Suspicion Confirmed: New Poll Reveals Who the Most Intolerant Students in America Are
By: C. Douglas Golden
Let's Go Brandon wrapping paper.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By C. Douglas Golden December 13, 2021 at 7:15am
Surprise, surprise: The least-tolerant political side in American colleges isn’t the right.
According to a new poll from Generation Lab and Axios , far more Democratic students wouldn’t date or be friends with someone who voted for the opposing candidate in the presidential election than Republican students. They also wouldn’t patronize their businesses or work for them.
(It’s no surprise that the left has become increasingly intolerant over the last decade, particularly with media rhetoric fomenting the myth of the rise of a uniquely authoritarian right wing in America. We’ve been documenting this myth-making here at The Western Journal — and pointing out the myriad flaws in the narrative.
According to the poll, released Wednesday, an overwhelming percentage of college Democrats say they wouldn’t date a Republican — 71 percent. Only 31 percent of Republicans said they wouldn’t date a Democrat.
Forty-one percent of Democratic collegians wouldn’t shop with or support the business of a Republican, compared with only 7 percent of Republicans who said the same thing about Democrats. When it came to friendship, 37 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t offer that to someone with opposing views, compared to 5 percent of Republicans. Thirty percent of Democrats also said they wouldn’t work for someone who voted for the opposing presidential candidates versus 7 percent of Republicans.
“Partisan divides — as each side inhabits parallel political, cultural and media universes — make a future of discord and distrust in the U.S. all the more likely,” Axios’ Neal Rothschild wrote. “Democrats argue that modern GOP positions, spearheaded by former President Trump — are far outside of the mainstream and polite conversation.”
Women were more likely to behave in a partisan manner than men, with only 41 percent of the women polled saying they would go out with someone who had opposing viewpoints. Sixty-seven percent of men said they would.
If you still aren’t convinced by the numbers, I give you Salon writer Amanda Marcotte. Reacting to conservatives who used the numbers as proof of an intolerant left , Marcotte wrote a piece called, “Young Democrats are right: There is no reason to date or befriend Trump voters.”
Her argument: You can’t be friends with the other side because something something threat to our democracy blah blah Jan. 6 , and therefore, Republicans are icky.
“On the right, there was a lot of trumpeting how this supposedly proves the left are the ones who are ‘really’ intolerant. Radio talker Matt Murphy whined that liberals ‘don’t believe in our republic cannot abide people who think differently than them.’ As if not getting to have sex with or go to parties with liberals is exactly the same as having your basic rights as a citizen stripped from you,” she wrote.
“This is about desirability, not ‘tolerance.’ Democrats are desirable as friends and lovers, not just to their fellow party members, but to Republicans, as well. But Republicans? They apparently don’t have much to offer to Democrats as friends, and certainly not as lovers,” she continued.
Marcotte also noted “a Harvard poll from last week shows ‘[m]ore than half of young Americans feel democracy in the country is under threat, and over a third think they may see a second U.S. civil war within their lifetimes.’ This isn’t about a dispute over marginal tax rates. If you — quite correctly — believe that Republicans are plotting to destroy democracy, then why would you want to be friends with people who support that?”
In Marcotte’s reductionist view, this poll was somehow proof of which side was more attractive as human beings — and liberals were the popular kids, while conservatives were creepy losers.
This is laundered through feigned concerns about Jan. 6 and imagined threats to democracy , but Marcotte seems to ably prove the point Matt Murphy “whined” about: She believes Democrats shouldn’t date, befriend or patronize Republicans because of a presupposition the only moral people in this country are on the left.
In her formulation, Republicans somehow seem to know this deep down, which is why they want “to have sex with or go to parties with liberals” — but no, no, a thousand times no ! screams Marcotte. The cool kids need to keep the riff-raff out; this isn’t about those marginal tax rates , after all, but preserving our democracy.
A functioning democracy, however, requires sides that are at least willing to talk to one another. Republicans aren’t going to go away, unwilling to befriend them though Democrats may be, and othering the opposing political side as dangerous, anti-democratic reactionaries who ought to be treated like radioactive waste won’t just force Republicans to start behaving like good Democrats would.
The rest of the piece deals with straw men and fallacies — but this is hardly surprising, considering that’s what got us to this point in the first place.
No one on the right is saying, because collegiate liberals refuse to befriend them, it’s like “having your basic rights as a citizen stripped from you,” as Marcotte argues. Rather, we’re saying it augurs poorly for the country when everyone is reduced to their political affiliation and socialization is balkanized thusly. When politics becomes so all-consuming that you can’t even be the acquaintance of someone who cast a vote differently from you, we’ll have a nation full of … well, insufferable people like Amanda Marcotte. Nice work.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
We already have a nation full of insufferable people. . .
Yeah. The MAGA. The Q nuts. And of course the Putin boot polishers.
That is what the political left is to the rest of us.
We do not worship Trump. Believe in Q crap. Wish to force religion down others' throats. We accept CHOICE. Nor side with Carlson's right wing pro Putin stance.
They're way more than his boot polishers.
Not only that but when they leave college and cease being students, their intolerance levels continue to escalate through out their lives as they inflict it upon their children and grandchildren
I could have told you that having experienced the same sort of nonsense in the late 70's, early 80's.
Kids that age don't know what they don't know yet.
I went to college 1979-1985 with off time and major change and the first part was the local jr college, when we went from purple to red. I did a college Republicans voter registration booth when Reagan ran and the divisions were there but much more tolerance on both sides. I had an elderly FDR democrat poly sci professor and he was a great role model that no longer exists. At the private college I went to later, almost everyone who was into politics was conservative.
My counselor was a German socialist and we got along too. Times have changed.
National Socialist?
No. A borderline near communist except that he is a devout Christian which a communist can’t be
I remember those years!
Well, you know, slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow weren't tolerant, inclusive celebrations of diversity. Why would it be surprising that the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow would continue to be intolerant? Intolerance has been the core practice of that political party for 200 years.
The real unvarnished history bears that out. They may be able to fake history but they can't change who they are.
Yes, the party of white Christian conservatives who celebrated all things confederate, erected the monuments to confederate generals, flew their confederate flags proudly signifying their continued loyalty to confederate ideology, opposed interracial marriage and opposed gays and gay marriage, were a huge majority in Southern States and thus elected white Christian conservatives into office to maintain control over those Southern States. I wonder which party they most resemble today...
Perhaps the party of white Christian conservatives who celebrate all things confederate, protect the monuments to confederate generals, fly their confederate flags proudly signifying their continued loyalty to confederate ideology, oppose gays and gay marriage, are a huge majority in Southern States and thus elect white Christian conservatives into office to maintain control over those Southern States...
As for the article, claiming Democrats are intolerant because a majority of their youth wouldn't date a Republican isn't really a bad type of intolerance, it's simply being intolerant of the intolerant. If a friend is having a party and says everyone is invited, but you tell them to uninvite the gays, the transgender Americans and the poor inner-city minority kids, and your friend says "Hell no, if you have a problem with them then you're not invited", who's really being the intolerant one? The majority of young people today embrace diversity and equality and see right wing conservative values as poison which is why I'm not surprised so many of them said they wouldn't date a Republican since that party today has continually fought against diversity and equality.
Lol .... now there is a beauty of a rationalization.
That one might take rationalization of the year ...... reminds me of a Judge Smails line in Caddyshack:
"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."
Like being "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty"...? Seems like a contradiction but on closer examination one can make an excuse for wanting someone to be put to death even though they claim they're pro-life, just like one can have a valid excuse for being 'intolerant' in certain circumstances while still considering oneself 'tolerant'.
Would it be impossible to want someone like Jeffery Dahmer put to death while still considering oneself 'pro-life'? Would it be impossible to refuse to eat a meal with or date someone like Jeffery Dahmer while still considering oneself 'tolerant'?
That seldom happens in the America of 2021.
[deleted]
Pure partisans are intolerant strikes me as the accurate, honest assessment of political reality.
[deleted]
What utter bullshit slop. The vast majority of Democrats are Christians regardless of what some right wing conservatives who consider themselves the arbiters of who is Christian or not say.
The vast majority of American Jews are Democrats, and a majority of Democrats are white and virtually every one enjoys our freedom and capitalism while also understanding that unrestrained capitalism is destructive to society.
Your comment is just another example of the absolute horseshit coming out of right wing conservatives these days that live in their own little universe detached from reality, which is likely why few rational youths would ever consider dating one. Only someone with severe mental disabilities would choose to date someone who lives in the realm of Qanon conspiracy theories and defend those who attacked our nation and tried to overturn a free and fair election.
The party names have little to do with the ideology and the fact remains, the right wing white Christian conservatives back then have FAR more in common with modern day right wing Christian conservative REPUBLICANS than they do with any Democrat today.
I see you ignored the facts I presented once again in order to just throw out the party label as if it means something to anyone with more than half a brain who can clearly see the night and day differences between the Southern conservative Democrats of over half a century ago and modern day Democrats as well as the many similarities between the Southern conservative Democrats of over half a century ago and modern day conservative Republicans. Trying to obfuscate the truth behind weak arguments about a party label is beyond ignorant, its just plain fucking stupid.
And yet we are here and we aren’t going away or changing what we believe in or limiting the expression of such.
Either the left will reach out to conservatives and dialogue with us as equals with a valid and honestly held belief system or we have two Americas. It’s that simple.
Seems like the 'right' are guilty of the WLB syndrome.
It's not about whitewashing anything, it's about accepting what some did, apologizing to those who you may have hurt, and then changing. If you're not willing to do that, if you never want to admit you've made a mistake and you're unwilling to give up your prejudice and cling to the old white conservative Christian bigotry that was rampant in the South, then you're more likely to have looked for a different political party that embraced your white conservative Christian values.
Robert Byrd is a famous example. He was once a vocal opponent of the civil rights act and opposed integration and was a member of the KKK.
Later in his life he expressed regret for his bigotry and prejudice, he apologized to those he had acted so discriminatory toward, and he changed. For the 2003–2004 session, the NAACP rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the NAACP's position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently." Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".
That's not whitewashing anything, that's accepting responsibility and working hard for change.
Right wing conservative Christians on the other hand seem to double down on their love for all things confederate, consistently protect monuments to treasonous confederate generals that most black Americans, liberals and progressives find offensive, claim that trying to give the systemically oppressed a hand up is somehow reverse racism against whites, refuse to even recognize that racism still exists in America, are desperately trying to stop any teaching in our schools about racism, and continue to support the least diverse political party in our Nation. Oh, and on top of all that they desperately pretend that all the white conservative Christian majority that once ruled the South as Southern Democrats somehow moved away or all died off instead of just changing political parties to the party that shared their white conservative Christian values and prejudices. To this day they still reject diversity, oppose lgtbq Americans and gay marriage and oppose women having control over their own bodies. That's right, white conservative Southern Democrats were pro-life, another thing they share with their modern day white conservative Christian Republican counterparts.
100% Progressives were either racists themselves (President Wilson) or more than happy to support and promote Jim Crow Democrats as long as they supported the party (FDR).
They've just switched the targets of their racist behavior. But for the last 200 years the Democrats have always been the party of institutional racial discrimination,
I laid out numerous facts, your response is to spell out "sure" like a petulant preteen who's failing English.
Why not just answer my question? Even with your label added, you still refuse to admit to the obvious answer.
"Yes, the DEMOCRATIC party of white Christian conservatives who celebrated all things confederate, erected the monuments to confederate generals, flew their confederate flags proudly signifying their continued loyalty to confederate ideology, opposed interracial marriage and opposed gays and gay marriage, were a huge majority in Southern States and thus elected white Christian conservatives into office to maintain control over those Southern States. I wonder which party they most resemble today...?
Clearly they do not resemble the liberal progressive Democrats of today that support gay rights, gay marriage, diversity, equality, the removal of confederate monuments, the banning of confederate flags from government buildings and they certainly aren't the white Christian conservatives who elect nearly all white Christian conservatives to maintain control over the Southern States. How is that not obvious to anyone with more than half a brain?
I only mentioned a party and not by name. Apparently the intolerance of that unnamed party is so apparent that you know which one it is. The name of the party doesn't even have to be mentioned to recognize it for what it is.
When did 'white Christian conservatives' become a political party? I'd bet you'd be among to first to claim that the Constitution separates the church and state. I'd bet you'd be among to first to claim that Christian views are prohibited from government. Yet, here you are trying to bring Christians into political discussion of an unnamed political party. That doesn't seem to be a very tolerant generalization. In fact, that would seem to be intolerant bigotry.
One political party has engaged in intolerance, bigotry, and hate speech for 200 years. And I don't even need to mention the name of the party; everyone knows which party it is.
Haters are claiming they hate haters. Well, of course they do; haters gotta hate. They're gaslighting their own circle jerk intolerance.
Well, there ya go again. You've fallen for the party of intolerance gaslighting you.
We know which party was created as a progressive party. We know which party was created as a conservative party. We know which party was created to be a progressive conservative party.
And we know that the party of intolerance was not created to be either progressive or conservative. And the names of the parties don't even need to be mentioned; we know which party is which.
Yes, progressive conservatives are not going silently into the night. Persecution only makes martyrs. How will the party of intolerance silence martyrs?
Woodrow Wilson was not affiliated with the progressive conservative party. Woodrow Wilson was affiliated with the party of intolerance.
We know which party was created to be a progressive conservative party. And we know which party was created on racial divisions, white supremacy, and intolerance. The names don't even need to be mentioned to recognize them for what they are.
I accept history, racist white conservative Christian Southerners did vote Southern Democrat for over a century. When have I ever said anything different. What you continue to refuse to admit is that modern day white conservative Christian Republicans who now run the south very much resemble the white conservative Christian Democrats of half a century ago.
Such incoherent ignorance
Don't forget that most white liberals hate blacks, and use them simply for the votes. Unfortunately, most blacks are not recognizing this.
So what? The democratic party is anti-church. What has the democrat party said about people who claim exemption to anything based on religious beliefs? What did Obama do to the Little Sisters of the poor? What does the party say about the Catholic Church's stand on abortion?
The vast majority of American Jews are Democrats.
The vast majority of American Jews were brought up in a liberal culture. They vote democrat despite the anti-Semitism of the democratic party.
and a majority of Democrats are white
And many of them were indoctrinated to feel white guilt.
Your comment is just another example of the absolute horseshit
And your comments were an example of leftist hate. Not dating someone because they have a different political belief is a form of bigotry.
tried to overturn a free and fair election.
As Hillary Clinton tried to do in 2016. The moral of the story is don't try to change election laws, mail out a gazillion ballots and have activists run elections and maybe you'll have the consent of the losers!
I rest my case!
Are you Christian? Do you believe that God, family, country, and community, in that order, are more important than yourself?
You don't need to answer; I certainly am not expecting you to publicly reveal anything.
Christians are progressive. The Lord's prayer is very progressive and not regressive. If you are a Christian then you are a progressive, like it or not. You can't follow the teachings of Christ and be regressive; those are incompatible. Christianity is more inclusive and diverse than secular society has ever achieved.
Believing that God, family, country, and community are more important than self is conservative. Conservatives believe that the social order is more important than themselves. Conservatism is not a celebration of self.
If you answer 'yes' to both questions then you are a progressive conservative. That's who you are whether you like it or not.
Counter-revolutionaries are regressive. And those who believe their freedoms are more important than God, family, country, and community are liberals. The party of intolerance is a party of regressive liberals. And there isn't any need to mention the name of the party; we all know which party it is.
Byrd is a fantastic example. He apologized for his actions and changed his behavior.
The current problem is the demand from exceedingly vocal groups of liberals that all of us apologize. Whether we have ever been in the KKK or demonstrated racist behavior or have anything at all to apologize for is immaterial.
They feel bad, so we must apologize. They have an overwhelming sense of guilt, so we must all validate their feelings in whatever way they see fit to demand.
Or....if we're remotely honest....that white liberals and progressives include in their never ending list of shit they find offensive.
Complete nonsense and you know it. It's sadly hilarious to me that nobody can ever seem to point to a single clause in any one of these "anti-CRT" laws that they actually object to.
also, how he obsessively labels them Christians, as if the abolitionist/Republican movement weren't Christian. I don't see anyone talking about calling Lincoln's Republican Party, the Christian Republican Party, even though they were overwhelmingly Christian.
Its' just a heavy handed attempt to justify bigotry. Neither Christianity, nor geography was a defining characteristic of the Democratic Party, support for slavery was.
There's really no other reason to include it, since it's not at all a defining charactheric. Democrats were overwhelmingly Christian. Republicans were overwhelming Christian. The whole country was overwhelmingly Christian. To single out slavery supporters as Christian is just a blatant attempt at guilt by association. They certainly don't seem to emphasize the Christian impetus behind the abolitionist movement.
Except now they are worse. Some are pro Putin.
You don't have a case. Especially by ignoring this last century.
How many black Republicans have been elected to Congress in the past 90 years ?
I'm pointing out to you that the premise of your idea is ridiculous. If the present day Democratic and Republican parties hadn't switched positions on race from the long past black Republicans would be running and winning in majority black congressional districts.
Vic was right about what he said and right to say it here.
That sums it up quite well.
The thing is that the GOP now that it is oriented to to working and middle class is attracting more minority support and more minority office holders and candidates for office. Thanks largely to President Trump
The domain of the political far left…
Amen, brother. Preach it!
They don't "recognize" that because it's blatantly false. Please do prove how "most white liberals hate blacks". If you can't then you can shove your moronic ridiculous lie where the sun doesn't shine.
Bullshit.
They support religious freedom. For fucks sake, I could go join the Church of Satan if I wanted to, no one is being denied their religious rights. That lie is a complete conservative fantasy that comes from their ceaseless whining and claiming victimhood because the majority has stopped validating their every whim and doctrine.
Not a God damn thing. Were any of them forced to get an abortion or buy contraceptives? No. They were required to buy health insurance for their employees and because the ACA required those policies to include coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B they lost their fucking minds and sued.
They say if you don't want one, then don't get one. Are any Catholics forced to get abortions by Democrats? Of course not, they can worship exactly the way they want.
Total horse shit. They vote Democrat because they know the Democratic party isn't anti-Semitic.
Right wing conservative are basically saying that black Americans, Jewish Americans, Catholic Americans and other brands of Christian Americans must be extremely stupid and gullible for voting Democratic which, if you believed the conservative liars, is anti-Semitic, anti-diversity, anti-Christian and trying to burn down America. It's total unadulterated bullshit but that's what many right wing conservative Christian bigots believe in their alternate universe where up is down, confederates were righteous and should be fondly remembered, systemic racism is a myth, you're only Jewish or Christian if some conservative Christian has deemed you so, Democrats eat babies and force abortions on believers and a thrice married serial adulterer and accused sexual predator is their ideal leader.
It appears that your comments are a perfect example of "leftist hate", they are chock full of hate, vitriol and ridicule for those on the left politically, and not a fucking word in them is actually true because you clearly have your head shoved so deep in that right wing alternate universe you wouldn't know reality if it bit off your legs.
You can count on it!
Who smeared Sen. Tim Scott as 'Uncle Tim' (or Uncle Tom) because he dared deliver a conservative rebuttal to Pres. Biden's first address?
The party that 'switched positions' wasn't defending Sen. Tim Scott. The party of intolerance doesn't even bother to hide it's racial epitaphs behind 'dog whistles'. The party of intolerance can claim fake history but they can't change who they are.
I'm glad you agree with me. Over 95% of black congresspeople since the start of the FDR administration have been Democrats.
Next we'll hear that the Tea Party was a bunch of Democrats.
People are only being denied the right to govern themselves. The United States is predominantly Christian, so, democracy favors Christianity. Yet those claiming to support freedom of religion expressly prohibit religion having a say in governing.
The so-called freedom of religion is undemocratically restricting the people's right to govern themselves to a secular atheists' world view. The separation of church and state was not intended to deny people a voice in government because they hold religious beliefs.
Liberals are still liberals and conservatives are still conservatives no matter the name. This is an old and tired play with words.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So the legislature is barred constitutionally from making any law as to establishing a religion. If you are a Christian you can allow your faith to guide your votes in Congress, but you can't put forth a bill that says "My Christian bible says homosexuality is a sin therefore I want to make a law than bans homosexuality". That would be establishing Christianity and the bible as the law of the land, not the constitution.
You can have a voice, you just can't force others to obey your religious doctrines, that would be shitting on the constitution and rejecting everything our founders created for us and turn us into just another shitty theocracy.
You can worship however you like, you can be as pious as you like, never get an abortion, never get gay married, never take Gods name in vain, you can be as religious as you like in America. What you can't do is force your faith on others by using the congress and legislature to be the fucking American moral police and stick your religious nose in everyone else's business. As a recent meme here noted, a true Christian spends their time helping others and controlling themselves, a fake useless piece of trash pseudo Christian spends their time trying to control others while helping themselves. It's pretty clear as to which category many right wing conservative Republicans fall into and it isn't the first.
Yes, and still, not a single one of the right wing conservative Republicans here has answered my question, "which party they (racist conservative Southern Democrats from 60 years ago) most resemble today...?
And when I say resemble, saying "Well they were Democrats and today we have Democrats, so that means they're the same" doesn't cut it. A 10 year old child could see through that ridiculous bullshit.
I had already given you numerous examples of how racist white conservative Christian Democrats of old resemble white conservative Christian Republicans of today, you just don't want to hear it so you refuse to address any of the clear comparisons.
Which party fought to effectively overturn the voting rights act?
Which party regularly defends and protects confederate monuments from removal?
Which party fought to keep gay marriage bans?
Which party regularly rejects the premise that systemic racism still exists?
Which party fights tooth and nail to stop any sort of program to help black Americans have more access to opportunity?
Which parties Presidential candidate said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him, Are you the greatest?”
Which party is the least diverse with the fewest minorities and fewest women?
Which party has fought against equal pay for women?
Which party continues the tradition of white conservative Southern Democrats of supporting bans on and criminalization of abortion?
Which party of white conservative Christians today control the Southern States exactly the same way their predecessor white conservative Christian Democrats did?
Just admit it already because this debate is getting extremely tiresome. It's like trying to get Trump to admit he's ever made a mistake in his entire fucking life. You can shove his affairs with porn stars in his face, shove the tape of him saying he grabs women by the pussy in his face, shove the half dozen companies he ran into bankruptcy in his face, shove the two dozen credible accusations of sexual assault in his face, shove the fact that he spent more time on the golf course in 4 years than Obama did in 8 in his face, and Trump is still going to look you in the face and say "Nuh uh, nope, it's all fake news, I've never made a mistake, ever, never, ever, period...". It's almost impossible to take right wing conservatives seriously if they are so desperate to hide their true ideology that they are willing to fucking lie about how much they resemble the white conservative Christian Democrats of the past.
It's like two identical twins looking straight into the mirror and saying "Nope, I don't see the resemblance, I mean, Johns name is John, and mine is David, so we're nothing alike...".
You know what gets on my last nerve? The alleged conservatives - nothing is ever their fault. Everything is the fault of the 'progressives/democrats/liberals' - EVERYTHING. Hatred, fear, injustice, inequity, inequality, evil, intolerance, racism, ignorance, agnorance (MY FAVORITE NEW WORD/EXPRESSION) is all someone' else's doing, not them.
They always have to have someone else to blame, someone else is ALWAYS to blame for their failures, whatever. We're their eternal scapegoats.
Some here say all the serious crimes are in the heavily blue cities only. How idiotic. Again, all the fault of progressives/democrats/liberals.
"How many black Republicans have been elected to Congress in the past 90 years ?"
A token handful.
LOL Like the Supreme Court and Clarence Uncle Token Thomas
LOLOL!
Did you intentionally try and prove the survey correct or is it just by accident?
the amount of hate, bigotry and intolerance packed into such a short post is quite impressive.
Do you understand why? For more than a thousand years monarchs in Europe claimed a divine birthright to be the leader of the religious church in their fiefdom. Kings and Queens who would be God with Christ as their servant. And whatever those monarchs did in the name of God has been blamed on Christians. You are invoking the name of God to impose your beliefs onto everyone. But your invocation is 'God the evil' and not 'God the good'. That's the birthright of kings, not commoners.
The Bible says a lot of things. So does science. So does secular philosophy. But what matters in a democracy is what the majority say. That's how democracy works, right? If a democratic majority says that homosexuality is illegal then democracy has worked as intended. It doesn't matter if the democratic majority has been persuaded by the Bible, science, or Twitter; the majority rules in a democracy.
Democracy depends upon the right of people to govern themselves according their beliefs. Democracy does not depend upon strengthening an institutional autocracy, although that is what liberals have claimed. Liberals are demanding an undemocratic democracy so that the people cannot be swayed by a true God. Liberals would be God with Christ as their servant.
You are misinterpreting the First Amendment to regress to birthright control of the religious church which is what the First Amendment was intended to prevent.
We pray for you, too.
Lol .... Deep Thoughts ..... by Jack Handey ......
We can go around and around all day long on this. In the end each person makes their own rationalizations based on their own set of experiences and preferences. I think not dating someone simply because of their political affiliation is short sighted and petty as shit. You might think it's fine. In the end, so what?
It amazes me what people today rationalize what is okay and what is not and for what reasons. They will make a POS human being like George Floyd into a saint because another POS human being knelt on his neck until he was dead. It's bat shit crazy stuff imo.
The irrationality in this world is reaching epic proportions and yet my moral path remains crystal clear. I await the time when someone may help sway my path in that regard but after 60+ years of experience, i'm doubtful that day will come in any significance but i remain open and await just the same.
And so it is for most people. In the end i could care less who anyone else decides to date or not, its insignificant to me and its none of my business but i will never be apathetic to the dynamics such biases may involve.
Such analyses are very telling of each individual .....
Shove those prayers!
That's liberal minded.
Spare me your faux prayers.
Very well said. Most of us here are Americans and we all have different perspectives on issues including politics, history, religion, science. Only some of us are trying to isolate themselves from other perspectives and shield themselves from exposure to such basic differences.
It is indeed.
Should I be offended?
With your faux outrage.
It's better to give than receive.
Especially if you deal in lead.
"We deal in lead friend"
- Steve McQueen, The Magnificent Seven
I don't think were dealing in lead here. Doesn't smell like cordite to me.
Fling it ...... that Chimp would fit right in here on NT.
That chimp does seem easily offended. Offensive and offended; it's a two-fer!
Triggered ...... ready .... fling it!
That's a good one!
That's why we are a constitutional Federal Republic and not a pure democracy. The constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It protects individual rights regardless of whether there is some larger group that wants to squash or deny those rights.
Again, we are NOT a pure Democracy, we are a constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.
Pure bullshit, the founders created the system of government we have which is intentionally NOT a Democracy. That's why we have a constitution that bars the government from establishing a religion. You can go out and proselytize all you want to "sway" people to believe in your brand of deity but neither you nor anyone else get to establish your brand of deity as the "true God" through any US law.
The God of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, any of them are just as valid as your brand of Christianity and have just as much right to proselytize and claim their God the "true God" and all have the same restrictions placed on them by the constitution which denies them the ability to "establish" their religion as the religion of the United States or to push their religious laws into our constitutional Federal Republic. And lets face facts, they all have exactly the same amount of proof that their God is the true God as Christianity does, which is exactly zero.
While there has been much debate over the original intent of the founders what is clear is that they did install a separation between church and State. If you would be angered by our government adopting Sharia law, then you should recognize that people of other faiths or non-believers likely feel exactly the same about injecting Christian doctrine into our government laws.
So again, we are NOT a pure Democracy, and while we may be a nation of Christians, we are NOT a Christian nation, we are NOT a theocracy and the vast majority of Americans want to keep it that way.
"A new Pew Research Center report found that more than half of Americans support a separation between church and state. A majority of respondents, 54%, said the federal government should enforce the separation of church and state, and 69% believe the U.S. should never declare an official religion."
So even if we were a pure democracy, which we're not, it's very unlikely that separation between Church and State would ever be removed.
That's what you're best at. The image in 3.1.76
We dems/liberals/progressives are not the shit slingers here - your usual projection, deflection, denial.
Easy...
Just put up a black conservatives....any black conservatives...and you will see the never ending parade of white liberals calling them Uncle Tom, token, etc.....and try and get them cancelled...
All because a black person dared to have a position other than what the democratic plantation wants them to think.
Vic is right!
Vic was right here as well.
You are exactly right about this. Great on you for saying it!
Open minded and tolerant too
We will share real ones instead!
Lol!
I couldn’t have expressed those truths any better. Well said!
Yet another poll ... meh. Who knows how close this is to truth. Not sure I even care about such trivialities.
Regardless, I find it funny that the the seeder —whose daily seeds almost always are anti-D partisan crap— now posts a seed about how intolerant Ds are.
Exactly. Is there any doubt about how he'd feel if his daughter or granddaughter were to start dating a Democrat? Right wing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
I have dated democrats myself so I have no problem with it if they love each other. The whole point of the reporting of this poll was to show how much more open minded and tolerant that we conservatives are compared to the liberals.
Yep, irony of that nature does tend to cut both ways.
Deeply both ways ......
The experiences I’ve had here are proof of how intolerant some democrats have been.
Of course there are intolerant Ds; but the key is that you will refuse to admit that there are also intolerant Rs.
People, regardless of party, are still basically people ... cut from the same basic DNA pattern. Pure partisans are pure partisans regardless of party.
Grow a little and admit that bad behavior by human beings is not limited to a particular political party.
No one said it was. The article was about proportions and numbers of those on each side who behave badly.
You focused exclusively on the Ds:
Thus my comment. Own your words.
"Thus my comment. Own your words."
It's always someone else's fault.
[gone]
Some here are simply intolerant of far-right wing propaganda.
The problem here is that what is referred to as “far” right wing propaganda is in reality simply mainstream conservative thoughts and values. The labeling as such doesn’t make it so. Nor will it ever back us down from what we believe in. Such labeling by the pro science consensus secular progressive left only stiffens our resolve to hold to our views and to amplify our expressions of them.
You consider your views to be mainstream??
Absolutely yes I do. Evangelical populist conservative nationalism is well within the broad mainstream of American religious and political thought. It would be intolerance to deny that.
It is because so darn many of them are just that…
Anyone who pays attention to this site wouldn't be surprised by the results. It's not not just Democratic students who are intolerant.
All too true.
Exactly. Many remain that way for life. Though for some, real life things like marriage, starting a family, and maintaining a career in the business world tends to make them more realistic, religious, and then conservative. This is why traditional marriage and nuclear families as well as Christianity are so attacked by the secular left.
[removed]
There is a reason I lost the vast majority of my Democrat and left leaning friends after the 2016 elections. Seems that voting for Gary Johnson was the same as voting for Trump. By not voting for Hillary I put Trump into office. They demanded I denounce Trump and force Republicans to vote to impeach him before he even took office.
That didn't go over well, as I was prepared to suffer through four years of the most vile, reprehensible, corrupt, malignant person on the planet in Hillary Clinton. If she had won the presidency I wouldn't have called for her outright impeachment. I would have done the same thing that I did with Obama and Bush Jr (Didn't vote for either of them)- anything I agreed with them on they would have my support- anything I disagreed with them on they wouldn't. If either did anything illegal I would have called for an investigation into it; and their removal if so warranted.
Since I didn't denounce Trump they cut me off.
When Biden was elected they wanted to make up. Told them to go pound sand. Needless to say with each Biden failure- and there are all so many of those- I have widened the bridge between myself and my former "friends". Seems they don't like being held accountable for the actions of the human fuck up machine they put into office.
It is a very common trait among strong partisans to view anyone who does not hold their partisan views to be 'the enemy'.
I have many examples, but here is one that comes to mind. I was labeled a conservative and was informed of how my views are like those of my 'conservative friends' (by one who is no longer an active member) because I criticized AOC's publicly stated concerns —made immediately after her election and before she assumed office— about how she could pay for her D.C. dwelling before she received a paycheck as a member of Congress. My point (and it seems rather sound and logical to me) is that publicly complaining about an extremely easily solved cash flow problem would not likely inspire confidence in her constituents who of course voted her in to represent them on complex matters of governance and law.
This silly behavior has happened for years. As an independent, when I have a view that aligns with the GOP I am seen by some Ds as the enemy and when I have a view that aligns with the D party I am seen by some Rs as the enemy. For independents whose views do not always align with a party, partisans from both sides tend to deem them the enemy.
It is ridiculous and one of the key reasons I oppose pure partisan 'thinking'.
Agreed.... as long as we all can accept the validity of it when we go "partisan" which we occasionally do...
I used to be an independent. That seems like such a long time ago. Trump's presidency really did age this country badly on all sides.
My conservative friends have labeled me the "reluctant Republican". They are unfortunately correct. I don't belong to the Republican Party, never will. However, after the last 5 and half years and counting of Democrat BS- I will not vote for another Democrat until they proven to have changed their ways. Exception might be Manchin; but he is in the wrong state. That is assuming he doesn't cave on the Democrat's BBB bill.
I could better understand your reasoning if you also stated that you would not vote for Trump. You stated that you did not vote for Trump in 2020. Would you vote for him if he ran in 2024?
My way of thinking never excludes a political party. That is, I see no point in refusing to vote for someone simply because of their party affiliation. (The exception is if I am voting to balance power ... that would be a strategic vote.) I vote based on the individual and the party is but one of the many considerations.
No, I stated I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.
2020 I voted for Trump because he was the Republican candidate; not that I am a fan of Trump. The only way to keep Democrats out of power is to vote for Republicans. It is the way our broken two party system is set up. It is the way the Establishment wants to keep it. It was the first time ever I voted a straight party ticket.
Democrats have done nothing to change my mind about voting for them. Until they can prove they can lead at any level, they aren't fit to be dog catchers. Biden/Harris are prime time examples of what is wrong with Democrats. Criticize them and get the "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" crap time and time again. Trump has nothing to do their continuous fuckups. Throw in the Pelosi shit show Jan 6th committee; and you have a party that doesn't give a shit about the law, ethics, or even House rules. It has been like this for the last 5 and a half years and counting. When are the Democrats going to grow the hell up? Get Trump at all costs only makes them look like crazed lunatics.
I would love for a true fiscal conservative to run against Trump. They are all deferring to Trump; and unless he announces he isn't going to run, that isn't going to happen.
Again, used to be an independent; but the Democrats have forced me to be a Republican.
Yeah, that was my mistake. I knew you wrote 2016 and that is really what I had in mind. But that was simply to lead to my question which you neglected to answer:
Would you vote for him if he ran in 2024?
That implies that you will vote for Trump if he runs. Without knowing his opposition, you would give the presidency to this miserable character who clearly puts his personal well being over that of the nation and who abused his office and violated his constitutional oath all in public display during his last two months in office??
The time is now for all who seek an R PotUS to push Trump out of the fucking way, not acquiesce to 'oh, well, he might be my only choice'. Don't let it happen! Fight against him by rallying around GOP leaders who are at least halfway decent human beings who are not living in a malignant narcissist dream state.
Yeah, there was a lot of that going around back then, but then it was going around after the first election of Bush II as well... Anyone not agreeing with me is my enemy has been going around for quite a while... it's the emotional characterizations that really seem to fuel the beast though... The last one was the "Mountain of Trash" campaign trying to get "Deplorables" to change their votes... (or convince fence sitters that they don't want to vote for the opposition cause it wouldn't go well for them)
I too remember the hate and bitterness on the left when Bush 43 won that 2000 election.
We're not the ones full of hate and bitterness
Yep it was 21 years ago today that Gore finally conceded.
That;s hilarious.
Have you read your own posts?
And we got 911, Homeland Security, The Patriot Act and a few years of $100+ OIL. And another 20 year war somewhere. What a win. Thanks SCOTUS, and for that Citizens United crap too.
What have the Democrats given us?
Bill Clinton had several opportunities to kill Osama Bin Laden; but too none of them. The planning and training for 911 occurred on Clinton's watch. Funny how he couldn't stop terrorists from entering and exiting the country multiple times.
Which president renewed the Patriot Act; and enhanced it? That was Obama. Who authorized spying on US citizens using DATA mining for no reason.
Speaking of 20 year wars. Wasn't Obama supposed to end Afghanistan? Instead of doing that he put us back into Iraq (still there); and started our presence in Syria (still there). How are things going in Ukraine? That was an Obama backed coup of a duly elected pro Russian government; that he had no intention of supporting. Now look where we are with Biden in charge. Russia ready to swallow Ukraine whole; and China ramping up to take Taiwan. But of course both of those are Trump's fault./S
Name me the Republican president that abandoned US Citizens, Green Card holders, and Special VISA holders in Afghanistan? What is Biden doing to get any of them out; outside of "Turning the page" that is. His administration is doing a wonderful job of getting in the way of individuals and charities trying to do his damn job. Funny how he didn't vet a single Afghan during his emergency lift out of Afghanistan. Now, even US citizens have to wait in a third party country for the State Department to deem them fit to return to the US.
Do you really want to go there with where the price of oil and gas is at now? Think that the drop in the bucket released by Biden from the oil reserves is going to make any long term difference? Saudi Arabia and Russia already told Biden to go to hell; so there is no relief in sight.
For as much bitching as the left loves to do about Homeland Security why didn't they call for Obama or Biden to end it? Instead it has been granted more and more power under each administration.
Here are some more things that Democrats given us.
That is what I love about the left. They never take responsibility for any of their actions. Right now it is "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!' Whenever someone criticizes Biden. For Obama it was "But Bush!". For Clinton is was "But Bush!". Thankfully Jeb Bush stands no chance of being President. We don't need a third refrain of "But Bush!".
Thank you for giving everyone the history lesson they conveniently forgot.
Very little "history" there, just a bunch of bullshit partisan blame throwing and ignorant twisting of reality.
How fucking deluded and backwards do you have to be to come up with that whopper? So according to right wing conservatives, who apparently love sucking Putin's balls, Russia's invasion of Crimea was an "Obama backed coup"? Total horseshit. No wonder right wing conservatives would rather be Russian than Democrat, they seem naturally inclined to side with the white fascist liars.
It seems like right wing conservatives need a platter of cheese to go with all that sour grapes whine.
Okay, just what the fuck isn't reality and didn't happen/isn't happening? I am sure everyone is waiting with bated breath for your explanation.
Just the usual projection, deflection, and denial - + it's everyone else's fault but ours + faux outrage
The entire post is just bullshit grievance over anything bad that's happened in the last 30 years and simply claiming it was all Democrats fault without a lick of fucking evidence. The truth is that all that shit happened on both Democrat and Republican watches and have far more complex explanations than just blaming whoever was in the oval office at the time when the hot potato landed. Claiming Biden is completely at fault for inflation is total horse shit which ignores how both US and global financial systems work. It's the height of stupidity to blame everything on Democrats. I could spend an hour to cut and paste all the same bad things that have happened in the last 30 years and a bullshit excuse as to why it's all Republicans fault too if I wanted, but it wouldn't make it any more true than the bullshit rhetorical spin of Ronin's baseless conclusions.
Yet you are happy as hell to overlook all that he posted and remain steadfast in blaming all the things in 7.2.6 on Bush as the writer did. And his conclusions AREN'T baseless as you can plainly see if your fucking eyes are open.
And for some reason you all will gladly blame Clinton and Obama yet skip over any republican president...
Nope. I blame Bush for Iraq as well as some other fuck ups especially for not standing up to Congress the last couple years of his tenure. He just let them run amok.
And I guess what you missed up above was the fact that the post being responded to was at 7.2.6 where someone blamed shit that started on someone else's watch ALL on GWB. Ronin just pointed out that not all is rosy in the Dem tent either.
The only thing ronin pointed out was, I guess we need a new term, BDS.
Turning the US into a third world country?
Please.
Inflation running wild. Proposed socialist "human infrastructure" multi Trillion Dollar program creating more GovCo dependence and waiting for big brother to give you what you need? What would you call it. Third world is a bit extreme but that seems to be the direction
I don't know of many third world countries that have a lot of the social services we have.
Weird to me that you would equate social services with turning into a third world country.
I'm talking about the dependence on government and the fact that there would actually basically only be two classes. The haves and that have nots.
Uh, we have been that way since the founding of the country.
The rich and the poor.
So no middle class. Interesting take................
The middle class didn't really get started until after world war 2.
No we haven’t and haven’t since the 1st Independence Day. We had and have a big middle class all along as a nation.
So there was no rich and poor?
I had a similar experience here among the democrat minority in this area. I wasn’t sold yet on Trump by election 2016 and voted for a conservative minor party candidate I don’t even remember now and was accused of electing Trump even though my vote in California is meaningless. It was a combination of democrat responses to Trump and some Trump policies I really like that won me over. Now, I’d crawl over broken glass to vote for him again.
You have an entire party of GOP candidates yet you would 'crawl over broken glass' to vote for a lying narcissist who violated his oath of office and abused the authority of the office of PotUS to (for the first time in USA history) steal a presidential election through lies, suborning of unconstitutional acts, coercion, frivolous lawsuits and working his supporters up into a frenzy claiming only they can right the 'wrong' and that their votes were disenfranchised.
Trump did none of the things he’s being accused of in post 7.3.1
Here is what Trump did:
You deny indisputable facts. This is truly pathetic.
Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias which leads to living in a false reality and, thus, being wrong most of the time.
If he did these things, would you vote for him?
He did ALL THAT and MORE.
Trump sucks, no denying it. Biden/Harris and the Democrats are a thousand times worse. If it comes down to Trump or Biden/Harris which way are you going?
Is it going to be Trump's mean tweets, constant paranoia, and trying to massage the system to get his way (While setting off the Democrats to do what they are already doing. Ignoring the law, ethics, and procedures in Congress in their effort to get Trump at all costs)? Or Biden/Harris turning this country into a third world banana republic.
Notice how my question was not even addressed:
Looks like someone is actually embarrassed to admit that he would vote for someone who has so clearly violated the CotUS and puts his own well-being over that of the people and the nation.
Instead it is absurd denial of proven facts.
Melodrama.
I understand how someone would seek Trump policies over Biden policies. But how on Earth could anyone compare Trump as a human being occupying the office of PotUS with Biden doing likewise?
The solution is 2024. Biden and Harris should be replaced with a strong presidential candidate. Preferably someone in their late 40s, early 60s. And the GOP should ensure that Trump never has the opportunity to get the nomination. Rally around someone else.
Biden will remain PotUS for his one term. There is nothing that can be done about that other than the mid-term which (as is almost always true) will favor the party out of power. That will turn Biden into a lame duck for the balance of his term. Your worries are addressed.
The GOP focus should not be on Biden but rather on who will be the R nominee in 2024. I have no respect for GOP operatives who work to support Trump for the GOP nomination. They are operating on pure partisan terms (going with the current leader regardless of the character of the person) with disregard for the people and the nation.
See 7.2.9, wash, rinse, and repeat.
You are actually going to bury your head in the sand...
That sentence was like a matador waving a red blanket in front of an angry bull.
Clearly you cannot bring yourself to answer this question:
Where ' these things ' are:
Face reality.
[Deleted]
You know. after listening to you for years, I would rather be a secular progressive [Deleted]
You have a point, and it hit the bullseye.
Yawn, so you continue to support Trump now just as you did while he was in office. Big shock. Why even preface with "Trump sucks" when we all know, yourself included) that you are full of shit? You have always been a Trump supporter, thus your words here are meaningless.
It is you, not me doing as you described above.
I could not live with myself or my conscience if I were a secular progressive. I’m happy the way that I am, and with how I express myself here.
Would you vote for Trump if he attempted, as PotUS, to suborn his V.P. to engage in an unconstitutional act to try to steal his way to reelection?
why would you address another member like what is quoted above.
He’s not guilty as accused, so if Trump does run for President again in 2023-4, I will most certainly support him, contribute to his campaign, campaign for him, and vote for him. All in.
And you dodge the question as expected. I am sure that you are not fooling anyone by the dodge.
If Trump were to try to coerce government officials to 'find votes' for him after said officials certify that no such votes exist, would you vote to place this dishonest, unpatriotic narcissist in the Oval Office?
[DELETED]
And what happened at Helsinki?
Are you still going to push that?
CBC News first published this Associated Press report on Jan. 9, 2021. It was updated by the AP on March 15, 2021, to correct that The Associated Press, based on information provided by a source, erroneously reported that Trump pressed the investigator to "find the fraud" and said it would make the investigator a national hero. A recording of the call made public two months later revealed that Trump did not say either and instead said that if the investigator looked into Fulton County the investigator would "find things that are gonna be unbelievable." Trump also told the investigator: "When the right answer comes out, you'll be praised."
So many lies they told about Trump!
I doubt we will ever know. I focused on recent and indisputable facts. Yet we see them ignored in standard confirmation-bias fashion.
Lie?? It is on recorded audio:
Good grief man, denying the obvious is a losing proposition.
This was so noteworthy Wikipedia even has a page dedicated to this one event:
If Trump tried to suborn his V.P. to engage in an unconstitutional act of tabling certified counts from select states, would you vote for him to return to office?
That's different. I thought you meant the find the fraud conversation.
his was so noteworthy Wikipedia
Spare me wikipedia. Anyone can write a story there.
I believe in the Constitution and so did Mike Pence.
As for Trump, or whoever the Republican nominee is in 2024: I WILL RUN TO VOTE FOR THEM!
Well I was pretty clear. Wanna retract your claim that I lied?
But they cannot get it published unless the Wikipedia editors allow it ... and a key part of their criteria is that the content be noteworthy. And, if you read my comment, that is exactly what I stated: "... was so noteworthy ...". Noteworthy was my point. Clear as a bell.
Yes, he did. So you agree that Trump attempted to get Pence to do an unconstitutional (and highly unethical) act.
You would return to office a man who attempted to suborn his own V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act in an attempt to illegally cling to the presidency.
That is just fucking wonderful, Vic. How great for our nation that so many in the electorate would willingly place such a character in the office of the presidency.
I had forgotten the other conversation.
Wanna retract your claim that I lied?
I was careful not to call you that.
But they cannot get it published unless the Wikipedia editors allow it
Larry Sanger, the man who co-founded Wikipedia, has cautioned that the website can’t always be trusted to give people the truth. He said it can give a “reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.”
And you do know who the establishment is.
Yes
You would return to office a man who attempted to suborn his own V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act in an attempt to illegally cling to the presidency.
Yes
That is just fucking wonderful, Vic. How great for our nation that so many in the electorate would willingly place such a character in the office of the presidency.
If you were worried about our nation, you'd be to the right of me at this point.
Putin knows. He knows.
That? You mean 'liar'? I did not claim you called me a liar; I noted that you implied (quite clearly) that my statement about Trump was a lie. This is not you suggesting that I was lying about Trump?:
Just strange how so many deny that which is plain as day.
Yet again, I did not use Wikipedia as a source of truth — I noted that this even was so noteworthy that Wikipedia even has a page on it. Look, read:
And I even explained this after your first 'misunderstanding':
There is no way you missed this. How many times did I repeat the word 'noteworthy'? If you cannot rebut what someone says then engage strawman tactics, eh?
I am not the person who would vote to put Trump back in the presidency.
In contrast, I am the person arguing that the GOP should collectively drop Trump now and rally behind someone else.
Why are you continuing to prop up Trump instead of another GOP leader knowing what this narcissist has done?
Your remedy for the nation of reelecting Trump sucks. How can you not see this?
And the bi coastal urban secular progressive elites love to tell them and spread them.
No one ever accused Wikipedia of being fair or balanced or reasonable or reliable as a source for anything.
Who claimed they were? Buy a vowel.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Yet you quoted and sourced from them anyway? Don’t tell me what to do.
No I did not. I did not quote from them and did not source them for a quote. Really, XX, just read what people write instead of inventing your own little reality.
I certainly will when you are dead wrong. As you are right now. Expect it.
Not crap. It is coming.
Vic answered my question (that you dodged). He said that Trump did indeed try to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act and that he would vote for Trump anyway.
So now you have some safety. You can hide behind a trusted source and say that you too would vote for Trump even though as PotUS he sought to suborn his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional and unethical act.
And are you now going to tell Vic he is wrong about Trump and Pence? You voted up his comment.
Buy a vowel.
And I will disregard you and what you demand. Period. I am not wrong. You did link to Wikipedia. As to what to expect, I really don’t care. It’s not like I’d ever listen to or believe anything that you ever say to me. I will not be cowered into submission.
What is coming?
No, you go buy one…
Hello? I linked to Wikipedia to show the event was noteworthy enough for Wikipedia to devote a page to it. I did not used Wikipedia as a source for my comment or as a source of truth as you incorrectly claimed.
Your claim is wrong. You were and are wrong. You failed to read and instead just invented your own little false reality.
Read what people write rather than invent your own truth.
You, predictably, ran away from my question:
Buy a vowel.
No, you would prefer 4 years of Biden and the radical left. How many millions will enter this country in 4 years? What will the US dollar be worth in 4 years?
In contrast, I am the person arguing that the GOP should collectively drop Trump now and rally behind someone else.
You are the person who seems willing to do anything to prevent Trump from running again. Am I right? Did you ever stop to think of why he wouldn't? What would his greatest political fear be? How about losing again?
Why are you continuing to prop up Trump instead of another GOP leader knowing what this narcissist has done?
That is simply false. I don't expect you to follow me around and read everything I say, but I'm really hoping Ron DeSantis is the GOP nominee in 2024. I know he has a backbone and will do at least what Trump did for the country. Plus he has 3 advantages over Trump.
A). He has great experience in governance as both a Senator & Governor. (His field is politics, not business)
B). He is a much younger man. (He is only 43) Good for two terms.
C). He is not a lightning rod for the dirty left. Then again who knows, the democrats are already trying to nationalize elections.
I would? Clearly you have no clue about what I am looking for. Presuming leads to getting things wrong; you just proved that yet again. Where do you see me promoting Biden? If you were to read my posts you would find that I have consistently said that Biden should be a one-term PotUS and that his single term should be modest. Just try to keep things steady, work on the infrastructure, etc. I do not want to see Biden or Harris on the D ticket next time. I would prefer someone in their late 40s to early 60s who can be an inspirational leader and whose positions are focused on fixing real problems and steering clear of extremes. This criteria goes for D and R candidates. I am hoping that at least one of the parties can deliver a quality candidate for a change.
Everyone should refuse to allow Trump anywhere near the office of the presidency!
Why, Vic, do you think I am criticizing those who support Trump? If you did not support Trump, he would not run. Because it is quite true that Trump could not deal with losing again. Yes, Vic, that is what I am telling you. Do not support Trump and he will not run.
So, why do you support Trump? Why do you contribute to this amorphous cloud of support that would encourage Trump to run again?
No, it is not. You just wrote that you would vote for Trump if he were the nominee. A more responsible position is to be part of the GOP that seeks to distance themselves from Trump. Do not continue to encourage him to run. Work to put forth a different leader for the GOP.
Then support DeSantis and argue against Trump. Simple. Don't ever defend the indefensible. Criticize defenses of Trump. I just listed several acts that Trump engaged in during his Big Lie as sitting PotUS:
I asked if Trump did these things, would one vote for him? Crickets. You are the only one with the balls to honestly agree with the one point I specifically asked of you regarding suborning Pence to commit an unconstitutional act. Everyone else ignores these facts. Why? Trump clearly should never be PotUS and every time a GOP member gives him a pass, they are contributing to the bizarre cloud of support for this miserable character.
So yes, Vic, support DeSantis and give Trump the honest criticism that he greatly deserves. Do not allow the GOP to continue to be subverted by a pathological liar who clearly puts himself over the good of the people and the country.
After you…,
They will try to make him into a lightning rod. Actually they already are trying to do it
You who support Trump for reelection encourage him to run and thus create a problem. Why is Trump a problem, you ask? It is because he is a lying narcissist who puts himself over the good of the people and the nation.
You deny the wrongs that he did. Absolutely incredible to watch people like you do so, but sure enough, when indisputable facts are listed (with supporting links) you claim that Trump did none of those things:
You also run away when asked if you would vote for an individual who did the above. That suggests to readers that you know Trump did the above and that you would vote for him anyway. Instead of finding a decent human being as GOP leader, you would stubbornly stick with a miserable human being like Trump even after the crap he put the nation through during his Big Lie (and all that preceded it).
Trump is your vision of what a president of the United States should be. Incredible.
And the point of the seeded article has been proven true repeatedly on the comments by those on the intolerant side here.
That is a non sequitur. I asked you if you would vote for Trump if he engaged in the acts I listed:
You ran away unable to face reality and then come back labeling this as ' intolerance '.
Are we to just tolerate these unconstitutional and violation of oath acts by a sitting PotUS?
I suspect most rational minds would NOT want to see an individual who committed these acts assume of the office of the presidency.
I will vote for Trump for President in 2024 if he runs no matter what the lamestream media, the faux Jan 6 commission, or any anti Trumper of any party says about him. Period. I thought that I’d made that abundantly clear already. There is absolutely nothing that any member here can say about him that would change that.
You continue to dodge my question. How pathetic.
I asked you if you would vote for Trump if he engaged in the acts I listed.
I did not ask about allegations but rather actual facts. If Trump actually did what I listed, would you vote for him?
I suspect everyone here knows that you would vote for Trump no matter what he actually did. Your perpetual dodging proves it.
I do not believe that he did anything in the manner exactly as you described Period I would never believe a thing any Trump critic in the media or here said about him As long as he’s alive and healthy, and not made somehow ineligible by some bogus manufactured “charges” I will vote for him if he runs. If somehow the left made it impossible for him to run, I’d vote for the candidate most likely to make their collective lives a living hell were that choice to be elected in his place
(Continued) It would be all about revenge and retribution. Nothing will divide America more than the left manufacturing some fake charges to keep him from running again. We will make a figurative martyr of him and speak his name everywhere and name everything we can deem fit after him.
Confirmation bias full steam ahead.
Of course, ignore all those facts that conflict with an imagined reality.
And you continue to dodge my question. No surprise there either.
There are several potential neo-Nazi candidates who would put anyone opposed to Trump in concentration camps, torture them, put them in gas chambers and ovens. They would definitely be most likely to make their lives a living hell, and would surely well-represent you.
"Revenge and retribution" -- the motto of the Trumpist-Fascists
There is no such thing as a trumpist fascist. All real fascists voted for Brandon even if some non fascists voted for him too.
It is the left that would like to create concentration camps for other Americans. Particularly over covid issues. The rest of your post is an over the top sweeping generalization
Yes, there is. Here are a few:
Again, your comment. You can find several neo-Nazis who would be the most likely candidates to satisfy your desire.
Most any conservative congress person, Senator, and President would be able to do that to progressives.
Nazis , neo or otherwise are of the left
Comment 7.3.75 is, of course, a flat out lie.
No, it’s not. National socialists are on the left.
Discerning singles should avoid dating rightwingers.
That is simply ridiculous. Having worked on voting issues locally to get out the vote, I know that there are a lot of couples with each spouse in a different party. It’s always fun when doing phone bank get out the Republican vote work to get the wrong spouse answering.
[removed]
Big deal. So there are the enlightened who would avoid the unenlightened and those with a propensity for authoritarian, oligarchy or outright fascist leanings.
[deleted]
Big wow. So there are the enlightened conservatives who would have no problem associating with the unenlightened left and those with a propensity for authoritarian progressivism, big tech oligarchy or outright fascist secular leanings.
Yeah, need to avoid them like the plague, or like Co-Vid!
China and Fauci are the sources of Covid-19
Reactionaries claim that "the left" is intolerant and then display their "Let's Go Brandon" wrapping paper.
Hypocrisy much?
What the hell is Let's Go Brandon intolerant of?
Sanity.
An idiot and senile pervert President making bad decisions being controlled by China and the social democrat progressives.
Sanity is intolerant of Brandon [Deleted]
No, let’s go Brandon is intolerant of the stupidity and boneheaded policies of the one that the term is directed at.