70 Percent of Republicans and Democrats Agree: The Other Side Are 'Bullies'
A new poll from the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics found that 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats think the other side are authoritarian bullies.

Even in these polarized times, Americans from both parties can agree on one thing: The other side sucks!
A new poll of 1,000 registered voters published by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics (IOP) found that 73 percent of Republicans think that "Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree." Low and behold, a near-identical 74 percent of Democrats think the same thing of Republicans.
The survey, conducted by pollsters Neil Newhouse and Joel Benenson in late May, likewise found that roughly equal proportions of Republicans and Democrats said that the other side was generally untruthful and spread misinformation.
"While we've documented for years the partisan polarization in the country, these poll results are perhaps the starkest evidence of the deep divisions in partisan attitudes rippling through the country," said Newhouse in a summary of the poll results.
So many people viewing the other side as contemptible bullies obviously isn't great. But it seems accurate enough. Republicans and Democrats alike are, in fact, quite eager to push their views onto people.
At some level, that's the entire point of being a member of a political party: to win elections so you can enact policies against the wishes of your losing opponents.
The IOP poll does, however, capture a regrettable backsliding in American society.
While bigotries one might have once had toward a neighbor of a different race, nationality, sexual orientation, or sect of Dutch Reform Church have subsided, heightened partisan tensions are helping us stay as angry as ever.
Indeed, partisan divides have been growing for nearly two decades now, to the point where they represent the primary fissure in American society.
"Partisanship continues to be the dividing line in the American public's political attitudes, far surpassing differences by age, race and ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, religious affiliation or other factors," noted a Pew Research brief from December 2019.
With emotions running high, it's no surprise that people act like bullies to their partisan adversaries. And it's led them to use the mechanisms of the state to push their views onto their losing partisan opponents.
Recall just last year, when Democratic states and cities required diners, theater goers, and students to be vaccinated, while Republicans proactively banned businesses from adopting their own private vaccine mandates. Political minorities in both red and blue states had every reason to feel pushed around.
One way of softening tensions is to sincerely try to convince people of your position and build large majorities in favor of major policy initiatives you try to enact. The patience our elected leaders have for doing that seems to be on the wane.
Witness the furious reaction from some Democrats at the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to unilaterally impose costly emissions regulations on power plants.
The Court's decision doesn't stop Democrats from passing identical rules through Congress. It just requires convincing some Republican elects to come along, or, failing that, some voters of the merits of those regulations. Instead, they've decided to fume like a smokestack about "fascist" judges destroying the planet.
Examples abound on the other side of the aisle too. Republican crusades against "critical race theory" in education have often tried to prohibit what ideas can be taught in private and charter schools as well, for instance.
The apathy about convincing people is evident in the IOP poll.
Half of respondents said that they've avoided political discussions with people because they were unsure of the other person's views. Another 40 percent have stopped following someone on social media because of their political views. One-quarter have said they've lost friends or avoided relatives over political differences.
You're obviously not going to convince someone of your views if you don't talk to them.
Not engaging with the other side while also pushing a proactive partisan agenda is obviously untenable. People will be increasingly correct in their perception that their opponents are trying to force views and policies upon them without their consent, or even their say.
Feeling threatened or inevitably triumphant, people also are more apt to resort to more bullying tactics. This makes dialoguing between opponents less likely. Rinse. Repeat.
One could try to break out of this cycle by adopting a more live-and-let-live, libertarian approach to politics, whereby people agree not to interfere in each other's lives and lifestyles nor ask for their own to be subsided or promoted by the state.
The eagerness with which people are disengaging with politics per the IOP poll shows that many people crave a little less partisan bickering in their lives.
If these same people applied a similarly apathetic ethos to public policy as well and stopped supporting politicians eager to control other people's lives, they might have less cause to hate and fear the other side.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, don't worry Reason commentary section: I'm not afraid to give my thoughts on things.
Hey BestUsedCarSales, how's your sales of used, refurbished cars coming along?
Here is a used, refurbished comment for ya:
Got any used cars for sale?
The market for used women used to be a LOT better (before abortion bans of course), but very soon here, your "pre-made families" are gonna get MUCH larger, and most men want to spread THEIR seed, and NOT support ready-made families! It is just a plain fact of biology! All the men who WORSHIT the fartilized egg smells? Somehow, they will NOT pony up, and chase after the babe with 5 kids from 5 fathers! To reduce abortion pressures, ya know? To provide her and hers with a safe home and a good father, and reduce the pressures that might make her abort her 6th child? Geezum, I wonder why not?
Yet these (and more) basics of sociobiology do NOT get taught in High School; WHY? Will the Bible-Bangers EVER let us teach basic truths?
Anyway, how are the used cars sales? Would you consider selling used women? Or is that an ENTIRELY too hard of a sale for you to tackle?
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc107315509 FYI... Basic starting material for a new High School course?
If you were more willing to pump and dump - you too could have children with 5 different women.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (eht-02) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> http://payout11.tk
This is sadly true! Sometimes the "battle of the sexes" gets ugly. The below infamous mnemonic device helps us to summarize the sociobiology of all of this:
Q: What’s the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example, among many other things, yanking on her “jugs” too hard?
A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!
Can you say, “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”? Really fast now!
Lol spastic loser-in-life idiot is so happy when he gets a response 😀
How very Christian of the writer to doublethink away the Libertarian Party. If the Dem and Pee Kleptocracy factions are "both" parties, either there is no more LP or it was been digested by the Mises Caucus representing Republican National Socialism and God's Own Prohibitionists
Only 70%? ALL parties get to bully. That's the political paradigm, i.e., the initiation of force, threats, fraud, e.g., "the law is the law", resulting in chaos, tyranny. Why? Give people power to rule you and they will deny your rights, oppress, exploit for their benefit. Don't like it? Don't vote. They only way to win is NOT PLAY! Don't give the your support in any way, political, economic, psychological.
Self-governing non-violently is self-protection, self-affirming, demonstrating a self-confident political maturity. It's not utopia, just rational, moral, practical.
Live-and-let-live only means that they eat you last.
No one disputes this. But generally speaking, one side is covered in defensive knife wounds, the other one is covered in blood. Someone's blood. But DNA tests are inconclusive as to whose it is.
Remember all those studies where they ask Democrats to define Republican positions and say why they think that way, and ask Republicans the same of Democrats. The Republicans were pretty much able to accurately define both, but the Democrats, while able to correctly define about half of the positions, were not ably to say why. They had no clue.
Of course, MSM pretty accurately states what Democrats are saying and the thoughts behind that, but only call Republicans names.
I actually have made $18290 within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop...~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home...~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
online visiting this site...> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
This was my thought, that this result was somewhat like both Democrats and Republicans thinking internet censorship was a problem: Republicans thought the problem was that they were being censored, Democrats thought the problem was that Republicans weren't being censored enough.
Sure, they both think the other side are bullies, but do they mean the same thing by "bullying"? Probably not.
Democratic states and cities required diners, theater goers, and students to be vaccinated, while Republicans proactively banned businesses from adopting their own private vaccine mandates.
Bothsidesism fail.
The Donkeys used government to restrict freedom of the individual, the Heffalumps use government to increase freedom of the individual.
This is the primary fissure in America: collectivists vs individualists.
Yeah the Republicans he's talking about didn't prevent anybody from getting vaccinated. But the libertarians at Reason see some equivalency here. Just pathetic.
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛ https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
BOTH sides fail!
"Team D" practices compassion using money that belongs to OTHER people!
"Team R" practices compassion using wombs that belongs to OTHER people!
Half of respondents said that they've avoided political discussions with people because they were unsure of the other person's views. Another 40 percent have stopped following someone on social media because of their political views. One-quarter have said they've lost friends or avoided relatives over political differences.
Remember that Pew study which should Democrats were like eleventy thousand times more likely to unfriend someone on social media for wrongthink?
*showed
Why does the Donkey have a larger fist? Oh wait, it's a trans woman's fist. Carry on.
And both parties want to fist you, etiquette be damned.
HAHA TRUE
YOU'RE ALL BULLIES!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!
70% of Libertarians agree that the major parties are fascists of varying shades.
Nuh-uh! It's 80%, you fascist!
It should be 100%
That’s exactly something a fascist would say. I’m keeping my eye on you.
You just want to check out my ass!
Both sides ARE bullies!
Team "D": Stop being compassionate with other people's money! Examples: Rent control laws and min-wage laws are "compassionate" on the surface, yet leave the poor more likely to be homeless and jobless.
Team "R": Stop being compassionate with other people's wombs! By removing fall-back (backstop) birth control, and by leaving more women to be victims of "Lying Lothario", you FORCE poor people's families to be LARGER against their will, thwarting the poor in their attempt at climbing up the ladder of the "demographic transition"!
Stupid self-righteous dipshits MIGHT consider making a trade-off compromise here, BOTH of which would help the poor (and hence, all of us), AND make Government Almighty smaller, to boot!
Please don't accuse me (above) of not being "data driven" with my opinion. See the results of a relevant scientific survey on the above matters, below!
STOP THE PRESSES! HOT NEWS FLASH!
INSSSSIGHT (Infallibly Noble, Succulently Scientific SQRLSY-Survey Intelligently Gathered Hot Takes) has conducted in-person surveys of almost 10 million Democrats very recently, and here are the findings! Today’s USA Democrats identify or agree with the below statements at the following rates (please ignore sum total mismatches with 100% due to rounding errors):
‘A) 0.15%: “Marxism is the One True Way, and North Korea is Utopia on Earth!”
‘B) 0.25%: “Antifa, the Lizard People, and BLM are the ONLY ones properly qualified to teach CRT to all of Our Children, all of which MUST be embraced by ALL schools!”
‘C) 0.65%: “The Republican Party must be outlawed ASAP, because they are grooming innocent young people to become Republicans! Also, chimpanzees and monkeys that have been grooming each other need to be prevented from performing ANY further grooming! Everyone knows that grooming is horrible!”
‘D) 2.3%: “Religion (especially Christian religion) must be kept out of the schools and public policy debates! However, the ironclad, unquestionable revelations to Democrats concerning the Earth Mother Gaia, and the facts that higher minimum wages don’t cause unemployment, and that forced-lower rents don’t cause homelessness, may NOT be questioned, because they are compassionate and self-evident, and do NOT come from God, so they are NOT religious beliefs.”
‘E) 17%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I get SOOOO much pleasure out of punishing the evil Republicans, that I consider the punishment inflicted on the poor, by these Democrat policies, to be just a bit of ‘collateral damage’. And WHY do the Republicans deserve punishment? As revenge for the damage that they do to the poor, by using statist womb control to force them to have larger families. Republicans thus thwart the ‘demographic transition’ for the poor, through policies that encourage ‘the rich will get richer, while the poor will have more children’. So we must PUNISH the Republicans for this! Revenge is ours!”
‘F) 30%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I can’t find any Democrat politicians that will vote my way on these issues, and I can’t bring myself to vote Republican or Libertarian, because most of them are so pro-life that they want to take over my womb, my wife’s womb, or my girlfriend’s womb.”
‘G) 50%: “I would LOVE to see a Grand Compromise whereby Democrats stops punishing the poor with higher minimum wages AND excessive licensing laws which ultimately cause more unemployment, and with forced-lower rents that ultimately cause homelessness among the poor, and Republicans cease and desist with anti-abortion and anti-birth-control laws that ALSO punish the poor! ALL statist policies that yank the ladders of success away from the poor should be removed! However, Republicans are fanatics who won’t listen to reason. So for now, I’ll keep on voting “D”, and the poor will keep on having more and more children, they’ll vote “D”, out-vote the “R” fanatics, and THEN we can perhaps finally get to a sensible-policies-place!”
“Give a little to get a little”, said a materialistic slutty girlfriend of mine way back when. See https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/love-language-youre-more-likely-170236564.html “If This Is Your Love Language, You're More Likely to Divorce”… Couples treasure the following items, or express their love in the following ways, says this article: ‘1) gifts (presents), ‘2) quality time together, ‘3) acts of service (AKA work… Do the dishes already!), ‘4) words; I love you, etc., ‘5) physical touch (affection).
Beware of #1!!! Materialism, gifts, status symbols, conspicuous consumption!.. Designer this and designer that! “I spent more money on you than you spent on me!” A quick way to fights, broken relationships, and divorces! Achtung, Baby!
Well, I digress. “Give a little to get a little” can make a LOT more sense in politics!!!
Hey, look, assholes, see what the above polling data says!!! Combine categories E, F, and G, and 97% of Democrats would be open to having Republicans give a little, to get a little! “Team R” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ wombs, and “team D” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ money! Only self-righteous assholery stands in our way!!!
Try as you like, you will never be OBL.
Lol youre so spazy
I didn’t read your comment btw cuz you’re just too spazy
Half of respondents said that they've avoided political discussions with people because they were unsure of the other person's views.
Well, in the Olden Days, this was simply considered being polite - to avoid controversial subjects like politics or religion with people with whom one is not at least a close acquaintance. So I wouldn't take this as 'bullying' per se.
Agreed! Money and sex are topics #3 and#4 here...
(I do think that money is VERY sexy though! I will share that much of my opinions with you, even though I don't know you all that well!)
Here ya go Sqrlsy:
https://scrooge-mcduck.fandom.com/wiki/Money_Bin/Gallery?file=Money-Swim-uncle-scrooge-mcduck-35997716-350-259.jpg
Thanks!
The money? I don't consider it so obscene...
However, these clothed ducks are NOT wearing pants!!! Naked-butted ducks!!! Now THAT is obscene!
Lol why are you such a spaz though 😀
God Bless The Almighty Dollar!
In ye olden days, we didn't have social media either. If everyone were taught manners when they were children like they were supposed to be, social media would never have been a thing.
Manners are racist, sexist, and classist! Is this the real Tony?
Nothing says manners like wanting your political opponents murdered by the state.
That's nonsense. Manners are universal. They're only optional for people who don't want to have any friends.
Like democrats
It would have still been a thing because it connects people. It may not have devolved into retarded monkeys flinging poo though.
Engagement is what makes them money. People do not engage with good news as much as they do bad news, and outrage makes people click far more than agreement.
We not only just let this happen, we gave the inventors of this obvious terrible idea billions of dollars.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Heinlein
It's clear the Dems are the bullies and the Reps are pussies.
Can't we all just agree that no one should be over 80 when inaugurated?
Deal! I'd even go as low as 65! Airline pilots are forced to retire at 65... Why not politicians as well?
Lol you were forced to retire early by your spazy loser mental illness, old obsolete twit 😀
I thought it was the Mises Caucus that were the real bullies.
100% of Woketarians agree
Those god-damned bastards keep trying to leave us alone!
Where is their compassion?
Mainly to pregnant girls. Their prime schaisst-blabber and presidential hopefool explained to Nick that--to girl-bullying pronatalists--every woman who just got laid is liable to be charged with murder if she doesn't watch out. This is because "life" begins at conception. Slaver Dave then described himself as "pro-life." Even Anschluss caucus females, assuming there are any, ought to be sharp enough to see men with guns in their own future if Dave can sucker enough support. Ram Johnston recently joined, and Robert Dear.
I don't think that the Democrats are just bullies, I think that they're agents of fascism and death.
After the NSDAP, the Democratic Party has been the evilest party in the modern west, and that's even including the Italian Fascists and Franco's Falangists.
They fought for, or instituted, slavery, the Trail of Tears, the Indian Wars, the Klu Klux Klan, Civil Service Segregation, the Anti-Asian immigration laws, Jim Crow, Civil Rights Act filibuster, Japanese internment, eugenics, the Black Codes, redlining and segregation. As a party they've never once apologized for any of it.
Even today they push late-term abortion and infanticide, Critical Race Theory, mandatory injections or get fired, sex cult child abuse, military ideological purges and corporatist censorship of government criticism.
The Republicans are a party full of greedy hucksters, con-artists and posturing clowns, but Democrats are truly evil.
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer will scream and holler about the rights (to life) of the Sacred Human Fartilized Egg Smells... But after they are BORN? THEN She will be Perfectly Delighted to push them towards committing suicide!!!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
“You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"
Fuck off, troll. Come back with an actual argument instead of proving my point about you guys.
Oh, and I still think you should copy the guy who killed Hitler. You're an evil old cunt who's making the world wide a terrible place.
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
You know who else were Expert Christian Theologians?
They are still fighting for segragation while calling others racists. It is pretty amazing to watch.
You are so fucking confused I don't know how you operate two feet at once.
Tell me, the place you get your political news. Is it a website that looks like it was designed in 1998?
Ad hominem.
I'm willing to share any and all sources I get my political news from. Why aren't any of you?
We do. All the time. You’re just an idiot. It’s understandable, with your 85 IQ.
85?? You give it too much credit.
58
For fuck sakes Tony, you gibbering retard, point out anything that I said that wouldn't come from any history textbook.
No 1998 website needed.
If you can point to a single living Democrat who is pro- trail of tears, you might be making the point you thought you were. The only constant through history is the name of the parties. What they support has radically changed in 200 years. It's radically changed in 20.
Seems to imply “You can’t find any living democrats who support this thing their party did almost two centuries ago that has since been deemed an atrocity by those who didn’t have to live with the ramifications one way or another.”
Such a strange point to make if it did.
Anyway, You can point to plenty of living democrats who are pro-government enforced social engineering writ large. Individuals and their petty, archaic rights be damned. You can find plenty who are willing to dehumanize any politically inconvenient demographics who stand in their why. Check out some of the “unvaxxed” rhetoric that was going around just a year or so ago. Not just on comment boards, or newspaper OP-EDs but real life politicians with authority and law making power.
You can find plenty who are completely cool with the 20th century atrocities committed by the radical left they hero worship because it was only their social-political enemies who really suffered. And it wasn’t real socialism anyway.
Tony's fake name has no HTML link to a blog, choob account, site or poocast. This is no different from 99% of the sockpuppet trumpanzees infiltrating here as chaff to hamper communications, so no disgrace.
Are you going to actually dispute anything he said with anything resembling an argument, or even a rational thought based in reality?
Tony can't because it's all historically factual.
But the parties flipped!!1!1!1!1!1!
Specifically on civil rights, the Republican party CHOSE to welcome white racists as its core constituency. The Democrats sacrificed those voters for good principle. The lesson of the story you're telling is the opposite of the one you'd like to be telling. Republicans had a choice to be the party of Lincoln, and it deliberately chose to be the party of the Confederacy.
I'm sorry, are we supposed to believe the party with the Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd and the flagrantly racist throughout his presidential campaign Joe Biden somehow repudiated their racist constituency?
Plus, the big party switch thing post 60s was mostly bullshit.
And progressivism was rich, racist, and eugenics obsessed to the core since the beginning. None of that has changed. All that’s changed is the “proletariat” the affluent white commie vanguard can exploit switched from “workers” to “POCs”.
"The Republicans are a party full of greedy hucksters, con-artists and posturing clowns, but Democrats are truly evil."
Pure tribalistic whataboutism! Also, have seen a 3-legged dog, so all dogs are 3-legged! Last but not least, pot calling kettle black, EVIL suicide-pusher!
A major reason the left and right wings of Control Freaks Unanimous hate each other is that too many Americans have bought the leftist LIE that our republic is a democracy. Everyone knows that in de-mob-ocracies, the best organized mob can force everyone to march in lockstep with it. No one wants to be forced, so everyone is angry and belligerent. De-mob-ocracy failed the ancient Greeks and it is failing us as we gradually adopt it. See Article 4, Section 4, U. S. Constitution and http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
I sympathize with your argument! How many voters would vote for the following policy?:
Don't tax you,
Don't tax me,
Tax the fella
Behind the tree!
Maybe soon we can have AI-quantum-computers supplement-embedded into our brains, so that we can actually become more data-driven (not just emotion-driven), and THEN direct democracy might actually WORK!!!
Lol nobody reads the spaz. Nobody responds except to make fun of him LOL spaz 😀
And people like you enable this bullshit by pretending that these are well-defined, distinct terms. They are not.
If you want to discuss the form of government in the US or elsewhere, you have to be clear and specific. The US is a union of representative democracies, generally using a winner-take-all voting system.
You also pay lip service to the bullshit claim that Democrats are somehow representative of majorities or "the mob". Democrats don't want majoritarian rule; Democrats think American voters are stupid.
I guarantee you: if the US was a direct democracy, it would be a much more conservative country; the kind of sheer nonsense progressives and Democrats have passed over the last century wouldn't be possible. At the state level, voters in progressive states have repeatedly voted against gay marriage and illegal immigration only to have Democrats have those decisions overturned.
So that's why a literal mob of violent Trump supporters tried to overturn the election? To protect us from mob rule?
Why do I have to be the only educated person here? I'm not even a political scientist, but I can tell you that republic and democracy are synonyms.
Just in case you're real confused, "republic" does not mean "only Republicans get to rule."
How do you overturn an election without guns? The Congress wasn't even there they had been evacuated because of the bombs. BTW why can't the FBI find the bomber?
Keep downplaying the coup attempt I watched happen live on CNN, see how serious I take the argument. Plenty of them had guns. More had knives. Some had knives attached to flagpoles. People died. And there was the pipe bomb to which you refer.
If it were some random black kid setting fire to a dumpster in Portland, you'd blame the entire Democratic party for it.
OK, we will keep downplaying it. You keep pretending it was worse than Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the entire summer of 2020
Not one gun was confiscated. The only people who died were protestors at least two were killed by the cops. The pipe bombs were duds. They were fake.
That’s some exciting democrat fan fiction you wrote there Tony. Not bad for a vapid poof with an 85 IQ.
"Plenty of them had guns. "
The lack of any seized guns is clearly proof of that. Also the lack of gunfire from people NOT in the Capitol Police demonstrate it further.
A lot of fog of war happens on the day of. Do you know on 9/11 there were repeated reports that there was a car bomb that blew up the state department building?
There were news reports, we all heard it, if we were watching. But it never did happen. Since there was a ton of activity that day it was difficult for newscasters to sort out fact from fiction, and the fact that the building was closed off and the facade was being renovated made it appear plausible.
Just like someone on the news the day of 1/6 saying the crowd is heavily armed isn't actually proving that. They're just saying what they've heard in a fast-moving story. We'd have heard by now if people were carrying firearms into the capitol building, we'd have hundreds of photos and videos.
And if they were so determined to murder Congress, why didn't they use their guns on the Capitol police? Why wasn't there a violent shootout? Why didn't any Capitol Police officer get stabbed? If this rabid, angry mob was storming the capitol determined to do murder, where are all the murders?
https://www.jpost.com/international/kill-him-with-his-own-gun-dc-cop-talks-about-the-riot-655709
‘Kill him with his own gun’ – DC cop talks about Capitol riot
DC Police officer Michael Fanone: I had a choice to make: Use deadly force, which would likely result with the mob ending his life, or trying something else.
Cops, unlike the mob, had self-restraint and reason (good sense, judgment). They deserve some credit here, unlike the mob.
Shooting Ashli Babbit and beating Rosalind Boyland to death was restraint?
Well, rather do that to the lawbreakers, instead of having them grab your gun, so that they can "kill you with your own gun"!
What happened to the "back the blue" and "lawn odor" wings of "Team R" anyway?
PS, mob violence and mob property destruction are both always wrong... Except when MY Tribe does it! Think Boston Tea Party!
Me? Given my druthers, I'd rather have the thugs steal my TV and my expensive sneakers, than steal my democracy! My TV can be easily replaced! Democracy? Not so sure about THAT one!
"Republic" as used here connotations a constitutional representative democracy with limits on government authority, not pure majoritarianism as implied by "democracy".
Not that the Left really likes "democracy" as they demonstrate a revealed preference for rule by bureaucrats as the place where all the real governing decisions are mad3.
What we have is neither democratic nor republican. When there are two candidates for the presidency and the loser of the vote gets to be president, that's straight up Mickey Mouse shit.
Accusing people who use the word democracy of favoring bare majority rule on every matter is a straw man. If we truly agree on a "republican form of government," then we either must both oppose the Republican party's increasingly aggressive moves toward authoritarianism, or else YOU stop using words you don't mean.
Any recent examples of aggressive moves towards authoritarianism from republicans? (Outside of certain republicans tagging along with Democrat show trials, or red flag laws?).
In 1793, republicans were guillotining communist-anarchist looters. The 1850 translation of The Communist Manifesto into English appeared in a British rag called "The Red Republican." And the old saw abt heartless to stupid? That was Guizot: "N’être pas republicain à vingt ans est preuve d’un manque de coeur; l’être après trente ans est preuve d’un manque de tête." Clemenceau reworded that to instead say "socialiste". George Wallace claimed there isn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the Kleptocracy factions.
^^YES! Exactly.. (to Poorgrandchildren) +1000000000000
One side believes that men can become women, that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, the the two parties "switched sides", that socialism has never been tried, that America was founded in 1619, that free speech and punctuality are white supremacy, and that America has become more racist over the past 50 years.
One side is batshit crazy, while the other is merely sometimes wrong within normal parameters.
You're supposedly gay, but you've never interacted with trans people? Don't you think it would behoove you to withhold having an opinion on whether trans people are all liars until you have more to go on than the hysterical ignorant shrieking of Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson? Go meet a trans person. They're generally very decent, and I've never met one who would be anything but understanding if you got their pronoun wrong. You're being led around on a leash by rightwing media figures. You are allowing your brain to be turned to sawdust.
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity. That one has a Wikipedia page too. Let me guess, Wikipedia is part of the global Jew conspiracy?
Democrats aren't socialists. If you don't know the history of the political parties, then go read some history. And black civil rights activists in college are not the same as the entire Democratic party.
There, that about covers it.
"that about covers it."
Well, I guess "smearing poop on it" technically counts as "cover(ing) it".
Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder; surgery and hormones may or may not ameliorate symptoms of the disorder, but they do not change biological reality.
No, it is clearly not. Even Wikipedia doesn't state that it is (not that it is an authoritative site); to the contrary, the impact of climate change are largely on coastal communities, migration, inequality, etc., all effects that presume the existence of a large human population.
Many Democratic politicians are self-described socialists. Technically, the political program of the Democratic party is better described as fascism.
Yes, that about covers it: you are a "propaganda addled fascist", to use your own words.
The biggest impact that climate change has had on coastal communities is a massive influx of high profile "climate change" fear mongers and politition moving there
"they do not change biological reality"
Nobody understands this better than trans people, who are the ones who go through all the various medical interventions. Do you think you're telling trans people something they don't know, Ben Shapiro?
If what you're referring to are your inherited cultural gender norms, those in fact do change. Pink was once a masculine color. Masculine men used to wear gowns and heels. Some cultures have more than two genders. These things, like pronouns, are indeed arbitrary and not biological. No trans person is confused on any of these points like you are.
What's your point re: climate change? That nothing should be done about it? You can be optimistic or pessimistic as you like, but if your position is that we should burn more oil, you're doing free propaganda work for Charles Koch, and it's unseemly if you want to be considered a serious person.
I observed that one side holds the biologically ridiculous belief that men can become women.
That one side holds the scientifically ridiculous belief that it is an existential threat to humanity.
These were examples of One side is batshit crazy, while the other is merely sometimes wrong within normal parameters.
To repeat myself: nobody understands the biological reality of sex like trans people, for obvious reasons. Biologists don't use the words "men" and "women." There are not men fruit flies and woman fruit flies. It is not we who are confused about science, it is you who are confused about the meanings of words.
It's not clear to me that the average Republican voter or even the average Republican politician even believes climate change is real yet. Furthermore, they've spent decades being funded by climate denier oil money for the express purpose of spreading lies on the subject, lies that infected most of the people at this site. Your analysis is so contorted you can only be deliberately lying.
Biologists don't use the words "men" and "women." There are not men fruit flies and woman fruit flies.
They use "male" and "female" typically. And, yes, there are male and female fruit flies. I'm even going to go a step further and say there are no non-binary fruit flies.
they've spent decades being funded by climate denier oil money for the express purpose of spreading lies on the subject
Please look up how much money has been spent in total by the global energy sector on climate-oriented propaganda vs. that spent by global governments and international engineering firms like Bechtel and Parsons Brinkerhoff and report back.
I'll wait.
Of course, they do: when referring to male and female homo sapiens.
That's because the terms "men" and "women" refer specifically to homo sapiens.
And since nobody has yet proposed any meaningful policy for addressing climate change, that is perfectly fine.
Lying about what? I stated correctly progressive beliefs; you tried to defend them. And I explained to you why they are wrong.
You're scientifically illiterate, Tony, you have demonstrated that again and again.
There is XX (female) and XY (male). That is the objective, biological reality. Hermaphrodites (XXY) don't count.
Why would you use a person's pronouns if you're talking directly to them?
Because I don't respect them and refer to them as it?
Good question. It's mostly a nonissue. Which is why we should probably stop making laws targeting trans people for social ostracism.
I agree, they should be ostracized just because.
You could choose to celebrate the wonders of nature instead of insisting on telling everyone how small-minded and provincial you are as if it should be our problem too. Go watch Pale Blue Dot and tell me it matters whether a dude wears mascara.
Tony, you’re one of the smallest minded fools I’ve encountered in my adult life.
Mental illness isn't a wonder. We don't celebrate anorexia either.
Jordan Peterson thinks the only naturally sexually attractive body is what he sees on the typical Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. So looks like we do celebrate anorexia and even call it natural.
No stupid, anorexia and being a healthy body weight are two different things smooth brain.
Say, speaking of Trans People, if you meet someone at a bar and take them home for the night, but find out in bed right before sex that they are a trans man, would you still fuck them Tony? Would going down on that male pussy? If not, would that make your faggot ass a bigot?
a toaster company doesnt celebrate a defective toaster coming off the assembly line either...
if it still functions within acceptable parameters they might send it to an outlet store however
They ostracize themselves. Someone who wants to get along with people tries to get along.
Someone who wants to start fights goes around correcting others' speech, making demands, invading private spaces like women’s' restrooms, causing drama, etc.
Respect goes both ways. Respect others to be treated respectfully.
This. And this is half the problem with the trans thing.
The other half is that they’re actively recruiting joiners, attention seekers, crybullies and genuinely confused kids to potentially mutilate themselves over what is more than likely a passing phase.
How is being deeply confused about gender “an idea whose time has come”? I certainly want no harm to come to any person who feels compelled to go that route. But should we be actively encouraging this?
It's a despicable way for the narcissistic assholes to always be the center of attention, even when dey/deez/doz leave the room. Then there's the added benefit of making everyone police the speech of others, and snitch when they screw up and use a misapproved pronoun or deadname.
^
You know what's bullying, Tony? An acquaintance's little high school trans-tyrant child whose therapist said she should take down all the pictures of her kid before she transitioned, because it made the trans kid feel bad. So this mother had to box up her memories of the daughter she had for 16 years, so this little fucking psycho emotional tyrant wouldn't feel bad. No consideration of how the mother would feel, having 16 years of her life as a mother wiped out of existence, and being held emotionally held hostage to the fear that her little trans-tyrant may kill herself if she saw a 3rd grade photo of herself.
That's fucking bullying. It's heart breaking. And if you think that's rare, please broaden your horizons. It goes on ALL. THE. TIME.
Perhaps. I don't know. I have very little experience in the matter. A dear friend of mine did suffer rather extreme psychological distress as a result of her daughter transitioning into a boy, and she's an open-minded liberal. I'd probably have a hard time with it as well if it were my child, as someone who has never been inclined to do anything but blend in to society.
These are just some of the prices we pay for freedom. It was inevitable that following the liberation of women and then the mainstreaming of LGBT people that people would start making open choices that weren't available to them before. It's no crime to feel the tension that this causes.
The crime is making laws to hurt people.
Your phony empathy for trannies isn’t fooling anyone. First, you’re a sociopath. You feel no empathy. You do feign it to use as a weapon. Like you do here every day. But it’s an act. Ultimately, you only care about yourself.
We also know how historically vicious swishbucklers like you are towards Trannies. The cruelest most vicious things I’ve heard heard said about them come from gay leftist men like your. This whole thing where you pretend you give half a shit about them is only because your party is using them to advance their agenda. If tomorrow The Party commanded you to lush for their extermination, you would do so.
So really Tony, really, just stop with your phony, pro tranny bullshit. No one is buying it.
The only thing I'm advocating for is not using the government to hurt people. I am capable of maintaining my principles even when my lizard brain lights up in an unexamined disgust because someone's doing something that doesn't compute. I don't immediately call the nearest politician and ask them to hurt people, like you.
How does it hurt anyone to be restricted to athletic competitions that match your biology? Even granting the "trans" mental state (I don't, necessarily, but let's grant it for argument's sake) -- why shouldn't athletics, where human bodies move their muscles and bones, be governed by biological categories, not genders?
Chess, idgaf, there shouldn't be men's and women's. But the 100-yard dash? Yes there should.
I don't know. I trust local sports leagues to come up with rules that suit them.
You want the most powerful politician you can find to make a law about it for everyone today, because you think trans kids are such a threat.
I just expect better from people who are purportedly pro-individual freedom and pro-freedom from government.
I trust local sports leagues to come up with rules that suit them.
So when they start kicking trans girls off the team you'll be okay with that?
Please allow me to be the first to call "bullshit."
The one good thing about all these trans and non-binary kids is they will help lower the birth rate and there will be fewer abortions too. Can’t make babies if you don’t know what genitals you posses.
With a fertility rate below replacement, Homo Sapiens will become extinct anyway.
Gee, Cronut, it sure sounds like you are passing sweeping judgment based on incomplete information.
Do you know how much of a risk this individual was for suicide? Had this person attempted suicide before? Was it a likely or probable outcome that this person, seeing these pre-transition photos, would be triggered by suicidal thoughts? If so, maybe the therapist's suggestion was a prudent one, and not an act of 'tyranny'. If not, then sure, perhaps you are righ that this therapist's suggestion was overreaching.
And parents are not compelled to accept the advice of counselors. Do you know how much confidence the mom had in this counselor? Was the counselor someone that she had hired, or was it, for instance, a school counselor that she had no real say in choosing? Did the mom consult other opinions?
And why are you accusing the kid of being a 'tyrant'? The kid here had almost no power. The parents have the power. If the parents CHOOSE to accommodate the kid's requests/demands, then that is their CHOICE. It is hardly an act of tyranny if someone with no power makes demands of someone with all the power. And besides, parents make sacrifices for their kids all the time. Is it "tyranny" if kids demand that parents drive them all around town for extracurricular activities like sports? If parents refuse to say no, it isn't because the kid is being a tyrant.
Such hostility towards transgender kids is really not warranted IMO, especially since even the anti-trans crowd largely thinks that these kids are mentally ill and deserve compassion and treatment, not accusations of tyranny.
“Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” in the same way that Dave chappelle is an existential threat to trannies, tony. That is, only in the fevered dreams of people like you who have been brainwashed into believing that everything is so terrible and unfair.
“This is no world for the fragile”, tony. Haha.
One side believes that men can become women,
Rational people, regardless of side, understand that sex is different from gender. Sex is determined by biology. Gender is determined by social norms. There is no genetic requirement that men wear neckties or women wear skirts. It wasn't all THAT long ago that men were expected to wear poofy wigs, perfume and makeup.
that climate change is an existential threat to humanity,
Climate change has the POTENTIAL to be an existential threat to humanity. There are crazies who want to ban cows and nationalize the entire economy in the name of climate change. Then there are rational people, who think that environmental challenges that have the potential to harm at least as many people as who died on 9/11, and possibly much more, should require at least some type of pro-active response to try to prevent it from happening.
the the two parties "switched sides",
They did, when it comes to social conservatism. 100 years ago, Democrats were the socially conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.
that socialism has never been tried,
Yup there are idiots on the left who want to try socialism here, just like there are idiots on the right who thinks "separation of church and state" is baloney, and who think, quite literally, that "the church is supposed to direct the government".
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3540071-boebert-says-she-is-tired-of-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-is-supposed-to-direct-the-government/
They are fringe idiots who don't represent the mainstream view on anything.
that America was founded in 1619,
Not even the 1619 Project crowd believes this. It is the date that, they claim, the first slaves came from North America.
that free speech and punctuality are white supremacy,
You cannot even begin to understand the arguments on the other side of this issue.
and that America has become more racist over the past 50 years.
This is not a Team Red/Team Blue thing, this is more of a racial thing. Blacks (generally) say that not enough progress has been made to correct racial inequality, and whites (generally) say that the country has done enough already.
But hey, let's apply your standard of argumentation to Team Red, shall we?
"One side wants to put guns in every classroom, thinks that dead kids are the price we pay for Second Amendment freedoms, are so 'pro-life' that they want a nationwide ban on abortion while cutting off food to all of those kids that they want to see born, are in thrall to a cult leader and will believe whatever he says including blatant lies about voter fraud, thinks 'patriotism' means gaudy superficial displays while doing absolutely nothing to actually help fellow citizens, loves 'the free market' until it's time for their handout, will drive their gas-guzzling SUVs right up until the planet becomes uninhabitable, and will utterly refuse to do anything about any problem until that problem affects THEM PERSONALLY".
Do you think that is a fair criticism of Team Red? No? Oh, okay then.
^dumbass groomer
It's "Lo and behold", not "Low and behold".
Cast your eyes downward. These days it really is low and behold.
Well, authoritarian has a definition. Sadly the world has provided many practical examples of it.
The Democratic party, feckless though its methods may be, is not dissimilar to any mainstream political party in the democratic world. They don't indulge in big lies, cheat at elections, or scapegoat minorities for power.
Republicans are fascist through and through, carrying a cross and waving a flag. They're passing laws that bully their minority scapegoat du jour. They tried to violently seize power against the will of the electorate. They are so propaganda addled they can't see straight.
Only fascists want us to be so confused about the meanings of words that we mistake night for day. It's all in Orwell, if you people read books.
You are terminally ignorant of the history of Democrats.
Neither nationalism nor Christianity are defining features of fascism.
Yes. Exhibit #1 of a confused, deluded, propaganda addled fascist: Tony.
Ah Tony, you are one crazy deluded bastard. Luckily I've muted you, but sometimes I come here before I log in and see whatever hysterical nonsense you're trying to pass off as sophisticated commentary.
Will you ever be honest enough to admin Biden and the Democrats are a disgrace instead of the Vaudevillian Republicans you conjure up in every post to stab at and parry with.
Biden and Democrats would have to be one hell of a disgrace before I'd sentence this country to Republican rule. Stop telling me how bad Democrats are and defend Republican policy, if you can find one.
We're libertarians.
While I'm not into -isms, I do support maximizing individual human liberty.
No you dont
Far more than any libertarian does. Libertarians are rights-minimalists. Name a right that was invented after the 18th century, and most libertarians want nothing to do with it. The distinction between your slogans and your policy positions couldn't be more stark. If any society actually operated by libertarian policies, there'd be a tiny oligarchy of people with real liberty, while everyone else is living a life tantamount to slavery in their factories and on their farms. You call it freedom because the only freedom you've been told to care about is keeping Charles Koch's income tax rate low.
Rights aren't invented they're natural. In actuality there's only one, to be free from the initiatory use of force.
So there's only one right. If I'm born in a ditch to a poor wretch, I should count my blessings that, though I will never have even a small opportunity to live a decent life, at least someone will be put in a cage if they shoot me.
Tell me more about this awesome philosophy.
No you don’t. You’re an authoritarian asshole with a god complex.
Fredrick Douglass was born into slavery yet he consulted with Presidents.
Libertarians doesn't have -ism in it.
Nationalism and Christianity aren't defining features of fascism? In America they sure as fuck are. America kind of invented fascism, or at least the underpinnings. It was useful for keeping a third of its population categorized as slaves.
Not true. If Christianity had been everything you allege, you would have been decapitated long ago. Instead that is being done by atheists (aka ProAborts), so there you go.
Christianity is a fairy tale that adults tell themselves with a straight face. It's adherents to any such dogma that should worry humanity. At best they want to force their crap down our throats "for our own good." Many of them just want to see the world burn. They're all a menace, no matter which version of Yahweh they think controls the universe instead of physics.
Well, I think another influential public intellectual expressed your sentiments much more eloquently:
Of course, you are already familiar with his works, given that you are an ardent defender of his ideology.
Hitler was nice to dogs too. If you're nice to a dog, you want to murder all the Jews. IPSO FACTO.
NOYB2 blew your phony assertion away, and that's your riposte? Weak, Tony.
You claimed that Christianity (not love of dogs) was a "defining feature of fascism". Not only is that false, in fact rejection of Christianity in favor of "the advances of science" is a defining feature of fascism.
And since we are talking about each other's political views, I'm also pointing out that your belief system shares this defining feature of fascism.
Fascism needs no ideological moorings. The whole point of it, and why it's so contagious like a virus, is that it has no principles or mythology but power for its own sake. That also means it will latch onto Christianity if that's the dominant mythology (as it usually is when we're talking about it). But German fascism also appropriated older local mythologies and even Eastern ones.
I prefer to talk about a practice of politicians to exploit the human brain's tribal impulses for power. At the end of the day, you're killing millions of people in camps, and you can't even explain why. Any attempt to justify it even with religion is insufficient, because there's obviously no excuse for doing maximum evil, even in religion.
I'd love to have a conversation about whether modern science was a good idea. I don't think it's obvious that it was, considering the threat that technological progress could pose. I am, however, pretty certain that if the only alternative is religion and all the 100% irrational death and suffering it causes, then I'll take science.
The fact is that fascism has ideological moorings, written down by Mussolini, Hitler, and other prominent figures. Among them are the rejection of Christian churches and an embrace of science and reason as the basis of government.
No, Tony, people with beliefs like yours end up killing millions of people in camps.
I believe science and progress are excellent ideas, in the hands of free people living in a free society, just not as the basis for government or political power.
You, Tony, use science to justify political power and government policy, believe that religion causes "100% irrational death and suffering", and are deeply worried about the "threat that technological progress could pose". Which, again, shows how much your world view aligns with that of fascists.
remember, they were Christian, so they absolutely weren't fascists, that would be impossible! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustaše
Actually that is kind of true. Moussilini stated that racism was the logical extention of the American progressive movement
No, they are not. All Western nations used to be both nationalist and Christian. Fascists were hostile to Christianity.
I agree. And specifically, it was Democrats and progressives who did: slavery, eugenics, segregation, racial classifications, collectivism, anti-free market ideologies, etc. Hitler, Mussolini, and Goebbels literally learned from American progressives, and American progressives sympathized with them.
Thanks, Tony, for reminding us of these facts. They shall never be forgotten.
Do you honestly believe that modern Democrats all endorse the 1828 Democratic party platform? Like, do you actually believe the shit you're typing? I just need to know whether I'm talking to a true simpleton so I can let you play with your boogers and move on with my life.
Both major parties have quite different policy platforms than they did even when I was a younger adult, let alone compared to 200 years ago. The realignment following the civil rights era is extremely well understood. What exactly is your logic here? Is there logic? Or is it just a string of half-assed bumper stickers some FOX News trash slapped on your forehead?
The dems are literally pudding to enact segragation
And where do you get your information about dems?
Their words?
From dems?
Their actions, which speak more loudly even than their authoritarian words.
No, of course not. Democrats adapt their terminology and policies to the times. But authoritarianism, racism, anti-free market ideas, and elitism have remained at the core of their ideology pretty consistently.
It is, though obviously not by you.
Tony, I was a Democrat and progressive for more of my life than I have been a libertarian. I understand why you are confused. Stop listening to trash media and read some actual history book, and by that I mean books that weren't written by Marxists.
History is interesting, but I don't understand why it's relevant. If I had to reject every institution because someone using the name of that institution did bad things centuries ago, then forget both political parties and all religions and all governments and my family and every possible gathering of humans that's ever been named.
I'm watching Republicans become authoritarians right before my eyes, and if anything we're just lucky that Democrats still believe in democracy, since they're the only alternative. The authoritarian playbook is, if anything, remarkably consistent. The key is propaganda, of which you are evidently a victim. If you watch FOX News and aren't enraged by the lies after 5 minutes, you are their victim.
Democrats and progressives don't just share the name of movements from a century ago, they share the underlying ideology and ethical system.
I have seen exactly zero instances of Republican politicians taking authoritarian positions.
Democratic representatives and senators have called for abolishing SCOTUS, packing SCOTUS, and executive orders to implement policies that the legislature is unwilling to pass. Those are not just clear examples of authoritarianism, they are literally how fascist regimes start.
Oh, it is.
Whether FOX is right or wrong, FOX News is a private broadcaster actively being attacked by the president and other members of the government. By definition, it is not propaganda, but the attacks on FOX are another example of authoritarianism.
Oh it is. And Democrats are following it so closely that it is frightening. And every authoritarian regime needs fools like you, people who can't open a history book and believe every lie they are being fed.
Christianity was the driving force behind ending slavery, you clueless simpleton
Christianity was the driving force behind pretty much everything in those days, including both sides of the slavery issue.
Catholics, Methodists, Quakers, Northern Baptists, Northern Baptists, and Mormons all opposed and condemned slavery. Many of them worked to actively end it. Southern Baptists merely tolerated it.
Calling Christianity a "driving force" behind the pro-slavery side is just historically ignorant, or simply dishonest.
So slavers were atheists? Buddhists perhaps?
You falsely claimed that "Christianity was the driving force behind pretty much everything in those days, including both sides of the slavery issue."
The fact is that Christianity was clearly a driving force behind abolition, as most denominations actively worked to end slavery and some were a driving force of the abolitionist movement.
Christianity was clearly not a driving force behind instituting or maintaining slavery. Slavery long predates Christianity, Christian thinkers since the beginning have considered slavery to be morally wrong and have acknowledged the humanity of slaves. The furthest some Christian denominations went was to tolerate the existence of slavery.
No, they are not. And if you hate America so much, you can always move somewhere more to your liking. I hear Saudi Arabia is nice.
"Nationalism and Christianity aren't defining features of fascism? In America they sure as fuck are. America kind of invented fascism, or at least the underpinnings. It was useful for keeping a third of its population categorized as slaves."
Weird how fascism is always falling on America and ends up landing elsewhere.
And given how fascist we are...how are you not dead?
You'll be enthusiastically forcing people onto trains soon enough.
No, Tony, you will be enthusiastically forcing people onto trains soon enough.
These discussions have revealed how close your ideology and beliefs are to those of early 20th century fascists, and it is even more frightening that you are probably pretty representative of many progressives.
"They don't indulge in big lies, cheat at elections, or scapegoat minorities for power."
So this IS a spoof account.
“ Republicans are fascist”
You don’t know what that word means, but please keep showing everyone what a retarded fuck you are.
SCOTUS rulings causing the mass retard-mode of left wingers, like you are showing us here, means they are doing something right. Looking forward to a lot more of it. And unfortunately for you, Desantis wont be putting any liberals up for the court after 2024
"Only fascists want us to be so confused about the meanings of words that we mistake night for day. It's all in Orwell, if you people read books."
The fact that came from you is truly one of the most hilarious things I have read. Tell me again, what's a woman?
The problem is not my confusion about the definition of "woman," but your confusion about the meaning of "trans-".
Define woman and trans to me.
How? He’s not a biologist.
They don't indulge in big lies, cheat at elections, or scapegoat minorities for power.
Of course Democrats do all these things. In fact their political program is nothing but scapegoating.
They lie about medical bankruptcy, campus sexual assault, women's compensation, Russian Collusion, the state of America, race relations, and pretty much every single public topic in America. It's what they do.
“Republicans are fascist through and through”
This is an old communist tactic going back to the “concentration camps” of 1918 (a phrase communists invented):
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.”
They threw millions of people in concentration camps for thinking bad thoughts like “communism seems like a bad idea.” And they called all of their political prisoners “fascists.”
The whole anti-fascist jargon is communist cosplay, going back over 100 years. Do you even know that?
"They don't indulge in big lies"
Russiagate says hello.
"cheat at elections"
Changing elections unconstitutionally qualifies.
The rest of your gibberish is not worth replying to.
Anyone who says "Russiagate" and isn't being paid by the Kremlin is just a sad moron. There was no "Russiagate." There was Trump's first impeachment and the Mueller report, which you haven't read. Saying that the real scandal was not Trump's many alarming ties to the Russian government, but someone exaggerating those ties somewhere, just makes you another victim of their propaganda. One day you get to tell your grandchildren how you were so fucking stupid you sold the United States out to not just any old foreign dictator, but Russia itself.
The only way any of you sleep at night is in direct proportion to your idiocy.
You really are a true believer in the party line. Objective facts and reality just don't affect you at all.
"Nationalism and Christianity aren't defining features of fascism?"
No. "Before you talk, you should read a book."—Fred Schneider
The USA was one of the first countries in the world to outlaw slavery. Slavery was legal everywhere in the world at the time of the founding of the USA, and was legal everywhere except North America and Europe for long after the founding of the USA. The last currently recognized country to officially outlaw slavery was Mauritania in 1984. Of course, slavery is still tolerated in many countries where it is officially illegal. The slave markets in Libya are thriving and operating openly thanks to Obama and Hillary.
That's not right. The US outlawed the importation of slaves not slavery. England was the one of the first to outright ban slavery. In fact slavery is still legal in this country as a punishment for crimes. Read the 13th amendment.
Yes, domestically, where there were effectively no slaves anyway. They continued to practice it in their colonies and continued to have a impose a social hierarchy.
You really didn't understand that when reading the 13A? That is true in every nation. That's because imprisonment as a punishment for a crime implies "involuntary servitude".
In 1807 Britain banned the slave trade and in 1833 they banned slavery.
Equating imprisonment to slavery is absurd.
Yes, and the US passed a bill prohibiting slave trade in 1800. Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780 and Massachusetts in 1783, with other states following, decades before Britain.
Britain abolished slave trade and slavery when it did not because it was particularly enlightened, but because it didn't need slavery anymore and because doing so changed very little.
I'm not "equating" anything. You made the absurd statement that slavery was still legal under the 13A. I explained to you that the 13A makes an exemption for involuntary servitudeas a punishment for crimes because otherwise the 13A could be misconstrued to prohibit imprisonment of those convicted of a crime.
Slavery isn't something that governments outlaw because it requires government enforcement. Banning slavery implies government action to stop something people will do anyway, when in reality is means ending something that the government created.
So it's bullshit to say that governments banned slavery. No, they stopped enforcing their own creation, because slavery can't exist without government enforcement.
Governments can get credit for perpetuating slavery, but not for banning it.
Slavery probably predates government. They got the idea for government from slavery.
I'm pretty sure all the sex slaves would disagree.
You know who else bullied his political opponents?
Sulla?
Nice
Students playing Harrow football?
Jesus?
Gandhi?
Too much LOVE of those Gov-Guns of [WE] mob rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!
History has shown time and time again... Don't worship Gov-Gods...
Both sides are fearful of the other side because the Gov-Gods have their Power-Mad tentacles into EVERY F'EN THING! This wouldn't be a problem if SCOTUS would ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
I.e. People wouldn't be so passionate about politics if politics (Gov Guns) wasn't EVERYWHERE in their lives.
70 Percent of Republicans and Democrats Agree: The Other Side Are 'Bullies'
And Reason's articles do everything they can to increase that percentage. How about getting back to constitutionality and libertarian beliefs instead of biased articles?
It's a four-way division:
The GOP base thinks that the Democrats suck because they're a bunch of insane America-hating commies, and that the GOP establishment sucks because they're spineless fake-conservative wimps who would rather cozy up to the Dems than do anything to successfully advance conservative policies.
The GOP establishment thinks that the Democrats suck because they're Democrats, and that the GOP base are revolting peasants who suck revoltingly, such that the GOP establishment would marginally prefer to ally with the Democratic party establishment instead.
The Democratic party establishment thinks that the GOP base sucks because they're ultra-MAGA monsters in subhuman mutant form, that the GOP establishment sucks because they're too beholden to the monstrous GOP base, and that their own Democratic party base sucks because they're a bunch of semi-useful idiots and wet-behind-the-ears kids.
And the Democratic party base thinks that the Democratic party establishment and the whole GOP suck because they're all "right wing," and the only sin they recognize is to be "right wing."
Meanwhile the GOP hates libertarians for supporting the freedom to do what you want in the bedroom, while Democrats hate libertarians for wanting people to be allowed to keep their own money.
"Meanwhile the GOP hates libertarians for supporting the freedom to do what you want in the bedroom"
needs some tweaking.
The GOP is fine with you doing whatever you want in the bedroom, you just cant teach it to Kindergartener's. Its really an extremely libertarian position.
I'm not sure that legislating what schools may or may not teach on a state or federal level is embracing liberty. Those should be local decisions.
These decisions should be made by the people who pay, and that is both local and state tax payers.
Or maybe Gov-Guns aren't a tool that's needed in Education.
Yeah I think this gets closer to the truth. Neither party is a monolith. Both represents a coalition of interests, a coalition which is often uneasy and in tension with itself.
One could try to break out of this cycle by adopting a more live-and-let-live, libertarian approach to politics, whereby people agree not to interfere in each other's lives and lifestyles nor ask for their own to be subsided or promoted by the state.
Why not take the Reasoner approach and prioritize calling everyone to their right racist? If that doesn't seem like it would work maybe the physician should heal himself first.
Or everyone could adopt your tactic of calling anyone who disagrees with you a leftist.
And both sides are correct.
That sums it up nicely! Only the libertarians refrain from using Government Almighty force to be bullies!
(I mean the real libertarians, NOT the endless armies of marching morons who post here, PRETENDING to be libertarians.)
I was thinking more along the lines of both sides being douchebags who accuse the other side of being evil with bad intentions before launching into name-calling like teenage bullies.
You certainly can't tell the difference between the left and the right as far as argumentative techniques go. Neither side attempts to persuade. Only to demonize.
Speech! (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)
Listen closely to what Christian calls "BOTH" parties say about each other. The Anschluss caucus is bound to go the way of the T-party, and we'll still be here.
Hi Hank. You really have no idea how to write like a normal person, do you?
Saw a Pride commercial from one of the GoodCorps (TM).
Bunch of trannies having a grand old time, living life. Post-mastectomy weird titties out in full display.
Which brings me to the most important debate of the day...why the fuck can we not just normalize having women topless. I really dont care if anyone is shirtless, in terms of morals. I would prefer disgusting people cover up (male and female) but that's just a preference.
But if we have to normalize these brave mentally ill people being out shirtless in public with their deformed weird titties, can we just all accept that all titties are allowed out? When can we have real equality?
I would prefer that we equalize the situation by men putting their shirts back on.
LMAO! So true!
So, let's go back in time a little bit and see how the Republican Party has changed over the years, shall we?
1876: The Republican Party not only endorses public education, but also endorses a Constitutional amendment banning public money going to religious schools. That is 100% opposite to the Republican Party position today, and totally in line with what the Democratic Party of today supports.
7. The public school system of the several states is the bulwark of the American republic; and, with a view to its security and permanence, we recommend an amendment to the constitution of the United States, forbidding the application of any public funds or property for the benefit of any school or institution under sectarian control.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1876
1880: The Republican Party comes out in favor of the racist Chinese Exclusion Acts.
6. Since the authority to regulate immigration and intercourse between the United States and foreign nations rests with the Congress of the United States and the treaty-making power, the Republican party, regarding the unrestricted immigration of the Chinese as a matter of grave concernment under the exercise of both these powers, would limit and restrict that immigration by the enactment of such just, humane and reasonable laws and treaties as will produce that result.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1880
They go even further in 1888.
We declare our hostility to the introduction into this country of foreign contract labor and of Chinese labor, alien to our civilization and constitution; and we demand the rigid enforcement of the existing laws against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will exclude such labor from our shores.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1888
1912:
We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of appropriate laws to give relief from the constantly growing evil of induced or undesirable immigration, which is inimical to the progress and welfare of the people of the United States.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1912
Thanks for your work in scary-ing this stuff up!
The above one, though... "Illegal sub-human immigrunts gonna steal R jerbs"... Sounds like "Team R" even today!
You're welcome!
I bring this all up because it is completely bullshit to hold any institution, or any historical figure, from the past, to modern standards. It is bullshit when left-wingers want to 'cancel Jefferson' because he owned slaves, and it is bullshit when right-wingers claim 'Democrats are the party of slavery' because they were on the wrong side of the Civil War over 150 years ago.
If 'Democrats are the party of slavery', then by the same measure, Republicans are the party of anti-Chinese bigotry, anti-Mormon bigotry, forced gender equality, and socialist control over wages.
Agreed all around!
I look forward to a future in which we can eat ANY kind of meat, from vat-grown cultures, affordably, and NOT kill animals in order to do so!
But we can easily imagine, in that ???-distant future, when we want to discredit someone, we'll say that his or her ancestors killed animals to eat!
(PS, your distant ancestors didn't even know how to flush a toilet! And YOU?!?! I hear that you pooped your diapers when you were young!)
It's silly to expect intellectual honesty from partisans of either side. It's all principals and no principles.
True, and the parroted repetition of the idea is: "WHO are you voting for?"
Dems forcing black women to breed
slavelingssharecroppers were not that interested in imported "wild" competition. Republicans were happy with any argument that made revenue-only tariffs (disparaged as "Free trade") baaad and Protective Tariffs goood. Also, 1912 was the year Teedy "Race Suicide" Rosenfeld drew spoiler votes from Taft and the Dimmycrats elected Woodrow Wilson. Perfesser Wilson's history books portrayed the Klan pretty much as Halloween trick-or-treaters.Before this, the Emperor had banned opium, fought British smugglers and lost, after letting them talk him into beheading his own subjects rather than allow backyard poppy plants. Then on 11/8/1858 China signed an unequal treaty allowing opium imports with a tariff earmarked for reparations--as civil war waged by Christian fanatics was causing about 25 million deaths there. California socialist Dems held the votes the Republicans were trying to seduce away. China was a prohibition-destroyed wreck, thanks in part to prior American meddling, like Latin America today.
Is that you Hank?
It’s totally him. He really can’t write anything without being a weirdo.
Apologies, I accidentally flagged you. Goddamn it would take five minutes to add a confirm feature.
1884: The Republican Party comes out in favor of the very progressive idea (at the time) of a "national bureau of labor", a mandatory 8-hour work day, and national funding for public education.
We favor the establishment of a national bureau of labor; the enforcement of the eight hour law, a wise and judicious system of general education by adequate appropriation from the national revenues, wherever the same is needed.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1884
Oh, here's a good bit of religious bigotry right here.
The political power of the Mormon Church in the Territories as exercised in the past is a menace to free institutions too dangerous to be longer suffered. Therefore we pledge the Republican party to appropriate legislation asserting the sovereignty of the Nation in all Territories where the same is questioned, and in furtherance of that end to place upon the statute books legislation stringent enough to divorce the political from the ecclesiastical power, and thus stamp out the attendant wickedness of polygamy.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1888
1896: Wow, Republicans come out for a national board to dictate wages. Sounds almost socialist.
We favor the creation of a National Board of Arbitration to settle and adjust differences which may arise between employers and employed engaged in inter-State commerce.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1896
1900: This could have been written by Elizabeth Warren today.
We recognize the necessity and propriety of the honest co-operation of capital to meet new business conditions and especially to extend our rapidly increasing foreign trade, but we condemn all conspiracies and combinations intended to restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production. or to control prices; and favor such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and promote competition and secure the rights of producers, laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1900
1948: Not entirely sure what this is referring to here, but it certainly isn't a knee-jerk defense of the Electoral College, as is the Republican position today.
We favor a revision of the procedure for the election of the President and Vice President which will more exactly reflect the popular vote.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1948
The electoral college was instituted for a reason by or forefathers that did pretty good job of creating our government. They feared even then large states taking control of the government and small states losing all power. Senators were also elected that way, then that was change and Senators no longer beholden their states then became the target and dupes of special interests. You see where that has gotten us. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
1952: The Republican Party comes out in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment.
We recommend to Congress the submission of a Constitutional Amendment providing equal rights for men and women.
We favor legislation assuring equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1952
Compare that with the Prohibition Party platform of 1976: "We support a Constitutional Amendment to protect the unborn by prohibiting abortion except in those very rare cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered." Back then, mystical dry fanatics still controlled the GOP as in 1928, mainly through the threat of spoiler vote clout. We used to have that, before infiltrators of both looter persuasions took over the LNC.
Hank, abortion is on it’s way out buddy. Isn’t that awesome?
Pushing hundred year old grievances only tells us about you. People who want peace don’t try to restart fights about the ancient past.
“Me and the Republicans are enemies just one day in the year–election day. Then we fight tooth and nail The rest of the time it’s live and let live with us.” George Washington Plunkitt, 1924
Do you have a point?
70% of libertarians agree that both the Republicans and Democrats are right (both major parties are bullies).
I must be in the 30% that think Republicans and Democrats are both wrong. That is why I became a libertarian.
You are over reading my comment. It's limited to the headline that "70 Percent of Republicans and Democrats Agree: The Other Side Are 'Bullies'"
On this one point, they are both right. Both are bullies.
LO and behold, FFS. I'm tired of seeing this basic phrase mangled.
If you look at the rhetoric by the supporters of each side the differences are striking. The level and crudeness and hate on the Republican side is two orders of magnitude worse then the Democratic side. The MAGAs are just vile and your don’t see that often by the liberals.
Do you visit Earth often?
So, let's see: Republicans are "bullies" because their "rhetoric" is "crude" and "hateful" and "vile." But "liberals'" "rhetoric" is none of those things, so they aren't "bullies" at all!
What about "liberals'" actual policies? Anything in there you could describe as "live-and-let-live"? Or is it all about "interfering in others' lives and lifestyles and asking for their own to be subsided and promoted by the state"?
You're just vile, MollyGodiva.
And there are few if any liberals left in the Democratic party; they are all progressives and democratic socialists now.
Reason supports CRT. That is all you need to know.
CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes) are almost entirely replaced by now, by thin-film LED and LCD screens, so WHY does it even MATTER any more!?!? (And if I want to be an ancient dinosaur, and-or save money on new hardware, what is it to YOU anyway?!?!?)
Right. These "libertarians" support racist bullying of children, starting with kindergarten. Sick fucks.
So the preferable acronym expansion is Critical Master Race Theory?
Well, since democrats are all about victim-hood I tend to take all of their claims with a boatload of salt. Whereas republicans have always been on the receiving end of the democrats ire. So when a republican responds to a democrats attack the democrats accuse the republicans of assault or even attempted homicide. democrats have no sense of context and facts are often a fuzzy thing for them.
The fact to not lose sight of is that the closest either band of boodlers ever comes to stating the truth is when saying things about the other half of the looter Brutocracy.
Maybe they're both right. Government interference as a last resort seems to be an antiquated notion. They're both certainly in favor of using the criminal code for any number of pet projects where the "criminal" hasn't actually done anything to anybody else. Possession laws of virtually any type come to mind.
Some guy who has some outdated ammunition -- where's the government?
A couple of guys smoking some doobies or cocaine on a coach somewhere -- where's the government?
And on and on it goes.
Lots of behaviors that you say "don't do anything to anybody else" actually do. In our progressive social welfare state, doing drugs means other people will have to pick up unemployment insurance, disability, medical care, drug treatments, etc.
Furthermore, people have a right to freedom of association; they simply don't want to be around drug addicts.
I think it's should be perfectly fine for states to legalize drugs/guns/abortion, just like it is perfectly fine for other states to outlaw drugs/guns/abortion.
Ah the old linkage bit. They "might" "indirectly" cause problems in "other" areas. And so there should be government involvement in this area. Not a good basis for public policy and certainly not the criminal justice system.
Well, progressives disagree: when healthcare, retirement, and the economy are run by central planners, they necessarily believe that central planning is also the answer to drug addiction, crime, and social problems. So they will regulate and criminalize in all those areas. If you believe their promises that they will respect your individual liberties, you're a fool. Just look at how they respected bodily autonomy, freedom of movement and freedom of speech during COVID.
If you want to legalize drugs, legalize guns, and have fewer gun restrictions, you need libertarians. But most libertarians (like most people in the country) simply don't care much about regulations in those areas; we are voting based on economic issues: inflation, growth, the stock market, regulations, etc.
So, for practical reasons, you better shape up and support our economic preferences if you want your social preferences passed.
See "Vices are Not Crimes", by Lysander Spooner. It covers these things way better than the work of most intellectuals who came onto the scene a century later.
If you actually read the details of the survey, Democrats feel bullied by words Republicans say. Dems like to claim words are violence so they can justify their own police violence and mob violence in response.
Gosh, if both sides feel that way I guess we're all equally guilty then. Haha no
The American political system has turned into a tyranny of the Minority (right wing conservative religious extremists).
...Only when the word 'abortion' is mentioned..
Otherwise; the Massive amount of the tyranny comes from the Left and their endless of LOVE of Gov-Guns of [WE] mobs rule!
Same thing happened in Germany. The National Socialist platform extolled the virtues of Positive Christianity, and tens of thousands of America-first, Christian Front, Bund, Silvershirt and Social Justice devotees leapt to the defense of Germany's charismatic leader all through the 1930s. It was either that or those other socialists. All agreed that any third alternative was unthinkable.
Democrats' and Republicans' estimate of the percentage of their political opponents who hold views they consider “extreme” is double what it is in reality. The Perception Gap reveals Americans distorted understandings of people on the other side of the aisle, what causes this distortion, and why it matters. "This is good news for those worried about the character of this country. The majority of Americans hold views that may not be so different from your own." You can see the numbers (and take the Perception Gap Quiz yourself) at https://perceptiongap.us
The first question in the Perceptiongap looter quiz excludes Libertarians, much like their debates, ballot access, Nixon subsidies and vote counts. All it can possibly do is compare brainwashed looter Trilbys universally dedicated to theft, dissembling and aggression. This is sending a pollster into an asylum to discover the inmates consider each other crazy!
Calling the local crumbling looter edifice The Kleptocracy may actually be an underserved reproach to such gentleman-thieves as Raffles. The American version can more aptly be termed The Brutocracy. Trumpanzees inwardly resemble Idi Amin's mohammedan minions. One is hard-pressed to discover a senile, doddering fool in office anywhere in Geography or History who does not compare favorably with Biden--except maybe Trump.