grifter

I’m 43. I have baby fever. I just left the Democratic Party. Are we hanging out?

ICE is sending masked men to snatch up little kids. One of them was just five years old. Cruel doesn't even begin to describe it. ICE must stop terrorizing our communities now.

1995. Presidential Radio Address. Clinton: It does not matter if they have committed crimes while here. They came here illegally. That's a crime. They have to go. In 1995 the entire country agreed with this. It was common sense. Now Democrats call this fascism and hate speech.

I've come to realize the left doesn't actually oppose crime or violence on principle. They only oppose it when it hurts their own agenda or allies. Otherwise, they actually cheer it on when it's inflicted upon their enemies, or just ignore it when it can't be exploited. For example, killing is good when it's a health insurance CEO or Charlie Kirk. But it's bad if it's Renee Good or George Floyd (for the purpose of this argument, we will assume, as leftists do, that George Floyd was actually killed and did not OD). And killing doesn't register at all when it's someone like Iryna Zarutska being murdered by a black man. The same goes with violence and crime as a whole. Violence against ICE is good. However, violence against ICE protestors is bad. And violence between black gangs is simply unimportant. Furthermore, stealing from Walmarts and other big chains is good, but "stealing" from indigenous people is bad. Somalis stealing from taxpayers, on the other hand, should just not be discussed at all. Unlike most people, the leftist views violence and crime as morally neutral tools, with acceptability or importance wholly dependent on who or what these tools are being used against. Now, you might say, the right acts similarly! After all, weren't the ICE agent's and Kyle Rittenhouse's killings excused by conservatives? But no, actually, these cases are not the same. The right doesn't excuse these killings because they were perpatrated by conservatives against progressives, which is how leftists view these scenarios. It is not the "who" that provides justification for these killings in the eyes of the right, but rather, the "why," which is self-defense. Regardless of the parties involved, conservatives, in general, recognize the right to self-defense. Leftists, conversely, might only recognize self-defense as valid depending on who is using it. Case in point, according to leftists, the ICE agent was not justified in shooting as self-defense after being hit with a car at a protest. But somehow, self-defense has been the go-to defense for Karmelo Anthony, a black teen who stabbed an unarmed student after getting into an argument at a campus sports event. Again, for the leftist, the justification for crime and violence comes not from "why," but from "who." And so, why does this matter? Why is this worth discussing? It matters because, as we saw with Charlie Kirk, regardless of how law abiding or moral you may otherwise be, as long as you are conservative, it means the left will support any and all violence or theft that befalls you. Unfortunately, the justification for harming you comes from who you are: their enemy. This phenomenon also explains the leftist indifference to the crimes of minority groups, like Somalis, or trans people, or illegal immigrants, or whatever other protected class. Put simply, in the left's belief system, if a crime happens, but there's no way to use it to gain political power, has it even really happened at all? Finally, with these revelations in mind, the right must stop entering into debates with leftists assuming they share the view that crime and violence are inherently bad, because though they may deny it, the truth is they do not.

men will often say that women exaggerate the amount of work they do in their families and downplay what their husbands do, but sociologists consistently find the opposite- particularly in women who consider themselves feminists. they will play up their husband's contributions.