How to Get Trump Voters and Liberals to Talk: Don’t Make Anyone Sit in a Circle

  
Via:  pj  •  2 weeks ago  •  72 comments

How to Get Trump Voters and Liberals to Talk: Don’t Make Anyone Sit in a Circle
Classes, apps and message boards are trying to bridge the divide between the left and the right, one conversation at a time.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


SAN FRANCISCO — When four Republicans and five Democrats got together at a high-end condominium complex to talk for seven hours in San Francisco this fall it was such a curiosity that a crowd of more than a dozen gathered just to watch.

Where had they found these Trump supporters in the first place, some wondered.

Why would anyone subject themselves to a day of this, others asked.

And if the day’s experiment worked — defined loosely as everyone surviving and maybe also not yelling? — were there any lessons to be drawn for less controlled environments like the Thanksgiving table or a Tinder date?

The host was a nonprofit called   Better Angels , which is putting on half a dozen events around the country every   week   through the election.

Its work is part of a boomlet in efforts to break partisan passion in America as the 2020 election approaches.

There’s   TruStory , a new social network that uses points-based incentives to encourage good debate.   Bridge the Divide   brings young people together to engage in “respectful, face-to-face” conversations.   Make America Dinner Again   helps people host cross-party dinner parties. Companies hire Georgetown business school professor   Christine Porath   to come in as a civility consultant. And there’s   Civility , a physical meet-up group that is now becoming a virtual platform for finding understanding between those on opposite sides of the political divide.

Or rather, of the cultural divide. Because the division is no longer just about politics. Politics is the backdrop, of course. The House is moving forward with impeachment proceedings — an effort that Republicans insist is a “Soviet style” “coup” and that the President warned,   quoting a pastor on Twitter , would “cause a Civil War like fracture.”

“I had not been, shall we say, enthusiastic about the divisiveness that would occur from an impeachment,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about why she had been wary of the proceedings.

But even Americans outside the Beltway have been conscripted into this war, sometimes without realizing it. Many going to these civility gatherings talked about new family divisions and fights among friends. Cross-party relationships that had survived the Bush or Obama presidencies were faltering now under Trump.

Last month, Ellen DeGeneres sat next to former president George W. Bush at a football game and later called him a friend. It turned into a national storm that made it to the Democratic debate stage in October with a question from Anderson Cooper about whether any of the candidates had “surprising friends.”

Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, — under scrutiny for his company’s policy on not fact-checking political advertisements — was also criticized recently for meeting with conservative journalists and commentators. The hashtag #deletefacebook trended in response. Mr. Zuckerberg responded to the outcry.

“Meeting new people and hearing from a wide range of viewpoints is part of learning,” he wrote. “If you haven’t tried it, I suggest you do!”

At Better Angels, the polarized were at a square table supervised by two moderators, a therapist and a retired psychiatrist. They were mostly in their 50s and 60s, and wore red and blue name tags to correspond with their political leanings. The moderators referred to them as the reds and the blues.

The day began with each group devising a list of the biggest stereotypes they think others have about them.

Ruth Ashkenazi, 51, of the reds, raised her hand and said: “Racist.”

Carlos Hernandez, 62, added, “White.”

Hellynn Reilly said, “White   supremacist.”

The moderator tried to lump all these together. A few could surely just fit under the stereotype category of racist, no? No.

“White privileged and also anti-immigrant,” Ms. Reilly said.

The blues came back from their session. The top stereotype they listed was Godless/Decadent. Each side presented their lists.

The conservatives were surprised the liberals thought at all about religion. The liberals were surprised the conservatives were so anxious about being seen as racist.

Over a lunch break of deli sandwiches and mixed bean salad, the two groups stayed largely   separate.

Many of the blue side said they came just for the opportunity to meet and question someone who disagreed with them politically.

“Outside of this group, I’ve got no Republican friends,” said Monty Worth, 52, a teacher who had also been to one previous session. “My grandparents were, but they died.”

People on the red side said they came to the workshop to be in a safe space where they could be open about their politics and argue their case.

Ms. Ashkenazi lives in Cupertino, considers herself socially liberal but fiscally conservative, voted for Mr. Trump and teaches fitness classes. She learned to avoid talking about her politics when, the morning after the 2016 election, a friend stormed out of her class.

“A good friend of mine came to boot camp and starting railing against those ‘stupid racist’ Midwesterners, and I said, ‘let’s just work out,’ and she was like, ‘how could you defend them?’” Ms. Ashkenazi said. “And that’s when I realized conversations would need to be very carefully crafted and choreographed from there on out.”

At one point, each side went to separate rooms to workshop questions for the other. Leslie Lopato, who was moderating for the blue side, directed them to come up with open, nonjudgmental questions.

Martha Keller, a lawyer who volunteers with progressive   groups, started:

“Do you regret voting for Donald Trump knowing now how he acts not only personally but knowing how he is treating his powers and duties as a president?”

“So that’s kind of a gotcha,” Ms. Lopato said.

“I wanna know why these people voted for him,” Ms. Keller said.

Denise Giacomini went next. She said some of the people she’d met on the red side “seemed reasonable.” But she had some questions for them.

“How are they able to get past Trump’s outrageous behavior. How can they block it out? How? ”And: “What I want to ask is what exactly are the positives to Trump?”

The   moderator again tried to adjust the question.

“But just so you understand, they will be able to give you a list of positives,” Ms. Lopato said. “Is that what you’re wanting?

Better Angels has its headquarters in a couple of small rooms in a midtown Manhattan office building. The man who started it is David Blankenhorn, who rose to national prominence as a vocal and influential opponent of gay marriage in the mid-2000s before publicly  reversing himself.

He had spent years touring the country, talking about the sanctity of marriage and the risk to the institution that gay marriage posed.

“Everywhere I went, gay people would come up to me after my talk, and they would say, ‘I’d like to show you a picture of my children,’ and for the longest time it bothered me and I would be like, ‘Look, wonderful kid,’ but I sort of felt like saying, ‘What? Would you like to see pictures of mine?’” Mr. Blankenhorn said.

His reversal on gay marriage did not come from new statistics or arguments but from something much simpler — he became close friends with a gay man.

“I realized that what they really were trying to do was just make a human connection,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “They weren’t out to ruin America.”

Now a supporter of the thing he had fought, Mr. Blankenhorn wound down his nonprofit and sold his condominium to stay afloat financially.

After the 2016 election, he and two friends got together and led the first Better Angels workshop in Ohio. Now more than 15,000 people have gone through one of their programs (8,000 have joined as dues-paying members), and the group has trained more than 620 volunteer workshop moderators (a lot of whom were therapists) to continue the mission in dozens of towns.

One challenge among many is figuring out how to describe what they are   doing.

“Dialogue, that’s a liberal word,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “What conservatives want to do is discuss or debate issues.”

“Liberals want to sit in a circle and share,” he said. “Conservatives do not want to sit in a circle, and they do not want to share.”

So he and his colleagues are careful to hold Better Angel events at rectangular tables. And moderators are instructed to avoid words like share.

Common language is getting hard to come by as common ground gives way. Democrats and Republicans are more ideologically different than they previously were and like each other less than they used to, according to a   2014 Pew survey .

“There isn’t now even agreement anymore on whether civility is a good thing,” said  James Calvin Davis , a Middlebury College professor and the author of “In Defense of Civility.”

Civility is engaging in respectful dialogue with people with whom you vehemently disagree, but the term has become loaded, Mr. Davis said.

It now implies docility or weakness. The word itself is a sort of insult.

“The left has become not only impatient with civility but suspicious of civility,” Mr. Davis said. “And the right — incivility is being endorsed on the highest level.”

Max Marty, a lanky 35-year-old, leads Civility, a San Francisco start-up. Previously, he was head of business development for the   Seasteading Institute, an effort to create autonomous cities in international waters. It did not work out. Now he just wants people to sit at a table (or a video chat) and talk.

One recent evening the conversation concerned the white nationalist movement. The white supremacist site the Daily Stormer was assigned reading.

In the Civility mind-set, an idea might be offensive but if enough people have that idea, then it deserves a fair hearing — and a seat — at the table.

“Instead of just hating on it, saying ‘Oh I can’t stand it, so horrible, blah, blah, blah,’ it’s about really putting yourself in that mind-set to be able to understand it more deeply,” Mr. Marty said. “And then be able to have a rational civil discussion on it.”

Most of these civility efforts are bipartisan, and groups like Better Angels guarantee that every workshop will have an equal split between Republican and Democratic attendees. Events have taken place in every state. But most of their programs are in liberal cities. Mr. Marty is in San Francisco; TruStory is based in Los Angeles; Better Angels in New York.

In Rockville, Md., about 30 people gathered for a Better Angels workshop one recent Saturday. They went around the room introducing themselves.

“I don’t know that many conservatives, and, should I ever encounter one, I’d like to know how to handle it,” one woman said.

Sara Kuhn, 31, is moving from the predominantly liberal Rockville to a smaller, more conservative town in southwest Virginia, and she wanted help learning how to talk to people there.

“Yeah, you’re going to need it,” someone nearby said, sympathetically.

Elle Karpman, a 68-year-old conservative retiree in Silver Spring, Md., came to the workshop because her daughter, who she described as liberal, asked her to.

“She said, ‘Mom, go to this workshop and learn these skills so you know the error of your ways,’” Ms. Karpman said. “Can you believe that? The error of my ways!”

Ms. Karpman, like many of the conservatives in attendance, said she feels unfairly labeled racist. She left the workshop   early.

The moderator, Jan Rybeck, coached the group on how to make someone’s perspective — in this case, on the migrant crisis at the border — more comprehensible.

“Breathe into your belly. Find your feet on the ground. And ask them to to tell you more,’” she said.

Reflecting on her experience a few weeks later, Martha Keller, the Bay Area lawyer who attended the San Francisco workshop, said she did not feel much closer to the other side.

“I saw all the red people smiling,” while leaving the event, Ms. Keller said. “They felt validated and accepted. I think that was the object the whole time. And I thought, ‘Who are these people?’”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
PJ
1  seeder  PJ    2 weeks ago
Reflecting on her experience a few weeks later, Martha Keller, the Bay Area lawyer who attended the San Francisco workshop, said she did not feel much closer to the other side.

“I saw all the red people smiling,” while leaving the event, Ms. Keller said. “They felt validated and accepted. I think that was the object the whole time. And I thought, ‘Who are these people?’”

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  PJ @1    2 weeks ago

Civility and comity in dialogue between red and blue is always a good thing to try to do.  I applaud the effort.  People can agree to disagree and realize they aren’t going to change the others mind and still communicate in a civilized non threatening manner.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

I recommend reading Dale Carnegie’s How to win friends and influence people or taking the class. I reread the book about every five years as a refresher and find it to be extremely helpful in dealing with people. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2    2 weeks ago
I recommend reading Dale Carnegie’s How to win friends and influence people or taking the class

I not only took the course, but, also returned by request of my Instructor as an Assistant Instructor for the following course. I learned a great deal during the first course, and even more while assisting in the following course. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

To make progress, people need to be willing to not dismiss people they disagree with as evil. I think most of the beliefs and positions people hold - even the extreme ones - are rooted in some kind of understandable human impulse or need that we can all relate to.

From there, they may take it to some place that we interpret as unreasonable or mean. Either their conclusions or our response can maybe be adjusted through discussion or - at minimum - we can get to a point where good people just disagree while still respecting the other. 

But we'll never get anywhere just assuming that the basic character and motivations of other people are beyond our understanding or respect.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1  seeder  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 weeks ago

Do you think good people support bad people?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  PJ @3.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, I do, all the time. It's called cognitive dissidence. They find a way to rationalize their decisions. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

No actually that’s not what it’s called but we could go with the lesser of two evils

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Those are two different things, but both apply and the evil is in the eye of the beholder. 

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.5  seeder  PJ  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Do you think this mental flaw is dangerous?    

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Well given that there’s no such thing as cognitive dissidence you better try again

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.6    2 weeks ago
Well given that there’s no such thing as cognitive dissidence you better try again

Well given that you need to do some homework, you should start reading.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

Maybe you should look up the term and realize why you’re wrong. 

I could do it for you but I’ll need some quid pro quo.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  PJ @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
Do you think this mental flaw is dangerous? 

I think it's there for a variety of reasons. Usually a coping mechanism. Dangerous sometimes, not so much other times. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.8    2 weeks ago

Please do not respond to me. 

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.11  seeder  PJ  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

Apparently you've decided to provide an example of cognitive dissidence in real time.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  PJ @3.1.11    2 weeks ago

It’s called cognitive dissonance not  cognitive dissidence for Christ sake.

Plus what you are witnessing here is actually dissidence from a dissident.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
Well given that you need to do some homework, you should start reading.

Me thinks someone should be doing her own homework, or do some spell checking at the least.

I believe you meant "cognitive dissonance" which does exist as opposed to cognitive dissidence which does not.  Just sayin.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.14  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

I have an example, stay with me..... If you get kidnapped and beaten and you like your kidnapper your cognitive dissonance is called Stockholm syndrome.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.15  seeder  PJ  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.12    2 weeks ago

Aside from the spelling error I think you know what was being discussed.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

It will be my pleasure

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.13    2 weeks ago

No, you are not just saying. You are trying to make me look foolish over a silly mistake because I am multi tasking and have dyslexia, when you fully know what I am talking about. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.18  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.17    2 weeks ago
No, you are not just saying. You are trying to make me look foolish over a silly mistake because I am multi tasking and have dyslexia, when you fully know what I am talking about. 

Now you're projecting.  I simply made an observation and you've taken umbrage at it.  While I knew what you were trying to say, you chastised another for essentially doing the same.  And then got testy with FW also.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.19  seeder  PJ  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.16    2 weeks ago

Everyone just calm down.  This is a discussion about trying to find ways to have civil discussions.  

It's silly to go down this road over a spelling error when it was clear what was being discussed.  Let's all reset.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.8    2 weeks ago

Perrie is probably the smartest person on this site. She certainly, in my opinion , has the most knowledge across different fields of interest, from medicine to baking, to the founding fathers, to education. 

The last thing anyone should do is question her ability to communicate. 

Personally, I am an extremely good speller. If you ever see me misspell something it is highly likely it is a typo.  But I still can't hold a candle to Perrie when it comes to knowledge about most things. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    2 weeks ago

. Not the topic. Everyone misses the message again as usual. Hint it wasn’t about spelling.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.18    2 weeks ago
Now you're projecting.  I simply made an observation and you've taken umbrage at it.  While I knew what you were trying to say, you chastised another for essentially doing the same.  And then got testy with FW also.

How am I projecting? My comment to FW was about the concept, not my spelling. And he then corrected the spelling, and you had to, too. I chastised FW for saying that the concept didn't exist while it does, and he was mocking me for my spelling rather than addressing the obvious concept. So no I am not projecting. I know when someone is mocking me.

And btw.. it still isn't about the spelling so it was about the concept.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.23  Raven Wing  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    2 weeks ago

Totally agree. Perrie has proven her communication skills time and again. And I am doubtful that anyone on this site can claim they have never misspelled a word. And I and many others here know the truth, as we have seen many who have misspelled a word now and then, including myself.

Only the hypocrites are dumb enough to try and claim they are perfect when the truth is out there for all to see. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.21    2 weeks ago

Of course not, it is a pathetic gotcha game on a simple mistake.   Ride it hard FW because nit-picking on a simple mistake is far easier than actually engaging in a factual debate.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.25  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    2 weeks ago

Please pass the butter...😂🙇

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @3.1    2 weeks ago
Do you think good people support bad people?

This is what I'm talking about. You see people as either "good" or "bad." That's the whole problem right there.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.27  Tacos!  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.25    2 weeks ago

I see that while I was gone, a "civil discussion" broke out. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.28  seeder  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.26    2 weeks ago

You didn't answer the question.  Let's see if I can narrow it down for you.

Do you think good people can continue to remain good after supporting a bad person?  At what point do they become tainted by the bad acts they have supported?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.29  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @3.1.28    2 weeks ago
You didn't answer the question.

I did answer it. Your problem with my answer is that I won't conform to your premise, i.e. that there is such a thing as "good people" and "bad people." As long as you continue to see people that way, you will continue to be stuck.

At what point do they become tainted by the bad acts they have supported?

I think that would obviously depend on a lot of things. The possibilities are infinite.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.30  KDMichigan  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.29    2 weeks ago
Your problem with my answer is that I won't conform to your premise,

It's funny that pj tries to pin you down when she ended the whole debate in my opinion with the stance that anyone who supports Trump is a bad person.

Just a rehash of the same old talking points spun out on a new seed.  

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.31  seeder  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.29    2 weeks ago

I don't see myself as stuck.  I'm clear on what is good and bad, right and wrong.  Its the people who refuse to make the distinction that I worry about.  I find individuals who are intentionally ambiguous to be troubling and untrustworthy.  

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.32  seeder  PJ  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.30    2 weeks ago

Okay kd, let's try a little experiment.  You tell me whether you think an action or position is right or wrong.

  • Lying
  • Stealing
  • Cheating
  • Double crossing 
  • Misappropriating funds
  • Murder

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.33  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @3.1.31    2 weeks ago
I find individuals who are intentionally ambiguous to be troubling and untrustworthy.  

And the truly sad part is that the only ones they are convincing of their honesty and purity is themselves. Others can clearly see the truth in their phony side show. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.34  KDMichigan  replied to  PJ @3.1.32    2 weeks ago

Yeah I'm not playing your little your bad if you don't think like me game. 

I guess you didn't support Obama either?

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.35  seeder  PJ  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.34    2 weeks ago

It's not a game.  These are actually very simple questions to those of us who hold principles.  Your non answer is your answer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @3.1.31    2 weeks ago
I'm clear on what is good and bad, right and wrong.

I think most people are. However, in actual practice, everyone does wrong things from time to time. Sometimes, they make the choice to do truly awful things for what they think is a good reason.

No person is good 100% of the time. By the standard you have set, if I ever support anyone else, I'm a bad person.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.37  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    2 weeks ago

No it was neither of those things. It was nuanced which you for sure never appear capable of understanding. Damn near begging half the time to have everything explained to you.  Virtually and practically brutally asking me to assume one knows nothing about the topic or the discussion when it should be abundantly clear that with a mere familiarity with the context one could pick up on the subtleties without having them hit over head with it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.37    2 weeks ago

One trick pony:  make vague comments to hide behind and then whine when challenged.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.40  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.38    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.41  Heartland American  replied to  PJ @3.1.28    2 weeks ago

If you are implying that Trump is the “bad person” then we can’t even agree on a premise.  

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.42  seeder  PJ  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.41    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure what type of God you worship but it's a warped and broken one if you think trump is a good person.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.43  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  PJ @3.1.42    2 weeks ago

compared to hillary, trump is a saint... LOL

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.44  KDMichigan  replied to  PJ @3.1.35    2 weeks ago
It's not a game.  These are actually very simple questions to those of us who hold principles. 

That's exactly what it is. I noticed you ignored the question. 

It's easy to cast stones at others that don't march lock step with you. 

The your a bad person if you support the President is just childish hyperbole that doesn't deserve a answer.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.45  MUVA  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.44    2 weeks ago

That is the new narrative you can be the biggest jackass insult everyone but it's ok if you didn't vote for Trump.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.46  seeder  PJ  replied to  MUVA @3.1.45    2 weeks ago

Who said that?  

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.47  seeder  PJ  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.44    2 weeks ago
your a bad person if you support the President

Those are your words.  It appears your inner self is in turmoil.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.48  seeder  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.36    2 weeks ago

Knowing is very different than living one's life accordingly.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.50  KDMichigan  replied to  PJ @3.1.47    2 weeks ago
It appears your inner self is in turmoil.

256

Um You are the one crying about Trump. My inner self is just fine.

I'm off for my adventure of the day. Enjoy your misery.

 
 
 
PJ
3.1.51  seeder  PJ  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1.50    2 weeks ago

giphy.gif

Yes, please go.  I would too if I had no good reason to offer.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.52  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.38    2 weeks ago

Well there is clearly no hiding.  So nothing going for that comment.

Plus there is no whining however we better call the whaamubulance after that remark since your only contribution here is to troll moi. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.53  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.17    2 weeks ago

Don't sweat those here who live in glass houses.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Trump has lied 13,000 times and is a proven liar , crook, bigot and moron. 

It is neither possible, logical or advisable to take his supporters seriously other than in the sense that for some reason they are still allowed to vote. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    2 weeks ago

I would take them seriously when they talked about medicine.  I would not take them seriously when they talked about politics. 

People who support Trump in the face of all his disqualifications have not earned the right to be taken seriously about politics. 

That is why we are having so much trouble in the country right now. People who dont deserve any credibility are given credibility in the media and online. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

Would you take away our right to vote if you could?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @5.2    2 weeks ago

Given the way you blather endlessly and incredibly inaccurately about politics and bow and scrape before the most unfit person ever to hold the office of president, of course the country would be better off if people like you did not vote.  That does not mean you should be physically or legally denied your right to vote. You should voluntarily remove yourself from the registration rolls. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.2.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

I try to be friendly and polite to everyone. I cope with these issues by sitting in an empty room and popping bubble wrap. It really works.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

I'll keep that in mind if I ever wonder how you cope with these issues. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

looks like we have an advocate for incivility there.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.3    2 weeks ago
looks like we have an advocate for incivility there

People often think they have a "good reason" that justifies behavior they would never tolerate in someone else.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.3.2  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.3    2 weeks ago

Indeed.  He’s a good reason to celebrate with great fanfare and laughter when we re elect our great President for four more years next year.  KAG!  

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.3.3  pat wilson  replied to  Heartland American @5.3.2    2 weeks ago
 KAG!

Well he's keeping a merkin great ! He wears one on his head.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.3.4  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.3    2 weeks ago

We achieved MAGA and now we are going to KAG

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

Now THERE is a typical post by you--bashing Trump and any who have supported a single thing he has done.

We ARE allowed to vote---according to the US Constitution. Now, I realize that probably doesn't mean much to you--after all, it is just some words on a page to people such as yourself, without any real meaning.

But you underestimated Trump and his support before. Are you willing to make the SAME damn mistake again based on nothing more than your hatred of Trump and anyone supporting him? 'Cuz you know what that makes you, right? I mean, I appreciate you removing all doubt just in case someone was fooled by you.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.1  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.4    2 weeks ago

Good points.  Well said.  👍👏

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

jungkonservativ111
Tessylo
Snuffy
Ozzwald
Sunshine
Wishful_thinkin
Ronin2
SteevieGee
bccrane
Freefaller

Just Jim NC TttH
Texan1211


44 visitors