Conservatives win landslide eleciton in the UK

[UCFKnight85]

Their opposition, the left wing Labour party, ran on a platform that included: mass new expansions of entitlements and free shit for people, nationalization of key industries, massive tax increases to pay for said free shit for everyone, a socialist economic platform sold falsely under the guise of "environmental justice", mass Woke identity politics and promise of a left wing culture war, and an utter gutting of the military. They also ran as a party filled with, and led by, a rabid anti-Semite.

Oh and most notably, they ran on the promise of unchecked mass immigration and removal of basic border barriers that exist to manage the flow of legal and illegal immigrants.

In other words, 80% of the US Democratic Party in 2019 and the exact agenda of Sanders/Warren.

Go Liz Go! Senator Sitting Bull Warren 2020!

 

[UCFBS]

Go Liz Go! Senator Sitting Bull Warren 2020!

I like to call her "William Mankiller," who was actually Cherokee.


DISCLAIMER: I am 1/8th Cherokee by heredity, and 0% Cherokee by required tribal involvement -- something not only Warren, but the entire US Media was ignorant of and condoned for 7 years, blindly supporting her.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Ironically the decedent of Pocahontas is a Trump supporter.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

"Conservatives win landslide eleciton in the UK"

Which is why our founders ditched their square asses 200 years ago.

 

[UCFKnight85]

"Conservatives win landslide eleciton in the UK"

Which is why our founders ditched their square asses 200 years ago.

Wow one of the most stupid comments I’ve seen here and that’s saying something

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Wow one of the most stupid comments I’ve seen here and that’s saying something

Go back to England.

My liberal ancestors had enough of your restrictive ways.

 

[UCFBS]

"Conservatives win landslide eleciton in the UK" Which is why our founders ditched their square asses 200 years ago.

Wow one of the most stupid comments I’ve seen here and that’s saying something

Go back to England. My liberal ancestors had enough of your restrictive ways.

Actually, the UK is where the US is heading, because of Labor and the Progressives. It's Labor that has gotten them into wars and bad deals.

The US broke from the UK over the oligarchy, and the resulting infringement of rights over the oligarchy.

The rise of the oligarchy in the US has been something both parties have been guilty of. But the left is the one destroying the 1st and 2nd Amendments ever since the Progressives killed off Liberals, started throwing reporters in jail and labeling anyone who disagrees with them something that basically allowed them to censor and ban.

You have no right to free speech and self-defense in the UK, because of progressivism. That's exactly what is happening in the US now ... say something that is allegedly 'hate speech,' and you're jailed. Be a journalist who refuses to give up sources, and you're jailed. Wrestle a knife at your neck away from an intruder in your own home, and you get manslaughter if you end up killing him in the tussle.

Heck, NJ, NY and other states are even banning the self-defense insurance that covers legal costs, which homeowners doesn't cover. They demonize it as 'killer insurance.' And everyone is a racist ... and violent now.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Actually, the UK is where the US is heading, because of Labor and the Progressives. It's Labor that has gotten them into wars and bad deals.

The US broke from the UK over the oligarchy, and the resulting infringement of rights over the oligarchy.

The rise of the oligarchy in the US has been something both parties have been guilty of. But the left is the one destroying the 1st and 2nd Amendments ever since the Progressives killed off Liberals, started throwing reporters in jail and labeling anyone who disagrees with them something that basically allowed them to censor and ban.

You have no right to free speech and self-defense in the UK, because of progressivism. That's exactly what is happening in the US now ... say something that is allegedly 'hate speech,' and you're jailed. Be a journalist who refuses to give up sources, and you're jailed. Wrestle a knife at your neck away from an intruder in your own home, and you get manslaughter if you end up killing him in the tussle.

Heck, NJ, NY and other states are even banning the self-defense insurance that covers legal costs, which homeowners doesn't cover. They demonize it as 'killer insurance.' And everyone is a racist ... and violent now.

Someone lied to you.

People fled England to escape religious persecution. I.e. it was too Christian. Conservativism choked out freedom. "Believe in our religion or else." Sound familiar?

Freedom of speech is a liberal belief. Nice try trying to claim that one. It's always liberal poets, artists, musicians, pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable for the general populace. The reason why restrictive constructs like the FCC even exist is because of conservatives getting their panties in twist over their virgin ears. Which is why the whole Trump thing is hysterical, because Trump says things that conservatives condemned liberals for saying, yet now they approve because he's "your guy."

And it's Trump that's demonizing the free press, and banning reporters, not liberals. Get your facts straight.

 

[The Branch]

Freedom of speech is a liberal belief. .

Try being a conservative on 95% of the college campuses. We will see if you still believe that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Try being a conservative on 95% of the college campuses. We will see if you still believe that.

You just have to laugh at what this person says

 

[UCFKnight85]

Exactly like liberals in the US, lefties in the UK refuse to accept free election results and resort to violence when they lose.

 

[Crazyhole]

Someone lied to you.

People fled England to escape religious persecution. I.e. it was too Christian. Conservativism choked out freedom. "Believe in our religion or else." Sound familiar?

Freedom of speech is a liberal belief. Nice try trying to claim that one. It's always liberal poets, artists, musicians, pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable for the general populace. The reason why restrictive constructs like the FCC even exist is because of conservatives getting their panties in twist over their virgin ears. Which is why the whole Trump thing is hysterical, because Trump says things that conservatives condemned liberals for saying, yet now they approve because he's "your guy."

And it's Trump that's demonizing the free press, and banning reporters, not liberals. Get your facts straight.

This could actually be the start of a constructive conversation. What you are describing isn't strictly connected to conservative or liberal ideology, nor is it strictly connected to statist or populist systems. The example of England in the 1700s is clearly statist and conservative but quite honestly it's probably the most recent example of those 2 coming together in a way that was actually oppressive. 100 years later, France became an example of how liberal and populist combined can also become oppressive. Since the turn of the 20th century, generally speaking the most oppressive systems have been liberal and statist, most notably the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Maoists, but as we've seen in central and south America any populist revolution can be every bit as dangerous. To your argument directly, freedom of speech or religion is not exclusive to conservative or liberal ideology but generally speaking in today's world conservative leaning people are far less of a threat than liberals are other than middle eastern countries.

 

[sk8knight]

This could actually be the start of a constructive conversation. What you are describing isn't strictly connected to conservative or liberal ideology, nor is it strictly connected to statist or populist systems. The example of England in the 1700s is clearly statist and conservative but quite honestly it's probably the most recent example of those 2 coming together in a way that was actually oppressive. 100 years later, France became an example of how liberal and populist combined can also become oppressive. Since the turn of the 20th century, generally speaking the most oppressive systems have been liberal and statist, most notably the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Maoists, but as we've seen in central and south America any populist revolution can be every bit as dangerous. To your argument directly, freedom of speech or religion is not exclusive to conservative or liberal ideology but generally speaking in today's world conservative leaning people are far less of a threat than liberals are other than middle eastern countries.

I’m sorry but his view of conservatism just doesn’t match with today’s conservative principles. His view makes it apparent that he’s hung up on the 6th grade definition of conservatives as people who oppose change. That is a horrible intentional error made by the authors of public school curricula.

The Church of England, while being a religious-based government, in no way empowered individuals, decentralizes government, values property ownership by indivduals versus the government, liberty, etc. With the way the royals played fast and loose with all manners of sin and sinful edicts, you can’t even argue that they were socially conservative for their time. Trying to relate that to today’s conservatism is absolutely wrong.

The Church of England was certainly totalitarian and that’s why they fled. But today’s conservatives are not at all totalitarian. If you think that, it’s time for you to stop getting your views of conservatives from the internet and news and get out an hang out with a few actual conservatives.

 

[Crazyhole]

I’m sorry but his view of conservatism just doesn’t match with today’s conservative principles. His view makes it apparent that he’s hung up on the 6th grade definition of conservatives as people who oppose change. That is a horrible intentional error made by the authors of public school curricula.

The Church of England, while being a religious-based government, in no way empowered individuals, decentralizes government, values property ownership by indivduals versus the government, liberty, etc. With the way the royals played fast and loose with all manners of sin and sinful edicts, you can’t even argue that they were socially conservative for their time. Trying to relate that to today’s conservatism is absolutely wrong.

The Church of England was certainly totalitarian and that’s why they fled. But today’s conservatives are not at all totalitarian. If you think that, it’s time for you to stop getting your views of conservatives from the internet and news and get out an hang out with a few actual conservatives.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me, lol. Conservatism is very hard to define in general and I would say that in principle when people identify as conservative today what they really mean is that they are libertarian, i.e stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours. At the time of the declaration of independence you could make a pretty decent case for the founders fleeing conservativism and were being more liberal, but it's not the basis for their fight for independence. The primary reason was that the crown was authoritarian and refused to acknowledge the peoples inherent liberties. "No taxation without representation" is a prime example of the issue. Secession in any country throughout history has never been about whether the rule is too conservative or too liberal, its always about whether the rule is too statist. That's why the Magna Carta was so influential: it created the concept of people being able to have a say without just declaring war.

Consider every single uprising over the last 200 years. Every single one of them has been because of a form of statism. Iran is on the brink of collapse due to a conservative authoritarian regime. Russia collapsed due to having a liberal authoritarian regime. Both statist, but ideologically they are polar opposites.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me, lol. Conservatism is very hard to define in general and I would say that in principle when people identify as conservative today what they really mean is that they are libertarian, i.e stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours. At the time of the declaration of independence you could make a pretty decent case for the founders fleeing conservativism and were being more liberal, but it's not the basis for their fight for independence. The primary reason was that the crown was authoritarian and refused to acknowledge the peoples inherent liberties. "No taxation without representation" is a prime example of the issue. Secession in any country throughout history has never been about whether the rule is too conservative or too liberal, its always about whether the rule is too statist. That's why the Magna Carta was so influential: it created the concept of people being able to have a say without just declaring war.

Consider every single uprising over the last 200 years. Every single one of them has been because of a form of statism. Iran is on the brink of collapse due to a conservative authoritarian regime. Russia collapsed due to having a liberal authoritarian regime. Both statist, but ideologically they are polar opposites.

Agreeing with you.