OK, well, he can be the #1 contributor to the #2000 most useful activity.

The Soviets had a land border with North Korea. Russia still does.

I don't hate Fuentes, I just don't think commentating makes him anywhere near to the #1 contributor.

Every person who filed a lawsuit did more. So did the congressmen who objected. So did the US postal whistleblowers. Etc, etc.

Right, so the commentator did what he would have done under any circumstance: commentated. Well, that makes him the #1 out of 300 million people for sure.

Do you oppose disabled veterans voting too? Are you really on the fullblown 'fuck service, money's the only metric of worth' wagon?

As long as a) the people involved are working hard and doing/have done their share, and b) they are not incentivized to free ride, citizens should be allowed to vote.

Note housewives demonstrably satisfy b, as evidenced by their voting patterns.

I get that you have to draw the line somewhere and taxes are a convenient way, but it's not actually a principled way, it just looks like one because you've forgotten that money is only a proxy for the production of value, not the production itself.

PS How's the public purse doing? Funny how despite housewives not contributing, their disappearance and the resulting lack of children is going to melt that purse down all over the West...

Raising children is some of the most important work there is. We'd be way better off with single income households, if people could afford it / would choose to live frugally.

So two principled reasons:

1. Fairness: They contribute at least as much (I argue far more) than career women, so it's just.
2. Incentivization: Encourage childless career women, get childless career women.

Furthermore, married women with children are far and away the most conservative bloc of women voters. They're comparable to men. So 3) They MAGA.

By all means, reconsider welfare dependants. Women who work for their families and live within their means are nothing like them.

Finally, some levity, this place has become such a drag lately.

An accident. CNN or ABC showed a map with blue bits and red bits and it caught on. It's a stupid convention, everywhere else red = socialism as you've pointed out, blue = conservatism.

I disagree, housewives should be able to vote.

Nero wasn't much interested in women. Still lit Christians on fire and just about destroyed Rome.

Stalin? Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot?

Woodrow Wilson was elected before the 19th Amendment.

He uses 'Jewish' as a synonym for degenerate. The ADL goes after all manner of genuine (non RINO) conservatives; they can all reliably go thirty minutes without referencing Jews. Donald Trump is a good example. Josh Hawley is too.

I watched AFPAC with an open mind and saw no one cheer for non interventionist policy until Israel was listed as a country that should get no support.

No friend, Fuentes is dishonest about what he believes and what he's promoting.

I'm not hugely into memes. Why don't you explain what you mean? I think you'll find that you're selectively ignoring things.

So if, as you say, even Tucker Carlson is pointing it out, why is it so amazing that Fuentes does too?

I'm not 'gay for the Jews'. Jews just aren't a huge part of my thinking.

It's Nick Fuentes and the like who are completely obsessed with Jews.

They harp on about neocons and how patriots should put America First but in reality they're obsessive antisemites who give as few shits about America as the neocons, who they are actually mirror images of.

Here's the thing about Fuentes: when he's talking on a new platform where he might gain followers, it's good, uncompromising MAGA stuff at the beginning of every speech. No immigration, traditional sexual ethics, etc. Condemnation of cuckoldry, often cuckoldry that has not had enough credit. So far, so good, excellent even. I almost got suckered myself.

But....the guy can't go for 10 minutes without mentioning Jews. He's obsessed and there's no explanation for it that arises from any normal MAGA idea. It's far too often to be explained by coincidence. His occasional lapses are telling too; 'race traitor' is not normal.

So yeah, the Nazi charges have something going for them. If he wasn't a raging antisemite, he'd manage to discuss things without reference to Jews more than just occasionally.

Did he now? What things of great worth did he do? Preached to his choir?

Many were Jews, 100% were atheists (including Stalin).

Selective? They murdered 20 million people!

1. The Jewish Bolsheviks were all atheists.
2. The non Jewish Bolsheviks (you know, like Stalin? Heard of him? were all atheists.
3. The USSR was officially atheist.
4. The USSR had organizations like the League Of Militant Atheists who were created specifically to promulgate atheism and punish believers.

Hail Lobster!

The 'getting the government involved will lead to the government selecting speech' argument is daft. Do you worry that the government will cut your phone call to your friend off? Common carrier legislation would be perfect.

Dooming is self fulfilling. All the truly great victories were won after any rational person would think they were impossible. The Poles got rid of communism with zero representatives, zero judges, zero army, zero cops, zero guns, and almost zero money.

9th circuit's 50/50 now. It's had BIG changes.

Atheism is the problem, not Judaism. Atheists support the Left more than Jews. The USSR was officially atheist.