look Alabama already grifted those contracts over Colorado
no takebacks
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
150 points (98.7% liked)
conservative
1651 readers
10 users here now
A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing "ideals".
This community (now) exists as a pressure valve, a place to process through humor the often frustrating world of conservative politics. Above all, this is NOT the place for serious conservative support/viewpoints/arguments. There are other places on Lemmy for that if you desire it.
Rules:
-
Always follow .world instance rules
-
Parody With Purpose: This is a space for humorous takes on conservative politics. We welcome satire, but draw the line at content that promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry.
-
Memes Over Manifestos: This community focuses on humor and parody, not serious political debate. There are plenty of spaces for earnest conservative discussion, this isn’t one of them.
-
Highlight Contradictions: Sometimes the best content points out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in conservative talking points. Creative commentary is encouraged.
-
Public Figures Fair Game: Politicians and pundits can be satirized, but no targeting of private individuals, doxxing, or harassment.
Children of public figures under the age of 14 are also off-limits, a 16 year old has enough free agency to break with or adopt their parents views. An 8 year old kid doesn't.
-
No News Zone: Memes only, news or other serious content should be sent to the nearest relevant comm. Meme's of current events, however, are encouraged.
-
Clear Satire: Make your satirical intent reasonably clear. We’re here to mock bad ideas, not accidentally spread them. If you're unsure how it will be taken, feel free to DM the mod team ahead of time or explicitly tag it as satire in the body.
A note on ChadMcTruth: Chad's content is 100% satire, but his work can sometimes be hard to tell, but if he posted it be assured, its satire.
- Relevant Content: All posts should relate to conservative politics or ideologies in some way somewhere in your post. Either in the title or the meme itself.
For more general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
-
Community Respect: Disagree with fellow members all you want, but personal attacks aren’t welcome. Save the criticism for the ideas, not each other.
-
Moderation Discretion: Mods will use reasonable judgment in applying these rules. We’ll be fair, but firm. These kinds of comms have a tendency to get off the rails, so we might seem overzealous in moderation sometimes.
-
For the moment, i'm allowing properly tagged NSFW content as long as its funny and relevant. Don't make me regret it.
And above all, HAVE FUN!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Really don't like the conflict between two definitions of the word "drop" in that post. "Drop" meaning to publish something new, or "drop" meaning to give up and cease doing something?
The context clues are enough.
An unelected senator can't drop legislation because they can only drop legislation they've proposed and an unelected senator doesn't have any.
I think your comment also needs some work.
- Your comment implies that a senator cannot drop legislation by virtue of being appointed and hence "unelected".
- A person who knows that is not true would be led to instead believe that the person in question is being described as "unelected" because they have not yet been elected to office and therefore do not hold office.
- In reality, you are using the word "unelected" as an (what you believe to be) insulting epithet to describe the fact that she's been appointed, not realising that the meaning you have communicated is that either (1) she doesn't hold office at all and therefore cannot drop legislation, or (2) she cannot drop legislation by virtue of being appointed, neither of which are true.
I can see how it implies all of that to someone who doesn't have a deep enough understand of the United States senate process to understand the context clues.
My explanation was not meant as an eli5 because you didn't ask for one.
When someone says something I don't understand, I work to expand my understanding.
If I need someone to explain something, I ask pointed questions. I don't make assumptions and then claim my confusion of those assumptions is someone else's communication problem.
I stand by my claim that there are enough context clues to figure it out.
You're claiming my explanation is inadequate. To which I can only say, I owe you nothing.
I do not claim you "owe" me anything. I'm offering feedback on your communication. You are free to reject that feedback and call me names if you want.