Conservwarrior

Fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way. My pronoun is: Iamaloonyliberaldumbass I demand everyone that uses pronouns to address me with this pronoun.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

NEW YORKERS. If you run from New York City, this is exactly what Zohran and the Muslims of the world want. They want you to peaceably evacuate so they can take over your property, move in the Muslims from around the world, and completely take over New York in a bloodless war, and turn it into a Muslim stronghold that will slowly creep across America.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@RepCDMenefee You suppose a lot of Demonrats are stupid? Yes, everyone of them.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@EndWokeness He is stating it is the 'Law of the Jungle'.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@libsoftiktok @GovWhitmer This the spirit of all Democrats that runs through their hearts and minds.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

Stop talking, start convicting and imprisoning.

This Answer From ActBlue's CEO Threw This GOP Rep Through a Loop https://t.co/wMbGBWFQAk

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@TrumpsHurricane Go back to the Jungle.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

That is stupid. There should have been only one "Most Influential Peron In Sports" and that should be Catilin Clark. That should have started rating everyone else starting somewhere below 100 spots.

Caitlin Clark Fans Go Off on Fever Management After Clark is Named in TIME's 100 Most Influential People in Sports https://t.co/Q99ZCOXC4X

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

No one can blame these kids, the are all just acting like their parents.

WATCH: Hundreds of Black Kids and Teens Brawl During St. Louis Suburb's '6-7 Event' at Trampoline Park, Butcher Knife Seized from 12-Year-Old Girl Who Ubered in to Join the Mayhem https://t.co/NKVJyK3y4p #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

No one can blame these kids, they are all just acting like their parents.

WATCH: 55 Kids and Teens Charged in Massive Hersheypark Opening Day Brawl That Forced Families to Hide, Part of 'Teen Takeover' Trend Turning Public Spaces into War Zones https://t.co/D5NKJqR1wF #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

These children were not raised to love God and proclaim that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior.

WATCH: Hundreds of Black Kids and Teens Brawl During St. Louis Suburb's '6-7 Event' at Trampoline Park, Butcher Knife Seized from 12-Year-Old Girl Who Ubered in to Join the Mayhem https://t.co/NKVJyK3y4p #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

This is what happens when you bring the jungle into your country.

SICKENING VIDEO: Evil Mob of Karmelo Anthony Supporters Follow and Harass Grieving Metcalf Family Outside Courthouse After 35-Year Sentence, 'We Glad Austin’s Dead!' https://t.co/FLB6uTQtbX #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@Keir_Starmer You are insane to not expect this kind of reaction from the attempted beheading that you caused. This is ALL on you.

Anti-Beheading Rioters Will ‘Feel Full Force of the Law‘, Warns Starmer https://t.co/lT7UJlUdQO via @BreitbartNews

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@PritzkerForPrez @GovPritzker The world sees and hears you. What we are seeing and hearing is your evil.

Pritzker Blames Chicago Bears for Stadium Collapse Despite $2 Billion Private Offer — Then Lies About Billions Spent on Illegal Migrants and Blames Abbott Instead https://t.co/I9lM4LwQW4 #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@nytimes SuperGrok says that if you would run all your articles through it before you published them, then you may have the ability to stop the downward spiral of your credability.

SuperGrok: The New York Times’ handling of Lyndsey Fifield’s account in its story on Graham Platner’s past relationships raises serious concerns about how the paper treats sources and shapes politically sensitive allegations.

Fifield dated Platner roughly 2013–2015. She described repeated physical intimidation and control—being grabbed hard enough to bruise, yanked out of a cab, and on one occasion having her arm twisted behind her back before being shoved into a bedroom with the door held shut from the outside while Platner told her to stay until she calmed down. She has emphasized the power imbalance: she weighed about 120 pounds and reached a point where she felt forcing the door open would leave her unsafe. She also alleges he referred to his controversial chest tattoo as “my Totenkopf,” directly contradicting Platner’s public claim that he did not understand its Nazi-linked significance until years later.

Multiple women described Platner’s behavior in relationships as volatile, toxic, demeaning, and unsettling. Platner has denied the physical allegations, called them politically motivated lies, and attributed past issues to undiagnosed PTSD from his Marine service. These are contested, decade-old claims without contemporaneous police reports or medical documentation, so independent evidence and corroboration matter greatly.

Fifield was a reluctant source. According to her detailed account, New York Times journalists approached her, told her other women were terrified to come forward, urged her to band together with them, promised protection, and asked her not to speak to other outlets. She agreed and kept her word. She provided diary pages, screenshots, contacts, and names of friends she had confided in years earlier—long before Platner ran for office.

What appeared in the published story, by her account and subsequent reporting, fell far short of those assurances. Her most serious physical allegations were buried nearly halfway through the piece. The story devoted extensive space to her work history with Republican campaigns and right-leaning groups—more than was given to key aspects of Platner’s own background in some framings—while allegedly omitting or downplaying offered corroboration. It reportedly stated that “nobody could corroborate” despite the sources she provided. Out-of-context quotes were included, and screenshots she supplied were not used. Other women’s accounts she expected to see did not appear as promised.

Additional reporting has since surfaced further details she shared: a former roommate, Caroline Lee, corroborates that Fifield confided about the cab incident and felt she needed to be cautious around Platner’s temper. Four friends from that period confirm she confided concerns about his mental state and struggles tied to his military service, including statements about wanting to die in combat. A July 2016 diary entry (after the relationship ended) describes his jealousy as frightening enough that she moved to get away, writing that he “didn’t want me but didn’t want anyone else to have me either.”

The New York Times has stated that the story “accurately presents each of these accounts as told to our reporters and according to our standards.” That may be narrowly true, but it does not resolve the larger problems: recruiting a source with promises of a group exposé and protection, then delivering a piece that heavily featured the accuser’s conservative political ties in ways that immediately armed the Platner campaign with a “lifelong GOP operative” dismissal. When the internal motivation expressed to the source was “Men can’t keep getting away with this,” but the execution prioritized framing that softened the impact on the Democratic Senate candidate, the disconnect is hard to overlook.

This is not an isolated issue. Legacy outlets have a documented pattern of asymmetric scrutiny—more aggressive and less hedged when the target aligns with one political side, more cautious and context-heavy when it does not. In a competitive Senate race, those choices have consequences. Fifield describes overriding her own conservative skepticism and friends’ advice because she believed the Times would handle a painful personal story with care. She now feels that trust was misplaced and that the story was shaped in ways that protected the political figure more than it served the victims who came forward.

Domestic violence and coercive control allegations deserve serious investigation. So do questions of journalistic process when sources report being overpromised, selectively edited, and then politically weaponized by the very framing choices the paper made. Readers and future sources are paying attention. The gap between what was promised to Lyndsey Fifield and what ultimately appeared is one more reason many Americans no longer trust legacy media institutions to report these matters impartially.

The Free Press: 'Graham Platner's Ex-Girlfriend Wants to Set the Record Straight'

[Lyndsey Fifield @lyndseyfifield]

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.

As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.

But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.

After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?

Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?

Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).

Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?

The editors said it was too much, they explained.

The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.

And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.

Still fawning after all these years.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@EndWokeness @JasmineForUS @RepJasmine You have to be the most unintelligent person in the world.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@nytimes SuperGrok says that if you would run all your articles through it before you published them, then you may have the ability to stop the downward spiral of your credability.

SuperGrok: The New York Times’ handling of Lyndsey Fifield’s account in its story on Graham Platner’s past relationships raises serious concerns about how the paper treats sources and shapes politically sensitive allegations.

Fifield dated Platner roughly 2013–2015. She described repeated physical intimidation and control—being grabbed hard enough to bruise, yanked out of a cab, and on one occasion having her arm twisted behind her back before being shoved into a bedroom with the door held shut from the outside while Platner told her to stay until she calmed down. She has emphasized the power imbalance: she weighed about 120 pounds and reached a point where she felt forcing the door open would leave her unsafe. She also alleges he referred to his controversial chest tattoo as “my Totenkopf,” directly contradicting Platner’s public claim that he did not understand its Nazi-linked significance until years later.

Multiple women described Platner’s behavior in relationships as volatile, toxic, demeaning, and unsettling. Platner has denied the physical allegations, called them politically motivated lies, and attributed past issues to undiagnosed PTSD from his Marine service. These are contested, decade-old claims without contemporaneous police reports or medical documentation, so independent evidence and corroboration matter greatly.

Fifield was a reluctant source. According to her detailed account, New York Times journalists approached her, told her other women were terrified to come forward, urged her to band together with them, promised protection, and asked her not to speak to other outlets. She agreed and kept her word. She provided diary pages, screenshots, contacts, and names of friends she had confided in years earlier—long before Platner ran for office.

What appeared in the published story, by her account and subsequent reporting, fell far short of those assurances. Her most serious physical allegations were buried nearly halfway through the piece. The story devoted extensive space to her work history with Republican campaigns and right-leaning groups—more than was given to key aspects of Platner’s own background in some framings—while allegedly omitting or downplaying offered corroboration. It reportedly stated that “nobody could corroborate” despite the sources she provided. Out-of-context quotes were included, and screenshots she supplied were not used. Other women’s accounts she expected to see did not appear as promised.

Additional reporting has since surfaced further details she shared: a former roommate, Caroline Lee, corroborates that Fifield confided about the cab incident and felt she needed to be cautious around Platner’s temper. Four friends from that period confirm she confided concerns about his mental state and struggles tied to his military service, including statements about wanting to die in combat. A July 2016 diary entry (after the relationship ended) describes his jealousy as frightening enough that she moved to get away, writing that he “didn’t want me but didn’t want anyone else to have me either.”

The New York Times has stated that the story “accurately presents each of these accounts as told to our reporters and according to our standards.” That may be narrowly true, but it does not resolve the larger problems: recruiting a source with promises of a group exposé and protection, then delivering a piece that heavily featured the accuser’s conservative political ties in ways that immediately armed the Platner campaign with a “lifelong GOP operative” dismissal. When the internal motivation expressed to the source was “Men can’t keep getting away with this,” but the execution prioritized framing that softened the impact on the Democratic Senate candidate, the disconnect is hard to overlook.

This is not an isolated issue. Legacy outlets have a documented pattern of asymmetric scrutiny—more aggressive and less hedged when the target aligns with one political side, more cautious and context-heavy when it does not. In a competitive Senate race, those choices have consequences. Fifield describes overriding her own conservative skepticism and friends’ advice because she believed the Times would handle a painful personal story with care. She now feels that trust was misplaced and that the story was shaped in ways that protected the political figure more than it served the victims who came forward.

Domestic violence and coercive control allegations deserve serious investigation. So do questions of journalistic process when sources report being overpromised, selectively edited, and then politically weaponized by the very framing choices the paper made. Readers and future sources are paying attention. The gap between what was promised to Lyndsey Fifield and what ultimately appeared is one more reason many Americans no longer trust legacy media institutions to report these matters impartially.

The Free Press: 'Graham Platner's Ex-Girlfriend Wants to Set the Record Straight' https://t.co/tgMOzZOGN8

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

They are doing this - not to protect them from the evils of Leftist social media, but to sheild them from reading great things about Conservativism.

Canada Prepares to Ban Social Media for Children Under 16 https://t.co/2Vo1ztcqCz via @BreitbartNews

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

How about you check all your stupid ass comments through SuperGrok first before you make and ass of yourself:

SuperGrok: The tweet is pedantically wrong and selectively outraged.

The actual law
36 U.S. Code § 301 (Conduct during playing of the national anthem) says:

People in uniform render the military salute.
Members of the Armed Forces and veterans not in uniform may render the military salute.
"All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart."

On a strict, literal reading, the President (a civilian not in uniform and not a veteran) falls into the "all other persons" bucket. Critics love this gotcha.

The reality that the critics ignore
The President is not just any civilian. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Military customs and courtesies have long recognized this unique status:

Official Navy and joint service guidance explicitly states that the President, as Commander in Chief, is always saluted by military personnel.

This is not "stolen valor." It is the civilian head of the military receiving the courtesy due the office.

The tradition of presidents rendering the salute during the anthem (or when reviewing troops) goes back decades. Ronald Reagan popularized the visible, sharp salute. Subsequent presidents (including Trump) have continued it. It signals respect for the military and the chain of command the President sits at the top of.

The Flag Code / 36 USC 301 is etiquette guidance, not criminal law. There is no enforcement mechanism and no penalty. It has been amended before (e.g., to let veterans salute even when not in uniform). Treating it as an ironclad gotcha against one president while ignoring the constitutional office and longstanding custom is selective pedantry.

Bottom line
The reply in the thread is correct: "The president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces." That changes the analysis. A president choosing to render a crisp military salute during the anthem is showing respect for the troops and the office — not violating some sacred civilian-only rule. The AI-generated meme and "unless you are this guy" framing is just partisan trolling dressed up as flag-code purity.

Trump does it visibly and unapologetically. That's why it triggers the people who dislike him. The law + custom + tradition support him doing it.

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@nicksortor If this is a "racist ass country" then why don't you get yourselves out of it?

[Conservwarrior @Conservwarrior2]

@PoliticsReid @targetsmart @tbonier If you are getting your data from mail in ballots, then those increases are due to fraud.