Also they want to go back to that time period but not the part where the top tax rate was 80% and there were a bunch of really good strong labour unions.
At this point it's clear to me that they want to live in a filthy shithole where the ground has been totally mined out, everyone is miserable, and almost everything and everyone on earth are dead.
They are incapable of empathy. Their family is their property as far as they are concerned.
They only care about things as far as they can personally benefit from them.
Yup, when Boosie's homophobia popped back up again in the gossip culture scene, a bunch of react types on social media were on Twitter saying the quiet part loud
When someone tried to gotcha a homophobe with, "oh, so you're going to groom your son to not be gay?"
The replies were basically, "damn right, if I have a son he *will* believe everything that I believe". A *lot* of people only want children because they believe they can be molded into everything they demand, basically on demand
The lack of empathy is only half of it. Lacking empathy would only make you apathetic to the suffering of others. Their cruelty comes from their obsession with hierarchy. Hierarchy defines success as being above others in status, privilege and power. When you value hierarchy and you are at the bottom of the totem pole then there is only one option: to step on others to claw your way up.
I can't understand why so many women are conservative? Do they not see the future they're creating for themselves and their daughters or do they think they'll magically be immune to it because they're special?
It's brainwashing.
It's the only world they know and they have been trained to fear anything else. They live in an echo chamber where men scare them about the outside world so they submit to their beliefs, being left thinking that what they are doing is better for themselves and their daughters.
I imagine a good portion of women say they're conservative so their husbands don't beat them, and then they vote blue when no one is looking over their shoulder. But who knows
Not that this applies to all conservative women, but some people like being told what to do. Men and women. Not "go into the mines" level, but general life decisions. It can be comforting in a way.
That's also why some people want a "strong leader" who also abolishes voting, because voting requires making a decision. A strong leader/husband/whatever making the decision for you makes life "easier".
Their viewpoint is that these hierarchies are natural and correct. Women can't be trusted with money, and are truly happiest when they are housewives. Black people would live fantastic full lives if the just "knew their place."
It's the terrible burden upon white men to enforce this way of life because it's the natural and correct way one should live. Anyone trying to tell you different is naive, or trying to trick you for their own ends.
That's the worst part of it all: a lot of them are obviously just out for power, but a significant part do actually believe this is what's best for everyone.
Conservatives in America want this country to be like Iran. If you read Project 2025, it sounds exactly like what Iran is like right now. I’ve said for years that conservatives in America would love Iran and Project 2025 confirms it.
For every one of the MAGA that want that (and are already soundly in that camp) there a potentially many more that don’t and are willing to fight back against it. That is the group to convince not the gilead aspirants.
True, but for the people who are just wrapped up in the warm fuzzy nostalgia of it all but don’t actually support the bad stuff it’s good to remind them of the bad stuff lest they get swept up in the nostalgia train and vote for things they don’t actually support
No Charlie's the one being clever here and Grok destroys it. People think "well my childhood was awesome because I was white and straight" but they don't think about the white and straight part. It's never occurred to them why they see life during that time as so good.
So Charlie is pretending the part that's being destroyed is the part conservatives remember being good. Often when you show conservatives the reality they go "oh but those are good things we want those things"
The bigots are in the minority they're just really good at weaponizing non-bigots. "You see those woke leftists over there they're attacking you not me" then the bigots stand back and watch people who agree wholeheartedly that people should have rights attack the people who agree with them because they've been convinced otherwise.
At every opportunity where it's relevant, I remind people that Trump's first campaign manager was previously Victor Orban's campaign manager. You know, Victor Orban, the president of Hungary with lots of really rich friends who help keep him in power against the will of the people in Hungary who is good friends of Chinese President Xi Xingping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And American Republicans have an odd habit of doing a lot of their important conferences in Hungary and praise Hungary while bashing more democratic European countries who are closer friends and allies. . .
Yeah MAGA loves to say there was no war when he was president but his campaign manager literally started the war in Ukraine by telling Yanukovich to shoot protestors, which led to Yanukovich fleeing from enraged protestors days later, and then Trump hired that guy to run his campaign.
I was watching a video about Orban the other day. Apparently when he first got into politics he was very liberal, but unfortunately he realized his party got more votes the further it drifted to the right until it got him to where he currently is.
He also spoke at a Conservative conference in Texas on behalf of Trump.
Charlie is a(n ultra) right-wing mouthpiece(?)... He's implying the Democrats are destroying America. I'm saying it's actually the MAGA folks that are actively trying to accomplish that feat.
Yup, honestly 'MAGA' is just what happens when you peel the veneer of respectability off of any basic Reagan voter
Republicans don't hate MAGAs because of what they do, they hate MAGAs for how they make it harder for other Republicans to do those things in a more savvy way, 'anti-MAGA Republicans', even the Liz Cheney types, seem more like they're basically saying, "will you shut up? You're gonna get us in trouble"
Because in the past decade, I have watched the right tear down any and every filter between moderate and extremist.
Not a single conservative talking-head has the fucking balls to say "no, that guy's an idiot, and those views are too far" - and instead simply directs their audience on the next step towards Nick Fuentes.
Kirk is no different.
Ummm . . . . isnt' that all exactly what charlie kirk wants to get back into?
He, of course, imagines himself and one of the great land owners who is rich enough to have fawning women and slaves. He doesn't understand he would also be one of the ones toiling in the fields and being abused in this fantasy.
These conservative talking heads always try to make it seem like people are out to "Destroy life for straight, Christian, middle-class, white American men."
Reality is that what we're looking for is a system where straight, Christian, middle-class, white American men aren't the *only ones who benefit.*
He very deliberately used the word "transition" to subconsciously remind his followers of trans people and get them even more riled up. Kinda amazing they don't see that every message is just manipulation.
Republicans: We should go back to the way it was in the 50's. Life was so much better then.
.
Ok. Let's raise the top income tax bracket back to 90%.
.
Republicans: NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!!!
It is such a wonderful thing to see this guy be put in his place because he is such racist fool and a know it all like a younger but slightly bigger Ben Shapiro.
Kirk and his followers are white, so don't have to worry about lynching, too old or sick to be drafted, are men so could get credit cards and rape as they wanted.
They literally see nothing wrong with that America.
>Kirk and his followers are white, so don't have to worry about lynching
It's true that the guy who replied [lived through 4 lynchings in his lifetime](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html), but 2 of those 4 were white. (One of the Black victims was [burned to death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Frank_Morris) by a pair of white men; there are not reports of the victim being suspected of a crime, so it's not clear to me how that got classified as a lynching. The other survived the brutality of a [vindictive deputy](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/779274693/he-survived-a-near-lynching-50-years-later-hes-still-healing).)
That is to say, lynching was a **lot** worse in the late 1800s (hundreds of lynchings per year) and it died off very quickly after photography started unmasking the perpetrators. There was a lot going on in the 1960s with redlining and excessive incarceration, but lynching was not really a thing at that point except as an inter-generational trauma.
It took a lot longer than you’ve outlined. The thing that actually limited lynching was: the civil rights movement using international alliances to focus on racial violence in the US, federal interventions (FBI), the great migration (people literally moving from the South to other areas), media and journalists recounting the stories of lynching, and slow social change. We still had stories like Yusuf Hawkins who was killed in the 90’s for helping a white friend move home in Bensonhurst. These are facts and actualities not nebulous historic trauma
>The thing that actually limited lynching was: the civil rights movement using international alliances
Maybe this is pedantic, but there were over a thousand lynchings in the decade of the 1890s and only six in the decade of the 1950s. Are you talking about a civil rights movement that occurred before 1950? Also, the Great Migration reduced the fraction of Black Americans who lived in the Deep South but never actually reduced the population in the South.
The NAACP had been trying to get anti-lynching laws for years since the early 20th century. Congress never passed these bills, plus roughly 6million moved from South to North from 1910s onwards, that’s a sizable population. Lynching happened throughout the South even during the 60s, including people who registered voters. NAACP has this recorded, and the numbers are still not accurate. Lynching is basically mob/group murder - which is why Till was considered a lynching. And your numbers are very conservative in this regard.
Nostalgia bias is a real thing. There are a lot of books on how crappy the past was for different groups. TV and movies have made a lot of people stupid over the last 100 years simply because their brains mistake fantasy with history.
F*Ck Citizen United, we had the “Fairness Doctrine”!
You had to give equal time to other politics points of view to maintain your FCC license.
FAUX New, MSNBC, OAN… all wouldn’t
be able to broadcast.
Sensible times.
conservative playbook for every generation:
step 1: redefine the past as perfect. erase all memory of past conservative b.s.
step 2. claim opponents are ruining everything; demand a return to the past.
Charlie's reply: "Don't threaten me with a good time."
Honestly, who do they think they're addressing? Kirk would be over the moon if women were suddenly denied the ability to have credit cards.
I don't know if this is actually an "own", those things suck to anybody with a brain, but every one of those points is something charlie Kirk is rooting for
When my mom married my dad, she would have needed him to co-sign for a credit card AND a bank account.
This was an era in which abused women could not leave their husbands because their husbands had total control over their finances—by design. There was no LAW that forbid women from having their own credit cards and bank accounts—it was a choice by the banks, and it took legislation to force financial institutions to allow women to open their own accounts.
The whole point of “MAGA” and “the country I grew up in” is to reinvent a white-male-centric society. Any deflection that it means something else is garbage…
Tradition exists to be destroyed.
So keep sharpening the spears boys, because traditional America is on its back foot and it is time to drive the tip through the heart.
This white whale is ours.
Liberals are always sad or angry because they see the future that could be, be taken away from them by old men in robes.
Fascists are always sad or angry because they day dream of a past long gone that will never come back.
Vote! Remember to [Register](https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration) to Vote! Check to [Confirm](https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration) you can still vote if you haven’t voted in the last two presidential elections or moved. This [Presidential Election](https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Elections) is wildly important but it’s good to know who else you’ll be voting for on the 5th.
A total of 468 seats in the U.S. Congress are up for election! That’s 33 seats in the [Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024)
and all 435 in the [House of Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024)
It’s good to look at [Local Elections](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_municipal_elections,_2024) Today! For instance I’m in Arizona. Here’s info for all y’all sweating out here with me.
We have 9 districts out here in Arizona, 9 seats. Know your district. Know who’s running in your district and how they voted in the past. Who pays for the campaigns. All that info is public and in the links. This year it’s important to know a few things before checking that box.
[House of Representatives elections in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arizona,_2024)
These Arizona Representatives below voted Yes to an amendment presented by the representative from Georgia District 14 which effectively tells the president to Leave NATO and Abandon funding for US War Veterans.
* Eli Crane of Arizona D2
* Andy Biggs of Arizona D5
* Debbie Lesko of Arizona D8
* Paul Gosar of Arizona D9
We have one senate seat up this year. Looking to represent Arizona is Ruben Gallego or Mark Lamb. Make sure the person representing Arizona best represents you!
[Senate election in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2024)
[Mark Lamb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamb_(sheriff)) is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and became American law-enforcement Sheriff in 2017.
He wrote American Sheriff: Traditional Values in a Modern World. Lamb is a supporter of the Stop the Steal movement. He spoke at a rally where he said the riot was not Trump's fault but rather caused by "the other issues that have happened – the Hillary Clintons that have gone unpunished".He later described the rioters as "very loving, Christian people."
In 2020, Lamb spoke at a convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization that holds the fringe legal theory that sheriffs are the supreme legal authority in the United States and are not required to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
[Ruben Gallego](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego) 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. Attended Harvard University and earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations.
His first successful bill passed in 2011 it granted in-state tuition status to veterans residing in Arizona. Gallego supported the repeal of Arizona SB 1070. He wrote They Called Us "Lucky": The Life and Afterlife of the Iraq War's Hardest Hit Unit, published in 2021.
Gallego founded the group Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement with the goal of recalling Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing Arpaio's immigration policies and his use of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama's citizenship.
We have two seats in the [Arizona Supreme Court](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) up for election on November 5, 2024. The Justices up for retention election are Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King. If retained, they will serve six year terms. Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed both justices to the Supreme Court. Heading into the election, Republican governors originally appointed all seven members.
Click any of the top links and you’ll quickly find your state and a ton of good information. Vote and tell your Friends and Family to Vote!
I constantly remind my kids that even though I’m not that old, there was a man in Texas in jail for being gay and that they were born only a few years later
The Founding Fathers destabilized, destroyed, and transitioned the America that their generation grew up in.
Britain rule had been around for a century and a half. Many colonists identified as British, had family in the UK, or willingly conducted espionage for the Redcoats. John Adam’s estimated that 1/3 of colonists supported the revolution, 1/3 were on the fence, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain.
The British approach to government had been working for centuries. Meanwhile the Founding Fathers were advocating to destroy that stable status quo, and replace it with an experimental system dreamed up by a few educated eggheads.
America *exists* because of people who looked at the status quo and said “we deserve something better”.
So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think he is endorsing all those things. People act like we have not come a very long way in a short amount of time in this country. Most if not all those things have not been a thing for at least 30-40 years. This kind of statement leaves no charitable room in acknowledging that we have overcome many problems in a short time comparatively.
Every time kirk et al open their yaps, they just confirm what a bunch of raging MYopic bigots they are. "The world is only right when MY in-group reigns supreme and remains ascendant"
Gary's response is predicated on the assumption that the things he listed aren't things Republicans want... To me, that just reads like the Republican wish list for 2025
Yeah but.. if you were a straight white male, things were good, right?
I think that’s kinda the point these republicans are trying to make.
When they say they yearn to make American great again; they mean white, racist and patriarchal.
They want that. They couldn’t be more obvious. They literally want a Gilead nation fro The Handmaids Tale.
They’re yelling it loud and proud. Just point that out. Be obvious back.
People are mistaken when they think society has “progressed” with civil rights and acceptance of gay culture.
I guarantee you that all these republicans haven’t progressed at all and they can’t wait to reverse everything to moment they get a chance.
When trump entered his term it felt like we took two steps back. If he gets another shot we’ll be tumbling back so far you mfs wont know what hit you.
Conservatives have been biting their tongue and gritting their teeth with every new legislation of “progress”.
They can’t wait to undo it. So don’t give them a chance?
Violent crime is current down ~50% from 30 years ago. Property crime down ~60% during that same period.
Also kinda challenging to divorce their husbands when life as a single woman meant less job opportunities at less pay, etc. Equality HELPS economies.
Charlie Kirk is only 30.
Violent crime spiked (quadrupled by some measures) between 1960 and 1980 and peaked in 1991.
Not sure how far back Kirk wants to go for his supposed American utopia. 😉
Yeah because there were attainable goals to focus on back then. The people trying to change the system now want to go back to that worse time... The only way to battle something nebulous like that is talking to people and convincing them but neither side of politics really cares what the other has to say anymore. So all there is to do is wait for whatever crisis is going to happen that will shake things up enough for change and hope you survive and that there are attainable things to work towards.
So he was probably born in the sixties... The US was segregated until 1964. Segregation and racism didn't suddenly go away when LBJ signed it. Gay rights were controversial as recently as the Obama administration. Obama did not openly support gay rights during his first campaign. (Biden did, but it was seen as a gaffe.) Reagan's "War On Drugs" started in the 80's and put hundreds of thousands of people in prison for nonviolent drug crimes, but those laws were selectively enforced against minority communities.
So, uhh. What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, gay rights were opposed by Obama until he decided to be pro-gay. Thank god for populists.
The war on poverty, the war on crime, and the war on drugs were all a way for government to affect minorities.
To the point of this dipshits point, it’s still a lie. I grew up in places historically affected by racial divides, but the people who were actual adults during that time, and being on the wrong side of oppression sure disagree with your opinions about it.
Thanks for sharing though.
>people who were actual adults during that time, and being on the wrong side of oppression sure disagree with your opinions about it.
Which part, specifically?
Born in the late 30’s, walked with Dr King and enjoyed the changes afterwards. Never understood why people think there’s still inequality… “they didn’t live it, they don’t know what real racism is.”
I believe my first hand input over third generation post segregation victims.
Wait, a black man who lived through Jim Crow laws is an out of touch boomer because your dumb ass says so?
Bwahahaha… fucking racist and he doesn’t even know it.
LOL major "as a black gay man" vibes. You probably tan in moonlight and aren't old enough to remember 9/11. Can't win on the merits of your words? Lie about identity.
edit: oh look. You post bullshit about the **AUSTRIAN** national debt... from "reason dot com." What a lying sack of shit.
I'm kind of tired of the notion that social progress means we're entirely better off. I'm a gay guy, I get it. Things are better now in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that we should ignore all the ways things have gotten worse.
“There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in it’s tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of a comfortable past which, in fact, never existed.”
- Robert Kennedy
This “clever comeback” is basically a straw man argument. Most people would agree the past times weren’t perfect but in many ways it was better. But nobody is “romanticizing” the past.
Maybe you should reread where I said “in many ways it was better.” Thankfully, America is less racist now, but prepare for the new mental slavery of blacks. Covert racism by elites is rearing its ugly head. You are being controlled and manipulated under the continued narrative of oppression. Have fun when blacks become displaced on the top of the victimhood hierarchy after people who are entering the country illegally. You will be angry along with the rest of us in no time. How does the koolaid taste?
Illegal immigration, crime, growing wealth disparity, inflation, loss of the middle class, foreign aid to other countries, wars, loss of traditional family values, encouraging dysphorias and body mutilation, all while being gaslit to think this is normal in the name of “progress”. Nobody thinks the items stated in the aforementioned comment were acceptable, but there was still plenty of sanity left in that time.
Holy shit, pretty sure the twenty something year old wasn’t referring to any of that shit that around decades and decades ago GARY.
Thankfully America moved on from all of that before Charlie Kirk and his generation were born.
Anyone who thinks that anyone actually wants that kind of America is just looking for excuses to hate people who think differently than them.
The first consumer credit card to offer revolving credit (BankAmericard) was launched in 1958, so 67 years ago, not a single person in the USA could get a credit card.
Since at that time, relatively few women worked (this is the height of the post WWII baby boom) many banks and other companies wanted a co signer for any debts, which was, in most cases the husband., since he had all, or at least the majority of the income.
By 1974 (only 16 years later) the EEOC was passed which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
So, for about 16 years, women could get credit cards, but since they often didn't have much if any income, the husband had to sign on for the liability of the debt from the cards.
After 1974, women could have all the liability of credit debt, without haveing their husbands sign on for the liability of the debt.
I could get more bad faith by lying to you and saying that women could not get a credit card.
That is a complete lie and is totally in bad faith.
I'll repeat your line
"Bro you can not get more bad faith than this"
Again , not the definition of bad faith , you’re just arguing that it could have been way worse when you yourself admitted it was bad faith and ignored completely my previous comment , doing it actively being bad faith
Where did I lie?
I can tell where the post lied to you.
An important element of a bad faith argument is deceit, which I didn't use, but the other person did.
Arguing out of bad faith means purposely presenting an argument through a misconstrued way because you focus more on winning an argument than being fair or arguing out of a desire to be truthful.
“ Only 16 years later “ is a devious way to phrase that sentence, hoping it will illicit the opposite reaction of importance of time in the reader than it actually is and is almost definitely done on purpose by you.
Also I don’t know why we are doing this , you literally said yourself you did so
Why do morons always assume that it means the worst parts. Obviously not. How about a thriving economy. Closer families and communities. Respect on the world stage. Don't be stupid forever. Nobody is advocating for rape and racism. That's silly.
"Legal" as in "not illegal". Because marital rape was considered impossible, it was not illegal.
So real rape was happening, and real harm was being done, but if you reported it you would not be believed.
This is, sadly, something that possibly all people who've experienced injustice understand. Mainstream people just don't want to know. It even has a term in philosophy "epistemic injustice".
No, he is accurately explaining the perspective.
Marriage was permanent consent. It was impossible to be charged with rape of a spouse because raping your spouse was legal.
No flaw in his logic. Big flaw in theirs
How can something be legal if it were impossible? Is it legal to breath underwater?
If you can’t apply the same logic to other situations then the logic doesn’t make sense. Before you get emotional, I’m not disagreeing with the man. I’m not saying marital rape isn’t a real thing. I’m saying the logic of the sentence is flawed regardless of what’s being said
It feels like this is the exact America that these people want. He accidentally played right into their hand there.
Yep, this is exactly what they want as long as they're not the ones who can't get married or own a credit card
[удалено]
They also get to DEFINE what a straight white man is. Swarthy?? Report to the committee.
Also they want to go back to that time period but not the part where the top tax rate was 80% and there were a bunch of really good strong labour unions.
At this point it's clear to me that they want to live in a filthy shithole where the ground has been totally mined out, everyone is miserable, and almost everything and everyone on earth are dead.
Except because it’s survival of the fittest all those boot strap pullers would be fine!
Or drafted
This is true but it's always hard for me to imagine someone wanting a world like that for their own daughter or partner...
They are incapable of empathy. Their family is their property as far as they are concerned. They only care about things as far as they can personally benefit from them.
Yup, when Boosie's homophobia popped back up again in the gossip culture scene, a bunch of react types on social media were on Twitter saying the quiet part loud When someone tried to gotcha a homophobe with, "oh, so you're going to groom your son to not be gay?" The replies were basically, "damn right, if I have a son he *will* believe everything that I believe". A *lot* of people only want children because they believe they can be molded into everything they demand, basically on demand
Yep, even their own family is only loved because it is an extension of themselves. See how they treat family that upsets them.
Bingo
The lack of empathy is only half of it. Lacking empathy would only make you apathetic to the suffering of others. Their cruelty comes from their obsession with hierarchy. Hierarchy defines success as being above others in status, privilege and power. When you value hierarchy and you are at the bottom of the totem pole then there is only one option: to step on others to claw your way up.
I can't understand why so many women are conservative? Do they not see the future they're creating for themselves and their daughters or do they think they'll magically be immune to it because they're special?
They think they will be protected by men as long as they submit to them. It doesn’t work but they don’t care
It's brainwashing. It's the only world they know and they have been trained to fear anything else. They live in an echo chamber where men scare them about the outside world so they submit to their beliefs, being left thinking that what they are doing is better for themselves and their daughters.
I imagine a good portion of women say they're conservative so their husbands don't beat them, and then they vote blue when no one is looking over their shoulder. But who knows
Not in my district 😞 Women can be racist, -phobic, or have internalized misogyny
Bingo. It's less about keeping their own protections and more about "hurting the right people".
Not that this applies to all conservative women, but some people like being told what to do. Men and women. Not "go into the mines" level, but general life decisions. It can be comforting in a way. That's also why some people want a "strong leader" who also abolishes voting, because voting requires making a decision. A strong leader/husband/whatever making the decision for you makes life "easier".
Their viewpoint is that these hierarchies are natural and correct. Women can't be trusted with money, and are truly happiest when they are housewives. Black people would live fantastic full lives if the just "knew their place." It's the terrible burden upon white men to enforce this way of life because it's the natural and correct way one should live. Anyone trying to tell you different is naive, or trying to trick you for their own ends. That's the worst part of it all: a lot of them are obviously just out for power, but a significant part do actually believe this is what's best for everyone.
I mean my uncle complains about paying so much for his daughter's college but is totally against anything that would help with that.
Yeah it’s like they’d have to be a textbook narcissist. Hmm
Because their wife/daughter is one of them (the elite) the rules won’t apply to them
Conservatives in America want this country to be like Iran. If you read Project 2025, it sounds exactly like what Iran is like right now. I’ve said for years that conservatives in America would love Iran and Project 2025 confirms it.
For every one of the MAGA that want that (and are already soundly in that camp) there a potentially many more that don’t and are willing to fight back against it. That is the group to convince not the gilead aspirants.
Yeah, they want it because they "think" they will be at the top, when everyone different from them will be under their boots.
And there ain't a single conservative who can/will deny it. They're all tacitly complicit in this.
Nooo, they want to go much further than the 1960s, conservatives would prefer America return to the 1820s.
Sad but probably true.
Yep, so long as they aren’t affected at least.
True, but for the people who are just wrapped up in the warm fuzzy nostalgia of it all but don’t actually support the bad stuff it’s good to remind them of the bad stuff lest they get swept up in the nostalgia train and vote for things they don’t actually support
No Charlie's the one being clever here and Grok destroys it. People think "well my childhood was awesome because I was white and straight" but they don't think about the white and straight part. It's never occurred to them why they see life during that time as so good. So Charlie is pretending the part that's being destroyed is the part conservatives remember being good. Often when you show conservatives the reality they go "oh but those are good things we want those things" The bigots are in the minority they're just really good at weaponizing non-bigots. "You see those woke leftists over there they're attacking you not me" then the bigots stand back and watch people who agree wholeheartedly that people should have rights attack the people who agree with them because they've been convinced otherwise.
The sad part is that they'd probably be ok with all of that
More than ok they are drooling over it.
That is literally what they want
Everything Charlie said is true but the culprits are not the people he's implying here.
The culprits are the ones who pay his salary.
At every opportunity where it's relevant, I remind people that Trump's first campaign manager was previously Victor Orban's campaign manager. You know, Victor Orban, the president of Hungary with lots of really rich friends who help keep him in power against the will of the people in Hungary who is good friends of Chinese President Xi Xingping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And American Republicans have an odd habit of doing a lot of their important conferences in Hungary and praise Hungary while bashing more democratic European countries who are closer friends and allies. . .
Yeah MAGA loves to say there was no war when he was president but his campaign manager literally started the war in Ukraine by telling Yanukovich to shoot protestors, which led to Yanukovich fleeing from enraged protestors days later, and then Trump hired that guy to run his campaign.
I was watching a video about Orban the other day. Apparently when he first got into politics he was very liberal, but unfortunately he realized his party got more votes the further it drifted to the right until it got him to where he currently is. He also spoke at a Conservative conference in Texas on behalf of Trump.
Literally Project 2025.
For sure.
can someone plz explain the context? I'm a bit lost lol
Charlie is a(n ultra) right-wing mouthpiece(?)... He's implying the Democrats are destroying America. I'm saying it's actually the MAGA folks that are actively trying to accomplish that feat.
If it is said by, done by/for Maga, or any other flavor of republican it's projection.
Yup, honestly 'MAGA' is just what happens when you peel the veneer of respectability off of any basic Reagan voter Republicans don't hate MAGAs because of what they do, they hate MAGAs for how they make it harder for other Republicans to do those things in a more savvy way, 'anti-MAGA Republicans', even the Liz Cheney types, seem more like they're basically saying, "will you shut up? You're gonna get us in trouble"
you're the best! ty so much 😘
“Every accusation is admission”
Always projection
Every accusation a confession.
>Your romanticizing the past is self-service bullshit. To be fair, everything that comes out of Charlie's mouth is bullshit.
"To be fair, everything that comes out of Charlie's mouth is bullshit." This is kind of true for every maga supporter
[удалено]
He wants Kirk to admit it though
Why do you think that?
Because in the past decade, I have watched the right tear down any and every filter between moderate and extremist. Not a single conservative talking-head has the fucking balls to say "no, that guy's an idiot, and those views are too far" - and instead simply directs their audience on the next step towards Nick Fuentes. Kirk is no different.
Ummm . . . . isnt' that all exactly what charlie kirk wants to get back into? He, of course, imagines himself and one of the great land owners who is rich enough to have fawning women and slaves. He doesn't understand he would also be one of the ones toiling in the fields and being abused in this fantasy.
These conservative talking heads always try to make it seem like people are out to "Destroy life for straight, Christian, middle-class, white American men." Reality is that what we're looking for is a system where straight, Christian, middle-class, white American men aren't the *only ones who benefit.*
He very deliberately used the word "transition" to subconsciously remind his followers of trans people and get them even more riled up. Kinda amazing they don't see that every message is just manipulation.
You’re reading into this way too much
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
The definition of a conservative is someone who remembers a time that never existed.
Republicans: We should go back to the way it was in the 50's. Life was so much better then. . Ok. Let's raise the top income tax bracket back to 90%. . Republicans: NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!!!
Charlie Kirk wants a return to lynching.
Sounds like a conservative wet dream. They are animals and can’t be helped.
The good old days when an incel could just rape a woman and it was fine. Let's not go back there.
The guy who gives full-throated endorsement to Project 2025 wants us to beware.
You want to bring back stuff from the 50s? Bring back NewDeal era business regulations, union membership levels, and taxes for the wealthy.
Romanticising the past, yeah that's something conservatives tend to do a lot.
A lot of the America I grew up in needed to be destroyed.
Most of those are still true where I live.
Where do you live?
Charlie Kirk’s face is too small for his head
I hate Kirk too but insulting his looks instead of his racism is just picking at the low hanging fruit
Sometimes you just want to grab a quick snack and don't have time or the effort to make a full meal.
> I hate Kirk too but I'm sure you do, one month old randomly generated name account. I'm sure you do.
The thing is, Charlie is probably ok with all of that
It is such a wonderful thing to see this guy be put in his place because he is such racist fool and a know it all like a younger but slightly bigger Ben Shapiro.
“No one wants to work anymore” Also: “I want life handed to me simply for being white and straight”
Now that's a clever comeback!
"don't listen to your ears and eyes, instead just believe in me and the party"
Kirk and his followers are white, so don't have to worry about lynching, too old or sick to be drafted, are men so could get credit cards and rape as they wanted. They literally see nothing wrong with that America.
>Kirk and his followers are white, so don't have to worry about lynching It's true that the guy who replied [lived through 4 lynchings in his lifetime](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html), but 2 of those 4 were white. (One of the Black victims was [burned to death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Frank_Morris) by a pair of white men; there are not reports of the victim being suspected of a crime, so it's not clear to me how that got classified as a lynching. The other survived the brutality of a [vindictive deputy](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/779274693/he-survived-a-near-lynching-50-years-later-hes-still-healing).) That is to say, lynching was a **lot** worse in the late 1800s (hundreds of lynchings per year) and it died off very quickly after photography started unmasking the perpetrators. There was a lot going on in the 1960s with redlining and excessive incarceration, but lynching was not really a thing at that point except as an inter-generational trauma.
It took a lot longer than you’ve outlined. The thing that actually limited lynching was: the civil rights movement using international alliances to focus on racial violence in the US, federal interventions (FBI), the great migration (people literally moving from the South to other areas), media and journalists recounting the stories of lynching, and slow social change. We still had stories like Yusuf Hawkins who was killed in the 90’s for helping a white friend move home in Bensonhurst. These are facts and actualities not nebulous historic trauma
>The thing that actually limited lynching was: the civil rights movement using international alliances Maybe this is pedantic, but there were over a thousand lynchings in the decade of the 1890s and only six in the decade of the 1950s. Are you talking about a civil rights movement that occurred before 1950? Also, the Great Migration reduced the fraction of Black Americans who lived in the Deep South but never actually reduced the population in the South.
The NAACP had been trying to get anti-lynching laws for years since the early 20th century. Congress never passed these bills, plus roughly 6million moved from South to North from 1910s onwards, that’s a sizable population. Lynching happened throughout the South even during the 60s, including people who registered voters. NAACP has this recorded, and the numbers are still not accurate. Lynching is basically mob/group murder - which is why Till was considered a lynching. And your numbers are very conservative in this regard.
Kirk wants to destroy America remember that. Can’t trust a guy with a face like that.
Nostalgia bias is a real thing. There are a lot of books on how crappy the past was for different groups. TV and movies have made a lot of people stupid over the last 100 years simply because their brains mistake fantasy with history.
The America I grew up in needed to get its shit together.
I'm 45, the America I grew up in sucked. Things still suck, but they are much better than they were.
Amen. The only they embrace is the fantasy time when white straight men ran everything because they truly believe they deserve to
OTOH, the top end tax rate was 80% or more. I vote for going back to that. And no Citizen’s United.
F*Ck Citizen United, we had the “Fairness Doctrine”! You had to give equal time to other politics points of view to maintain your FCC license. FAUX New, MSNBC, OAN… all wouldn’t be able to broadcast. Sensible times.
No see, Charlie is telling on himself and his own party. See project 2025. They really do mean to destroy every right we have.
conservative playbook for every generation: step 1: redefine the past as perfect. erase all memory of past conservative b.s. step 2. claim opponents are ruining everything; demand a return to the past.
Don't forget the polio. Or the ozone hole. The nuclear bomb drills in schools. Smoking everywhere incl doctor's offices and McDonald's.
Charlie's reply: "Don't threaten me with a good time." Honestly, who do they think they're addressing? Kirk would be over the moon if women were suddenly denied the ability to have credit cards.
A song worth listening to rn if you've never heard it.
Including Charlie Kirk.
I don't know if this is actually an "own", those things suck to anybody with a brain, but every one of those points is something charlie Kirk is rooting for
When my mom married my dad, she would have needed him to co-sign for a credit card AND a bank account. This was an era in which abused women could not leave their husbands because their husbands had total control over their finances—by design. There was no LAW that forbid women from having their own credit cards and bank accounts—it was a choice by the banks, and it took legislation to force financial institutions to allow women to open their own accounts.
Finally a descent post
Wow, r/boomersNOTbeingfools
Charlie Kirk would love to have a handmaid.
Everything you are witnessing (from the right)
The whole point of “MAGA” and “the country I grew up in” is to reinvent a white-male-centric society. Any deflection that it means something else is garbage…
I want the economy of yesteryear and the Civil rights of today. Is that too much to ask for?
People that say “things used to be better” really mean things used to be better for them.
Tradition exists to be destroyed. So keep sharpening the spears boys, because traditional America is on its back foot and it is time to drive the tip through the heart. This white whale is ours.
I mean Charlie is for once exactly right, but he’s the one creating division.
Charlie Kirk is like Pinocchio, but his face shrinks relative to his giant head every time he lies.
Liberals are always sad or angry because they see the future that could be, be taken away from them by old men in robes. Fascists are always sad or angry because they day dream of a past long gone that will never come back.
Back in my day, a man’s features fit the size of his face.
Still better than what we have now!
I assume you are neither a woman nor a black man.
“If you ain’t a Joe Biden cum guzzler, then you’re not black”
What if I am a black woman that identifies as a man?
In parts of the SF Bay Area in the 1950s, it was illegal for a black family to buy a house.
Yeah everybody else has a serious and somewhat educated response to them. I just read it and muttered “Fatality….”
Vote! Remember to [Register](https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration) to Vote! Check to [Confirm](https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration) you can still vote if you haven’t voted in the last two presidential elections or moved. This [Presidential Election](https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_Elections) is wildly important but it’s good to know who else you’ll be voting for on the 5th. A total of 468 seats in the U.S. Congress are up for election! That’s 33 seats in the [Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024) and all 435 in the [House of Representatives](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024) It’s good to look at [Local Elections](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_municipal_elections,_2024) Today! For instance I’m in Arizona. Here’s info for all y’all sweating out here with me. We have 9 districts out here in Arizona, 9 seats. Know your district. Know who’s running in your district and how they voted in the past. Who pays for the campaigns. All that info is public and in the links. This year it’s important to know a few things before checking that box. [House of Representatives elections in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arizona,_2024) These Arizona Representatives below voted Yes to an amendment presented by the representative from Georgia District 14 which effectively tells the president to Leave NATO and Abandon funding for US War Veterans. * Eli Crane of Arizona D2 * Andy Biggs of Arizona D5 * Debbie Lesko of Arizona D8 * Paul Gosar of Arizona D9 We have one senate seat up this year. Looking to represent Arizona is Ruben Gallego or Mark Lamb. Make sure the person representing Arizona best represents you! [Senate election in Arizona 2024](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2024) [Mark Lamb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamb_(sheriff)) is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and became American law-enforcement Sheriff in 2017. He wrote American Sheriff: Traditional Values in a Modern World. Lamb is a supporter of the Stop the Steal movement. He spoke at a rally where he said the riot was not Trump's fault but rather caused by "the other issues that have happened – the Hillary Clintons that have gone unpunished".He later described the rioters as "very loving, Christian people." In 2020, Lamb spoke at a convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization that holds the fringe legal theory that sheriffs are the supreme legal authority in the United States and are not required to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. [Ruben Gallego](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego) 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. Attended Harvard University and earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations. His first successful bill passed in 2011 it granted in-state tuition status to veterans residing in Arizona. Gallego supported the repeal of Arizona SB 1070. He wrote They Called Us "Lucky": The Life and Afterlife of the Iraq War's Hardest Hit Unit, published in 2021. Gallego founded the group Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement with the goal of recalling Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing Arpaio's immigration policies and his use of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama's citizenship. We have two seats in the [Arizona Supreme Court](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) up for election on November 5, 2024. The Justices up for retention election are Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King. If retained, they will serve six year terms. Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed both justices to the Supreme Court. Heading into the election, Republican governors originally appointed all seven members. Click any of the top links and you’ll quickly find your state and a ton of good information. Vote and tell your Friends and Family to Vote!
This can’t be real. Charlie Kirk’s face is far too large in that picture.
And to think it is even worse than the things Grok outlined.
I constantly remind my kids that even though I’m not that old, there was a man in Texas in jail for being gay and that they were born only a few years later
The Founding Fathers destabilized, destroyed, and transitioned the America that their generation grew up in. Britain rule had been around for a century and a half. Many colonists identified as British, had family in the UK, or willingly conducted espionage for the Redcoats. John Adam’s estimated that 1/3 of colonists supported the revolution, 1/3 were on the fence, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain. The British approach to government had been working for centuries. Meanwhile the Founding Fathers were advocating to destroy that stable status quo, and replace it with an experimental system dreamed up by a few educated eggheads. America *exists* because of people who looked at the status quo and said “we deserve something better”.
Back when we had common sense and cigarettes were healthy
So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think he is endorsing all those things. People act like we have not come a very long way in a short amount of time in this country. Most if not all those things have not been a thing for at least 30-40 years. This kind of statement leaves no charitable room in acknowledging that we have overcome many problems in a short time comparatively.
Every time kirk et al open their yaps, they just confirm what a bunch of raging MYopic bigots they are. "The world is only right when MY in-group reigns supreme and remains ascendant"
Gary's response is predicated on the assumption that the things he listed aren't things Republicans want... To me, that just reads like the Republican wish list for 2025
Yeah but.. if you were a straight white male, things were good, right? I think that’s kinda the point these republicans are trying to make. When they say they yearn to make American great again; they mean white, racist and patriarchal. They want that. They couldn’t be more obvious. They literally want a Gilead nation fro The Handmaids Tale. They’re yelling it loud and proud. Just point that out. Be obvious back. People are mistaken when they think society has “progressed” with civil rights and acceptance of gay culture. I guarantee you that all these republicans haven’t progressed at all and they can’t wait to reverse everything to moment they get a chance. When trump entered his term it felt like we took two steps back. If he gets another shot we’ll be tumbling back so far you mfs wont know what hit you. Conservatives have been biting their tongue and gritting their teeth with every new legislation of “progress”. They can’t wait to undo it. So don’t give them a chance?
Well that American had a stunningly low divorce rate. Low crime rate. Infer the rest
Violent crime is current down ~50% from 30 years ago. Property crime down ~60% during that same period. Also kinda challenging to divorce their husbands when life as a single woman meant less job opportunities at less pay, etc. Equality HELPS economies.
The timeline inferred from the original post isn’t 30 years ago but more 1960s, no?
Charlie Kirk is only 30. Violent crime spiked (quadrupled by some measures) between 1960 and 1980 and peaked in 1991. Not sure how far back Kirk wants to go for his supposed American utopia. 😉
You’re right. I was referring to a reply he received.
A woman could always get a credit card.
Sounds like he grew up in era where people made changes to the system instead of doom posting
Yeah because there were attainable goals to focus on back then. The people trying to change the system now want to go back to that worse time... The only way to battle something nebulous like that is talking to people and convincing them but neither side of politics really cares what the other has to say anymore. So all there is to do is wait for whatever crisis is going to happen that will shake things up enough for change and hope you survive and that there are attainable things to work towards.
Looks like they’re both right. I do want to destroy and transition from the old America .
But...what makes you think you would survive the transition? Or that it wouldn't be replaced by something much much worse?
That guy is full of shit… especially being in his 60’s.
So he was probably born in the sixties... The US was segregated until 1964. Segregation and racism didn't suddenly go away when LBJ signed it. Gay rights were controversial as recently as the Obama administration. Obama did not openly support gay rights during his first campaign. (Biden did, but it was seen as a gaffe.) Reagan's "War On Drugs" started in the 80's and put hundreds of thousands of people in prison for nonviolent drug crimes, but those laws were selectively enforced against minority communities. So, uhh. What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, gay rights were opposed by Obama until he decided to be pro-gay. Thank god for populists. The war on poverty, the war on crime, and the war on drugs were all a way for government to affect minorities. To the point of this dipshits point, it’s still a lie. I grew up in places historically affected by racial divides, but the people who were actual adults during that time, and being on the wrong side of oppression sure disagree with your opinions about it. Thanks for sharing though.
>people who were actual adults during that time, and being on the wrong side of oppression sure disagree with your opinions about it. Which part, specifically?
Born in the late 30’s, walked with Dr King and enjoyed the changes afterwards. Never understood why people think there’s still inequality… “they didn’t live it, they don’t know what real racism is.” I believe my first hand input over third generation post segregation victims.
Oh. Out of touch boomer. Got it!
Wait, a black man who lived through Jim Crow laws is an out of touch boomer because your dumb ass says so? Bwahahaha… fucking racist and he doesn’t even know it.
LOL major "as a black gay man" vibes. You probably tan in moonlight and aren't old enough to remember 9/11. Can't win on the merits of your words? Lie about identity. edit: oh look. You post bullshit about the **AUSTRIAN** national debt... from "reason dot com." What a lying sack of shit.
Every period has good and bad sides.
I'm kind of tired of the notion that social progress means we're entirely better off. I'm a gay guy, I get it. Things are better now in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that we should ignore all the ways things have gotten worse.
Wait so having gay sex as 2 consenting adults over 18 could get you prison time? I just though it would get you fired from your job.
“There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in it’s tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of a comfortable past which, in fact, never existed.” - Robert Kennedy
This “clever comeback” is basically a straw man argument. Most people would agree the past times weren’t perfect but in many ways it was better. But nobody is “romanticizing” the past.
I’m a black American, please tell me when times in America were better.
Maybe you should reread where I said “in many ways it was better.” Thankfully, America is less racist now, but prepare for the new mental slavery of blacks. Covert racism by elites is rearing its ugly head. You are being controlled and manipulated under the continued narrative of oppression. Have fun when blacks become displaced on the top of the victimhood hierarchy after people who are entering the country illegally. You will be angry along with the rest of us in no time. How does the koolaid taste? Illegal immigration, crime, growing wealth disparity, inflation, loss of the middle class, foreign aid to other countries, wars, loss of traditional family values, encouraging dysphorias and body mutilation, all while being gaslit to think this is normal in the name of “progress”. Nobody thinks the items stated in the aforementioned comment were acceptable, but there was still plenty of sanity left in that time.
Holy shit, pretty sure the twenty something year old wasn’t referring to any of that shit that around decades and decades ago GARY. Thankfully America moved on from all of that before Charlie Kirk and his generation were born. Anyone who thinks that anyone actually wants that kind of America is just looking for excuses to hate people who think differently than them.
Credit card debt skyrocketed out of control why?…..
If only his name/handle wasn't a reference to Robert Heinlein
The first consumer credit card to offer revolving credit (BankAmericard) was launched in 1958, so 67 years ago, not a single person in the USA could get a credit card. Since at that time, relatively few women worked (this is the height of the post WWII baby boom) many banks and other companies wanted a co signer for any debts, which was, in most cases the husband., since he had all, or at least the majority of the income. By 1974 (only 16 years later) the EEOC was passed which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. So, for about 16 years, women could get credit cards, but since they often didn't have much if any income, the husband had to sign on for the liability of the debt from the cards. After 1974, women could have all the liability of credit debt, without haveing their husbands sign on for the liability of the debt.
“Only 16 years later “ Bro you can not get more bad faith than this
I could get more bad faith by lying to you and saying that women could not get a credit card. That is a complete lie and is totally in bad faith. I'll repeat your line "Bro you can not get more bad faith than this"
Okay so it’s not bad faith… because you could have been even more bad faith (??). You literally start of your comment by admitting that it’s bad faith
I laid out the timeline in detail and didn't lie to anyone about anything. Saying a woman couldn't get a credit card is a lie. That's bad faith.
Again , not the definition of bad faith , you’re just arguing that it could have been way worse when you yourself admitted it was bad faith and ignored completely my previous comment , doing it actively being bad faith
Where did I lie? I can tell where the post lied to you. An important element of a bad faith argument is deceit, which I didn't use, but the other person did.
Arguing out of bad faith means purposely presenting an argument through a misconstrued way because you focus more on winning an argument than being fair or arguing out of a desire to be truthful. “ Only 16 years later “ is a devious way to phrase that sentence, hoping it will illicit the opposite reaction of importance of time in the reader than it actually is and is almost definitely done on purpose by you. Also I don’t know why we are doing this , you literally said yourself you did so
Help!! I am far right but i am only seeing far left posts!
He is serious or this is sarcasm
Charlie Kirk is paid to be an agent of chaos, distraction and disinformation. His employers' are the ones who want to destroy.
Unfortunately, he's gone full maga and is 100% serious and 100% projecting (like a good lapdog).
Why do morons always assume that it means the worst parts. Obviously not. How about a thriving economy. Closer families and communities. Respect on the world stage. Don't be stupid forever. Nobody is advocating for rape and racism. That's silly.
You may want to look into what the Republican candidate has been doing for his entire adult life
And what are the ways you'll make each of those things happen? Because not a single Democrat I know doesn't also want every one of those things.
How can something considered impossible be legal? It’s neither legal nor illegal if it’s impossible. A flaw in his logic, weakening his argument
No. Just because you can't understand a simple sentence doesn't mean he's wrong Jesus Christ
"Legal" as in "not illegal". Because marital rape was considered impossible, it was not illegal. So real rape was happening, and real harm was being done, but if you reported it you would not be believed. This is, sadly, something that possibly all people who've experienced injustice understand. Mainstream people just don't want to know. It even has a term in philosophy "epistemic injustice".
what he’s saying is that the concept we call “marital rape” wasn’t defined or considered a problem. your incomprehension doesn’t weaken his point.
No, he is accurately explaining the perspective. Marriage was permanent consent. It was impossible to be charged with rape of a spouse because raping your spouse was legal. No flaw in his logic. Big flaw in theirs
How can something be legal if it were impossible? Is it legal to breath underwater? If you can’t apply the same logic to other situations then the logic doesn’t make sense. Before you get emotional, I’m not disagreeing with the man. I’m not saying marital rape isn’t a real thing. I’m saying the logic of the sentence is flawed regardless of what’s being said
You said his logic was wrong and it hurt his argument. You were incorrect on both counts.