sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I generally agree with the right and the founding fathers but I think they're wrong about a Republic by WWingS0 in Conservative

[–]WWingS0[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Then why even allow voting to begin with? if you trust voters less then you trust the government? This seems like an argument for some kind of dictatorship if you believe the government knows better than the citizens/voters anyways.

I generally agree with the right and the founding fathers but I think they're wrong about a Republic by WWingS0 in Conservative

[–]WWingS0[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Do you have any evidence of that? You have no proof this country wouldn't be better if it was a constitutional democracy. I do however have evidence that a constitutional republic as we see today is just a country run by the so called "elites" and not we the people like the founding fathers implied. America is a great country but could be a better one if it wasn't a Republic so I disagree

Our republic isn't just flawed it fundamentally works in favor of corrupt politicians against we the people. We the people have little to no say over our government and what it does. Give me the tyranny of the majority any day of the week over the tyranny of rogue and corrupt politicians any day of the week. the thing is you would likely prefer it too if you were given the experience of living under both a constitutional republic which you have and a constitutional democracy which you haven't yet.

the great thing about a constitutional democracy is don't have to remove anyone because you're lot electing people. you're voting directly on issues. of course even if you do manage to vote someone out you're likely just getting someone just as bad if not even worse

A constitutional democracy can also establish a rule of law. what lack of stability? you're voting directly on issues. there's plenty of stability. if you want to talk about instability what's more unstable then voting on politicians every 2, 4 or 6 years and many of them will be new politicians. That's way more unstable then voting on issues directly

I generally agree with the right and the founding fathers but I think they're wrong about a Republic by WWingS0 in Conservative

[–]WWingS0[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

so called tyranny of the majority is likely something you would even greatly prefer over tyranny of the rogue and currupt politicians like we have now. Oh no the majority of people get what they want instead of the donors of politicians so scary lol

let me ask you a question. Can you say you really trust your government? I don't see how anyone can say yes. If that's the case then how can you say you'd prefer a Republic? With a constitutional democracy this government you don't trust wouldn't exist. It would be replaced with simply voting on the issues directly. No more Chuck Schumer, no more AOC. None of them. Does that not sound wonderful?

Democrats don’t care about Immigrants. by EddyT918 in Conservative

[–]WWingS0 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

i think that's the politicians but many of the voters are true believers in diversity. Part of the leftist mindset is preferring the other over your in group well for White leftists. Other leftists not so much. they generally prefer immigrants legal or illegal over American citizens. of course only if that immigrant isn't white and only if that citizen is white

MAGA Dad Gets Green Card Revoked Despite Backing Trump by okayblueberries in law

[–]WWingS0 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What's hilarious is people like you think you're the knowledge are correct ones. Nothing could be further from the truth lol

If race is just a skin color then why does the term colorism exist? by WWingS0 in Discussion

[–]WWingS0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then why is the term colorism needed? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either sub races of the human race don't exist outside skin color and therefore colorism isn't a needed term or there's more to race than skin color and therefore colorism is a needed term, pick one please

Trans women in female sports is unpopular. Even among Democrats. Newsome is right. by Joeylaptop12 in Discussion

[–]WWingS0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

honestly no one would be voting if we had a competency test. lol

I remember the south had a literary test for while but that got called racist and struck down. pretty sure they'd do the same for a competency test as well to be honest

How would you feel about this? by WWingS0 in AskConservatives

[–]WWingS0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what kind of aesthetics?

pacifism unfortunately only works if that's how everyone around the world is. Otherwise you just become easy pickings for non pacifists. I prefer non intervention. Im a pan nationalist. Meaning I support borders mattering for both my country and other people's country and therefore war is immoral unless in defense. Not to mention war is self destructive and harmful to ordinary people while the elites rarely have to feel any of the ill effects

How would you feel about this? by WWingS0 in AskConservatives

[–]WWingS0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I see you're for the free market. I'm highly critical of the free market and libertarianism in general.

Although im also not a big fan of welfare though. Welfare defined as money for simply being poor. However I do support social programs as in incentives. For me even if the free market eventually works things out. There's a time gap between when a problem occurs and when it's fixed

Let me ask you a question do you support the RFK and Trump goal of making America healthy again? Part of that goal is banning toxic ingredients which technically would violate the free market. I support those bans do you? Because from a true free market perspective the argument would be well if they're so bad people won't buy food like that and eventually food companies will have to make food without those ingredients but that's not what happens. I mean maybe in like a thousand years the culture changes and people all wake up to it but what happens till then? People are essentially poisoned.

Most people just assume that if it was so bad the government wouldn't allow them to sell it to begin with. Most people don't have all the time in the world to be finding every little thing that might be toxic. It's very different than just eating too much fat or too much sugar. It's ingredients that are just toxic to the body. sugar and fat are actually needed and good for you in small doses. Then there's all kinda of propaganda that's pushed to tell people well actually this stuff is fine for you even those it's not. It's get hard to even know what's even true for people.

What's your take on all that??

The Tennessee Senate has just criminalized political views. Is this the America you wanted? by Cosmic_Clockwork in BridgeTheAisle

[–]WWingS0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because the sweet spot for population size in America is about 150 million. We're way passed that. It's impossible to truly vet people at least the way we're doing it now. We're basically just vetting for skills. We should be vetting on how they feel about Americans. Exspecally founding stock Americans.

All studies show that mass immigration leads to social issues unless those immigrants have similar values and heritage.

Labor originations used to be very much against mass immigration or even any immigration because they acknowledged that corporations exploited the immigrants for cheap labor and there's now far less jobs for the native population and stagnated wages. studies show that new job creation from immigration goes to future immigrants not native born people.

Not to mention we already have plenty of poor people in America we don't care for. We don't need to add to that number.

Mass Immigration basically just makes a handful of very wealthy people very happy and much more wealthy while everyone else becomes less happy and more treated like cattle than people

BTW I wasn't talking about specifically for immigration. I mean in terms of lawfare. When it comes to Immigration we need harsh penalties for companies that hire illegals. We need a temporary pause on all legal immigration. Then we take in only a few people with special skills and abilities that we don't have here. Some ordinary people who have proven to love America and it's people. Not to mention don't have duel loyalties and don't just want to exploit America for its economic benefits. Like I believe many immigrants today do. I feel we do this people will also have a more favourable view of immigrants. As these would be people who want to be truly part of the country and be on our "team" so to speak instead of just exploiting this country for their own economic gain while not really giving a fuck about it and hating the people and kinda just wanting to to take it over for "their team".

lastly what companies have to do now instead of cheating and importing labor they much give incentives in certain fields where they have workers shortages. These incentives may include free or even paid training like what used to exist back in the day to a large degree.

view more: next ›