Yes, I know a fair amount about this tranny. I watch the popular outlets for Cultural Marxist subversion, so that I know what we're fighting, and so that I'm not ignorant when I talk about them. Why am I flipping out? Consider the following: >Listen, Bros. I'm not saying I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, but let's be honest that she was a conservative and relatively based. RELATIVELY, you know, because I can find someone worse. Do you see how stupid that sounds? If right-wing conversations were muddied with that type of misleading messaging during the 2016 election, do you really think that would have no possible effect? Or, to make a more generalized point - why is the GOP full of RINOs that would have been considered liberal by 1990's standards, and radical leftists by 1950's standards? Because we, the conservative public, keep allowing our standards to slip regarding what is conservative. We keep accepting the idea that, since our opposition has moved drastically to the extreme left, anyone who is not as far as them should be recognized as more acceptable. But relying on that comparison means that that the Overton Window keeps shifting left, and the Cultural Marxists gain more and more control. That is why I take the time to argue against this kind of misuse of words, this slipping of standards. Contrapoints is not a conservative, even by today's use of that term, let alone a more reasonable definition of conservative. Contrapoints is only "relatively based" in the same way a punch to the face is "relatively friendly" compared to a bullet.