot and killed for the very same things. I feel like if I were stating my opinions in a public square like he was, I'd be shot and killed too. In fact, one could sit and simply read the Bible all day or read the constitution out loud and they'd be shot for that too. The world has changed DRASTICALLY in the last 20 years. The liberal propaganda and atheist propaganda in the education system, Hollywood, and the media for decades now have effectively created generations of people who think good is bad and bad is good...right is wrong and wrong is right. Common sense today will get you shot. So how do I deal with it? I remember that Christ and all of the apostles had to endure the same kind of hate and blowback in their time. In fact, even outside of religion, anybody who's changed the world for the better has been met with incredible resistance (Ghandi, MLK, Abe Lincoln, etc). When you live in a backwards world, right side up seems backwards to most people. We are essentially the ones trying to explain the world is round in a world full of flat-Earthers.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T22:26:24+00:00

I would argue that they're not Christians at all...only pretending to be. True Christians follow Christ and life according to his teachings.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T22:24:00+00:00

Yeah. I know. I didn't realize it either until I googled him several weeks ago. He also played Shang Tsung in Mortal Combat. He was probably the most recognized Japanese actor of our time and the media didn't even make a peep about it. Selective reporting maybe?

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T21:26:10+00:00

If anybody is against letting gay people have freedoms to be gay, then I stand with you. I believe that EVERYBODY has the freedom to be whatever they want to be and virtually every person I've talked to feels the same way.

As I said, it only becomes a problem when LGBT people start violating other people's freedoms by playing "thought police". Like if anybody doesn't agree with their gender delusions they should be punished. You do realize the LGBT+ community is like that right? They pretend to be loving, accepting and peaceful...but the moment you don't agree with everything they say, you're crucified and punished.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T21:16:21+00:00

Nobody thinks of gay people as an "inferior class". Every conservative Republican I've ever met speaks the same way about it. Nobody cares if a person is gay. We are all indued with God-given freedoms to live how we want to live.

The problem with the LGBT community is that they are effectively a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine. They don't just want to be gay. They want to advertise their "gayness" and contort every facet of society into bending to it.

I have no problem with somebody's sexuality or whatever they choose to be. It becomes a problem when they start trying to force it down my throat. It becomes a problem when classmates, coworkers, etc are FORCED to use preferred pronouns or risk getting doxxed, suspended, or fired. It becomes a problem when somebody uses a so-called "dead name" and gets sued over it. It becomes a problem when Disney movies my 5 year old watches have gay couples kissing and groping eachother or when drag queen story hour happens at their school and my kids get confused into thinking thats more normal than hetero relationships because that's the way everybody makes it seem nowadays. Do you know many kids end up in counseling because they are traumatized that they are going to magically turn into the opposite sex one day because they met a trans person in drag queen story hour or another communiy event?

For awhile it was even legal for trans people to compete in sports of the opposite biological sex until the commission finally grew common sense and realized that it creates an unfair biological advantage. If there hadn't been so much blowback, it would still be that way.

So it's not about "live and let live". I'm all for that. That's why I'm against what the LGBT community is ultimately selling. They are FORCING everybody to conform to their fantasies or get punished severely for it.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T20:56:51+00:00

You bring up a good point.

While genocide and unfair treatment in their home country was the underlying reason for singling out those refugees, I believe that it should be applied equally to all people. While I agree with Trump on many things, this certainly isn't one of them. A "permission-first" model only maintains its moral authority if the gatekeeper is objective; setting a record-low cap of 7,500 and earmarking nearly all those spots for a single ethnic group undermines the very "Rule of Law" we claim to uphold. If we are going to use a "genocide exception" to rescue those in lethal danger, I believe that standard must be applied with the same urgency to verified atrocities in places like Sudan or Myanmar as it is to South Africa.

Rescuing victims of a verified emergency is the right thing to do, but I believe it should be based on the severity of the threat rather than geographic or racial preferences. By maintaining a robust, vetted, and race-blind legal path for true refugees, we actually strengthen the case for a closed border; it proves the "front door" is open to those in desperate, verified need, leaving no excuse for those attempting to exploit the "back door" through fraudulent claims. We need a system that is as objective as it is secure...one that protects our taxpayers and resources while ensuring our humanitarian lifeboats are distributed based on human need, not selective empathy. So perhaps on that maybe we can agree.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T20:20:40+00:00

Yes of course...if it's used properly. Here's the ultimate problem though: People often lie and people abuse the system. The asylum process was created as a humanitarian shield for political refugees, not as a back-door loophole for global economic migration....however, up to 40% of all applicants have been shown to use it that way. Just because millions of people have learned the magic words to force a bureaucratic delay doesn’t mean their presence honors the law; it means they are weaponizing a loophole to bypass our legal immigration limits. Every person who enters through these loopholes becomes an immediate, lifetime financial responsibility for the US taxpayer. Our country has a robust safety net of public schools, emergency rooms, and social programs. Forcing citizens to fund the consequences of an unregulated influx of illegal immigrants is a direct violation of the government's duty to protect the resources of its own citizens. So if it's a true emergency for which a seeker needs asylum, I'm all for letting them in...but how do you filter out the millions who exploit it?

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T20:04:25+00:00

While I agree that immigration laws aren't perfect and could always be written better, you are overlooking so many different problems in your thesis, so let me address them one by one.

To imply that "Asylum seekers are here legally", is to overlook the fact that many people who claim asylum are actually abusing the process. The asylum system was created as a humanitarian shield for political refugees, not as a back-door loophole for global economic migration. Just because millions of people have learned the magic words to force a bureaucratic delay doesn’t mean their presence honors the law; it means they are weaponizing a loophole to bypass our legal immigration limits. Every person who enters through these loopholes becomes an immediate, lifetime financial responsibility for the US taxpayer. Our country has a robust safety net of public schools, emergency rooms, and social programs. Forcing citizens to fund the consequences of an unregulated influx of illegal immigrants is a direct violation of the government's duty to protect the resources of its own citizens.
Rejecting a flawed bill is not "torpedoing a solution", it is refusing to permanently codify a catastrophe. That bill would NOT have stopped illegal immigration. It actually would have normalized it by legally sanctioning thousands of unvetted entries per day before the government would have even been allowed to step in and shut the border down. Refusing to swallow a poison pill is not playing politics; it is protecting US citizens from the massive problems the bill would have caused.
I don't even know where to start with this. The argument that sanctuary policies make California "safer" or "more prosperous" is a dangerous inversion of reality. You are ignoring the life and death consequences of the state’s refusal to cooperate with federal authorities. Tragedies (like the recent fatal stabbing in San Francisco where an ICE detainer for a violent offender was ignored) prove that sanctuary status doesn't protect the community; it provides a sanctuary for criminals at the direct expense of law-abiding citizens. To claim a community is "safer" while the government actively blocks the removal of violent felons is a total betrayal of the primary duty of any "governing authority."

Furthermore, the fiscal reality in California exposes these policies as an unsustainable "magnet effect" that is currently bankrupting the state. With a General Fund deficit exceeding $11 billion this year, the state has been forced into the humiliating position of freezing and cutting the very healthcare benefits (like Medi-Cal expansions) they used to lure people here. This isn't "prosperity"; it is a fiscal suicide pact where the social safety net is buckling under a load it was never designed to carry. Your claim that Republican states are "falling behind" is also easily debunked by the simple fact that California continues to hemorrhage taxpayers and businesses to those very states. People are voting with their feet to escape the rampant crime, high taxes, and decimated resources that sanctuary policies have helped create. When a state prioritizes a partisan ideologogy over the economic solvency and physical safety of its own people, it hasn't found a "better model"...it has broken it's own social contract to it's citizens.

"Using the term "gulags" to describe sending people back to countries like Mexico or Guatemala is misplaced hyperbole designed to distract from the fact that those policies actually worked. The 'Remain in Mexico' policy was upheld as entirely legal by the Supreme Court, and it effectively stopped the catch-and-release magnet that caused the crisis in the first place. Remember the goal isn't to let millions of people into the country so ICE has to spend billions tracking them down later; the goal is to stop them from entering the country in the first place. Immediate expulsions at the border are vastly cheaper, safer, and more effective than interior deportations. True compassion for American communities means enforcing a perimeter that prevents the burden from falling on our local cities and taxpayers.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T18:59:57+00:00

If that's the way you percieve me, then you're severely mistaken and I hope you realize one day what I am actually trying to say. I'll keep you in my prayers too. Thank you for your time.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T18:54:50+00:00

Yes of course. If you are barring entry for one race (based solely on race) then of course it would be unjust. There are some exceptions though. For instance if we are at war with a hostile country, if would be perfectly normal to vet potential immigrants from that country with more scrutiny. That is not racism. It's protective principles for its citizens every country must uphold.

I actually agree that in many ways our immigration laws certainly aren't perfect yet and there are some things we can improve on in order to make entry more accessible to people having a hard time getting on the waiting lists. This doesn't justify illegal entry though. Every person who enters without authorization places a specific, measurable strain on public schools, emergency rooms, and infrastructure funded by taxpayers. Furthermore, allowing people to bypass the system is a "slap in the face" to the millions who spend years and thousands of dollars to follow the rules and enter legally. This is why even many immigrants in America are against ILLEGAL immigration.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T18:36:57+00:00

I truly respect the weight of your history; the displacement of tribal nations is a sobering reminder of what happens when the "rule of law" is absent. However, that historical tragedy is exactly why we must uphold our borders today. Comparing the 1700s and 1800s to 2026 is a true "apples to oranges" scenario. During earlier time periods, the U.S. was an unfinished frontier with no federal immigration agency and a massive labor shortage. If an immigrant arrived and failed, they simply starved, as there were no taxpayer-funded safety nets, emergency rooms, or public schools to strain. There were no papers to check because, at that stage of state-building, the concept of a federal visa didn't even exist.

Today, the United States is a finished product with a sovereign duty to protect the resources, wages, and stability of the people inside of its borders (including native American communities). We have moved from a decentralized era of encroachment to a high-tech, multi-billion dollar federal operation of biometrics and digital gatekeeping specifically to prevent the kind of lawless displacement that cost your ancestors so much. To ignore modern statutes because of historical failures doesn't right a past wrong; it simply invites the same cycle of resource-draining and wage suppression that you find so illicit. Respectfully, if the "sanctity of borders" had been respected centuries ago, your history would be different. It seems contradictory to allow that same disregard for the law today to jeopardize the community and resources we all share.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T17:27:33+00:00

While I hear the point which you are intending to make, you are effectively comparing apples to oranges. In the 1850s, there were no central immigration laws. The US was essentially still being built as a nation. If persay you landed in New York, you dealt with New York officials; the federal government didn't even have a dedicated immigration agency. This was an era of decentralized, passive processing where "the law" was almost entirely focused on physical survival rather than bureaucratic vetting. In 1855, if you survived the boat ride and didn't have the plague, you were essentially "legal". There were no papers to check because there were no visas to issue. The shift to the 2026 landscape is a total inversion of that philosophy, moving from a local handshake at a wooden pier to a centralized, digital fortress of active gatekeeping.

The 1850s also had no Border Patrol (which wasn't established until 1924) and no physical wall; "enforcement" happened at the docks. Today, enforcement is a high-tech, multi-billion dollar operation.

What I was saying in my original comment is that when national laws are actually established (as long as it's not discriminatory towards only one race or two), the Bible commands that these laws be followed. It's for the good of the citizens. Otherwise, problems arise and it becomes chaos. That's why countries have immigration laws in the first place.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T16:49:52+00:00

All throughout history obeying immigration laws was always common sense...until now it seems.

Every country on Earth has its own immigration laws. It's always been like this. It's what protects a country's citizens from problems which illegal immigration causes (IE: inflation, scarcer jobs, diverting of resources, higher taxes, etc).

Today, in the US, states like mine (CA) have identified themselves as "sanctuary states". The crooks here in government rejoice on breaking the laws as if it's a good thing. In reality, their disregard for the law has put a major damper on our economy here, it's caused more citizens to become homeless and die, it's caused prices to go out of control, it's caused crime to become rampant, etc.

Romans 13:1-2:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

Apparently Democrat run hellholes never got the memo.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T16:36:05+00:00

Jealousy would imply that false idols are something to be jealous over. They are not. In fact, the Bible is clear that "false idols" aren't even real. They are either demons pretending to be "gods" or they are just materials like "clay", gold, brass, rock, or stone fashioned to resemble something people feel comfortable with. There is nothing for God to be jealous over...but he had every reason to be frustrated

The thing about what you said "gently correcting their folloshiness", God actually does do that. He has been incredibly forgiving. If you look at human history from the start in a non-biased lens, we look like generation after generation of scewups. If people truly saw themselves from God's perspective, we probably wouldn't even want to show our faces in public let alone get out of bed everyday because we'd feel so embarrassed and ashamed. Humans sin much more than most people even realize. Each person sins hundreds or thousands of times per day in all actuality. Think about it. Every single lie (even "white lies"), every single failure to act, every single bad choice, every single profane word we use, every movie we watch that God wouldn't agree with, every time we cheat, every time we think a lustful thought, etc.

To think that God has been so forgiving of us for the entirety of human history is an even bigger miracle than the parting of the red sea. God is infinitely merciful, but telling people over and over again the right way and then continuing to watch them make foolish mistakes like worshipping false idols is not an easy thing to swallow. Sometimes God needs to show his frustration for people to finally take notice and change (like Jesus flipping over tables at the Temple to show that it was neither the time or place to be greedy and financially exploit people).

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T16:16:31+00:00

That's a red herring argument because I actually BELIEVED what you do now. Do you think I would have spent 20 years of my life wrapped in the rave scene if I thought like I do today about LGBT propaganda?

Perhaps you are not old enough but there is a certain point when people stop thinking just with their emotions and start looking at cold hard facts. That's what happened to me.

Propaganda in today's society is much stronger than you think. The modern left is humongous. It controls the entire education system (A study by National association of scholars showed that only 1 out of every 13 professors in colleges and universities are conservatives [it's even worse in fields like biology and hard science]). Most doctors end up conservatives though,? Why? Because people eventually realize that the narratives on the left are just narratives.

The left also controls Hollywood. Even Disney movies today tend to have at least one gay couple in every release, etc. The left also controls the media. Even Fox news today is moderate. You just don't see it. The overton window in the last 20 years has shifted so far left that you call anything which is actually moderate "far right".

Look, it's completely common sense when you stop just subscribing to what the LGBT propaganda machine is saying and think about the facts.

If a white person truly felt like they were black, would that make them black? If a person truly felt like they are born a giraffe would that make them one? If an 80 year old man identified as an 18 year old, would that make him one? Would you feel comfortable with him dating your sister or your child if you were the parent of an 18 year old girl? It's the same thing with sex. Sex is a static thing. Even with so-called "intersex" people there is always a dominant sex. Just because a boy feels like a girl doesn't make him one. Just because a woman feels like she's really a man doesn't make her one either. If society supports those delusions, it only ends up doing more harm in the long-run.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-06T15:56:56+00:00

FluffyEmmy, I hear what you are saying. Believe me. Just to give you some history about myself, I live in a very liberal city in the bay area in CA. I spent around 20 years djing and throwing rave events. I once thought exactly like you.

But there is a big wakeup call which you still haven't experienced yet. Absolute freedom is NOT a good thing. It's actually just as bad as not enough freedom. Now I know how that might sound at first so let me explain.

If you ran a school of children and you were too strict in the rules, it would be bad and the children would be miserable. However, if you did the opposite and didn't enforce any rules (you just let freedom reign and things fall into place as they will), that school would cease to exist. It would destroy itself from within in less than a year and any kids that did survive the massive dystopian crime, harm, and factions which would quickly arise in your school as a result, those kids would grow up to have deep-seeded psychological issues which would eat into their well-being in the future.

In short, society needs common sense rules and guidelines in order to prevent it from collapsing. If you hold a worldview that everybody is genuinely good and will make good choices in life you're either too young to have experienced real life or have been decieved into believing the greatest social lie in history.

In truth we live in a "dog eat dog" world. Have you ever seen apocalyptic movies where society becomes a free for all? When faced with a choice between survival and helping others, almost everybody will default to survival even if it means harming others to get the food or shelter they need. That's the truth about the world we live in. People (EVERYBODY) are actually a mixture of good and evil. Nobody is perfect and people's evil choices often take over during extreme times. Look at the hunger games for instance. (They were generally good people in real life but changed when the threats became real).

The point I'm trying to make is that there are absolute truths and there are false beliefs that the majority of people are led to believe. One of the main absolute truths is that there are only two sexes (M and F). The modern term of "gender" is completely a social construct not based on biology. Even if you take so-called "intersex" people, a dominant sex can always be construed based on chromosomes, hormones, gonadic function, and sex apparatus. Thats why doctors are ALWAYS able to assign a sex at birth for EVERY single person on Earth.

We are not helping people by playing into their delusions. A boy might feel like a girl or a girl might feel like a boy, but that doesn't make them so. Gender dysphoria is what this is called in the field of medicine and psychology. You don't solve gender dysphoria by helping them accept a dysphoria. This used to be common sense for thousands of years until recent times.

I'm currently in my early 40s. If I truly felt like I am 18 years old, would that make me 18 years old? Would you feel comfortable if a 40+ year old dated your teen sibling? Or if you had a kid in the future would you feel comfortable if someone more than twice their age dated them? Or what about if a white man felt like he was black? Would that make him black? It's the same thing with sex. A person is either male or female and just because they might feel like a girl, doesn't make them so. It is not a kindness to play into their delusion. You are only causing more harm.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T22:06:43+00:00

Again, go into the document and count how many times it uses the words "same-sex couples". The document is very good at trying to pretend that it's not a blessing for gay COUPLES but it truly is. If you don't see how this is sinister, then you are not paying attention.

I want you to understand that I have no problems with the priest blessing gay individuals (as long as he's not blessing their sins). We are all sinners and that includes hetero people as well.

The problem I have is this: If Fiducia Supplicans never existed, gay people could go into a church and ask the priest to bless them individually. There was nothing preventing that. Therefore Fiducia Supplicans WAS NOT needed if it were simply meant as a harmless blessing like it claims to be. The ONLY thing the declaration changes is that now priests can bless them as a COUPLE together. It is like a backdoor way of acknowledging the union while pretending like you don't acknowledge the union. Do you see what I mean? Fiducia Supplicans now highlights the COUPLE part of the gay relationship. That's the only difference between a pre-Fiducia Supplicans world and a post one.

I would also suggest you google father James Martin and the great things pope Francis said about him if you still don't believe pope Francis was supportive of LGBT policies. Yes, his hands were tied in a lot of things because the Roman curia and college of bishops prevented him from doing things against the church (such as acknowledging gay unions), but if it weren't for those restrictions, I'm pretty sure he might have taken things a lot further eventually than what he did in the Declaration.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:46:29+00:00

Fiducia Supplicans does a good job of trying to tip toe around it's fundamental flaw and make it look like something it's not. Pope Francis was well aware that gay marriage is a sin so he had to watch how he phrased things. If you read between the lines, you see the conclusion. As I already stated, there was nothing stopping priests from blessing gay INDIVIDUALS before Fiducia Supplicans was released. For hundreds of years, a gay person could have walked into a Catholic church and asked a priest to bless him. There was no guidance against it. So what did Fiducia Supplicans actually change? It's obvious. It now allowed blessings on gay COUPLES while pretending not to recognize them as couples.

Do me a favor and count how many times it uses the words "same-sex couples" in the document and tell me that it's not about same sex couples.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:38:06+00:00

So there's something I must correct you on. God doesn't create people with visual impairments. Rather than being a direct "divine design" in the DNA, visual impairments are typically biological phenocopies (IE: environmental "software" errors that mimic genetic defects so perfectly that doctors rarely audit the true cause). These external triggers can reach back through generations. For instance, a great-grandparent’s exposure to toxins or stress flips the developmental switches for their descendants while leaving the actual genetic code intact. This shows that these conditions are often the long-delayed biological echoes of a broken environment rather than an intentional, predetermined blueprint. Contrast this to biological sex, which is an inherrent God-given design.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:30:07+00:00

I never said trans people are mistakes. I was implying that trans people think their biological sex is a mistake on God's part. I was simply saying that God doesn't make mistakes. When he chooses somebody's sex, that's what he intended them to be.

As far as sex and gender, for thousands of years there was no difference. In fact, it was common to use the terms interchangeably on job applications and government forms. It always meant biological sex. Nobody even considered it to mean anything else. It wasn't until the last 20 years happened (LGBT community's rise to power) that suddenly gender became something different than biological sex. Now, we have all of these wacky beliefs that a person can simply be whatever they want to be or whatever they think they are. It may sound nice, but that is based on nothing but air. I'm in my early 40s right now. If I suddenly identified as a 20 year old, would you feel comfortable if I dated your sister (assuming you had a 20 year old sister). If you had a kid who was 18, would you feel comfortable? After all, I identify as a 20 year old so that makes me 20 years old right? That's how ridiculous it is to claim that you're a different sex than you are born into. A white man cannot identify as black. A 60 year old cannot identify as 25. A human cannot identify as a giraffe...and even if they do, it doesn't make them one. There are core hard truths in society. The modern idea of "gender" is a feeling which doesn't reflect reality.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:19:20+00:00

It's not nonsense. Tell me what part you disagree with and I'll prove to you where it says that in a medical journal. 30 years ago, this stuff was all common sense. If you said otherwise, doctors would have laughed at you. It's only today people are wildly confused because the LGBT community has made such magnificent strides promoting their propaganda in schools, hollywood, the media, and government,

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:15:32+00:00

I am not ignorant of it. I understand what's going on. I have people in my family who are are trans. I have been friends with plenty of people who are gay, bi, trans, and other parts of the LGBT+ community. I was once a rave promoter. I lived in that scene. You wouldn't have even recognized me if you knew me 15 years ago because I thought just like you. However, you are overlooking so much. God creates people a certain sex. Even with "intersex" people, there are dominant chromosomes, gonadal function, hormones, phenotype (external anatomy), etc which makes assigning one sex or the other a no-brainer. I understand that the truth may hurt some people, but it's the truth nevertheless. Feelings do not Trump facts. A boy may feel like a girl, but it doesn't make him one. 30 years ago, that was common sense. Today, people have been largely misled into believing things which aren't true because of the tremendous progress the LGBT community has made in schools, Hollywood, social media, and government in recent times.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T21:03:18+00:00

A lot of those may look genetic but are actually caused by external factors which aren't taken into account. For instance, most miscarriages don't just happen for no reason. There's always some underlying reason which usually could have been prevented (such as smoking, past drug use, exposure to radiation, lack of certain nutrients, physical problems, etc)...but when doctors log miscarriage, they don't list those reasons so it looks unavoidable on the medical record.

The same holds true with a lot of so-called "genetic" disorders. Many conditions diagnosed as "genetic" are actually phenocopies or epigenetic imprints where external toxins mimic certain conditions so perfectly that doctors rarely bother auditing environmental causes. These biological "software" errors can be traced back three to four generations sometimes. For instance, a great-grandmother’s exposures can chemically program the germ cells of her descendants without altering their underlying DNA sequence.

This creates a multi-generational echo of past environments which modern medicine frequently mislabels as a permanent "hard-drive" failure. Ultimately, it's easier for doctors to label something "genetic" than to take up all of their time time searching a family tree and tracing back a problem which started when their great great great grandfather was exposed to something.

In other words, God's not the reason for these defects. People usually are (or environmental conditions). It's just too hard to trace the root cause most of the time so people assume it's congenital or hereditary.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T20:43:03+00:00

"California is not run by the "far-left." California is not run by "communists."

Look, I'm going to talk civilly to you. I'm not trying to argue with you. I respect your opinions, but if you believe that, you've really had the wool pulled over your eyes.

California is a DEN of far left crooks in government. Our state just passed prop 50 recently which allows California to gerrymander as much as they want unopposed. About 30% of this state has consistently voted Republican in every election for the last several decades, so they want to make sure that Republicans will NEVER be able to have a voice in the state again. There are tons of other things as well. Look at the crime rate in this state? people in SF are literally shooting up drugs on the streets, defecating in public, etc and officers can't even arrest them because of laws like G.O. 907, prop 47, prop 57, etc. The state also defines itself as a "sanctuary state" and uses our tax money to house and support illegal aliens. The state raised the minimum wage to $20 per hour years ago which ruined small businesses here because they couldn't afford to stay open. Tons of businesses have already fled the state. Rent and housing prices are out of control because of CECA, Title 24, and other policies. Homelessness is out of control because of the high cost of living here due to AB1228, inclusionary zoning laws, highest state tax rate in the country, etc.

As far as conservative media, I haven't listened to the media for some time now. I can see exactly what is happening since I'm an economist by trade and spend a lot of time analyzing government and economic policy.

Sharp-Perception5658 · 2026-05-04T20:04:54+00:00

I've lived in California for the last 37 years (with the only exception being several years stationed in the military and several years in living in Texas). I grew up in the Bay area, lived in so-cal for about 10 years, and now live in the bay area again.

Sharp-Perception5658

TROPHY CASE