Republican Voters Got More Socially Liberal Under Trump
Liberals spent the last decade moving leftward on questions of race and sexual orientation—and so did conservatives.

In the usual liberal account, President Donald Trump reawakened America's atavistic, bigoted side, driving both the Republican Party and the United States to the right. In the usual conservative retort, it's the left that became more extreme in the 2010s, adopting radical views on race and gender that meant a moderate could seem to be moving rightward while in fact he was standing still.
But there is a third possibility: that liberals spent the decade moving leftward on questions of race and sexual orientation—and so did conservatives. And while the so-called Great Awokening has cooled somewhat since Joe Biden succeeded Trump as president, Republicans may have quietly continued to trend leftward on racial issues.
To be clear: I am speaking of public opinion here, not public officials or public policy. And I don't dispute that explicit bigots became a lot noisier in the mid-'10s, or that they acquired more influence in certain circles.
But noisier and more typical are not the same thing. In a 2020 paper for Public Opinion Quarterly, the University of Pennsylvania political scientists Daniel Hopkins and Samantha Washington reported that from 2007 through 2018, antiblack and anti-Hispanic stereotypes declined among both white Democrats and white Republicans. It's just that the Democratic drop in these surveys was much larger, creating a wider gap even though both groups, on average, were moving in the same direction.
***
A similar picture appeared when Ohio State political scientist Thomas Wood tried in 2017 to measure the relationship between Americans' presidential votes and how they scored on the "symbolic racism" or "racial resentment" scale, which Wood described as a way to uncover "racial attitudes among respondents who know that it's socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced."
This scale is controversial, because some of the statements it asks people to evaluate—such as "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve"—could elicit the "wrong" answer for reasons unrelated to prejudice or resentment. The underlying problem was highlighted when surveys found substantial numbers of African Americans endorsing the purportedly racist positions, leading some social scientists to call for giving the measurement a less loaded label. At best, the scale measures whether people attribute racial disparities to structural barriers or individual failings.
But whether or not the people who score higher on the scale are racists, it seems fair to say that the people who score lower on the scale are racial liberals. So what did Wood find?
For Wood, the big takeaway was that "we've never seen such a clear correspondence between vote choice and racial perceptions" in three decades of these surveys: The higher you landed in the scale, the more likely you were to vote Republican. But as Musa al-Gharbi pointed out in a critique of Wood's work for The American Sociologist, this ignored the direction those Republicans were moving in. According to Wood's own data, al-Gharbi noted, whites who backed Trump over Hillary Clinton were "less racist than those who voted for [Mitt] Romney. The same holds among whites who voted for Clinton as compared to those who voted for [Barack] Obama." Again, voters in both parties were getting more racially liberal; it's just that Democrats went further.
The explicitly racist and even fascist elements of the right—the sort of people who chant antisemitic slogans while carrying tiki torches—may have gotten larger and better-known in the early Trump years. But it is one thing to be large by fringe-group standards; it is another thing entirely to be embraced by the mainstream. Indeed, al-Gharbi argued during the 2020 election that when voters associated Trump with that sort of rhetoric and behavior, it made him less rather than more popular, including among white Republicans.
Needless to say, most Republicans still tend to favor individual over structural explanations for racial disparities. But there is still plenty of variation within that worldview, including on such hot-button issues as race and policing. In June 2020, a Washington Post survey showed 53 percent of Republicans endorsing the protests that erupted after a cop murdered George Floyd—and this was after some of the protests turned into riots. Around the same time, a Pew poll showed a large minority of Republicans (40 percent) endorsing Black Lives Matter.
Views on the George Floyd movement later became more polarized along partisan lines. But that initial configuration of opinions, persisting even after the street violence began, hints at how much the conventional narratives of the period miss.
***
The Trump era also marked what was, at that point, the highest recorded rank-and-file Republican tolerance for gays and lesbians. In Gallup's annual polls, Republican support for same-sex marriage didn't reach 40 percent until 2016, but by 2020 it had gotten to 49 percent. It later became the majority opinion, leaping to 55 percent for the first two years of the Biden administration, though it sank back below the 50 percent mark in 2023 and 2024, probably in response to recent LGBT culture wars. (The figure currently stands at 46 percent.)
Most of those culture wars center around trans people, whose political fights are currently far more contentious than the battles around gays and lesbians. Many social conservatives have tried to use those trans-rights conflicts as a wedge to reopen older debates about gay liberation; one way to read that drop in gay-marriage support from 55 percent to 46 percent is as a measure of how many Republicans have been receptive to that sort of messaging. We can't be sure whether that decline will continue or be a temporary recession. But it is notable that even now, after a two-year retrenchment, Republican support for same-sex marriage is higher than in any year before 2017.
On racial questions, there hasn't been a Republican retrenchment at all. In June, the Democracy Fund published a report on "how attitudes about race and immigration are settling and shifting after Trump," drawing on surveys conducted regularly since 2016. On immigration, the authors found, both Democrats and Republicans have moved rightward since Biden took office. But when they looked at those "racial resentment" questions (while avoiding that dubious term), they found Democrats getting a smidge more conservative since Trump left office—and Republicans getting a smidge more liberal.
There's one more shift worth noting here. While Democrats have continued to receive a majority of the nonwhite vote, their share has been declining—even, to a small extent, among African Americans. That could just be temporary turbulence. But with Hispanics in particular seeming more open to voting Republican, we could be seeing the start of a long-term trend comparable to the movement of many "white ethnic" voters toward the GOP in the 1960s and '70s.
No culture war configuration is permanent. Time and again, once-vivid fights have receded, as with same-sex unions, or disappeared almost entirely, as with interracial marriage. Sometimes an alliance formed to fight one cultural conflict will be what finally buries an old one, as when conservative Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons came together to fight liberal sexual mores. And even when a fight persists, the lineups on each side can radically change. Do not be shocked if that happens again.
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
Libertarianism is the way and the light.
My thought...is it 'liberal' or more 'libertarian' in outlook? I think the latter.
it's more nihilism.
My libertarianism protects your way and light, your libertarianism protects my way and light.
Really.
Or maybe Republicans support INDIVIDUALISM and Democrats are the fascists.
Oh look at that; It all makes sense now.
The world start to makes sense when SELF-PROJECTION attempts are spotted and ignored.
"...53 percent of Republicans endorsing the protests that erupted after a cop murdered George Floyd..."
Oh, is that why you normally suck your local cop's dick? In the name of personal freedom?
60% of conservatives are as dumb as 99% of Democrats and blindly follow social cues pushed by corporate media.
Or maybe that was before it was known that Floyd was drugged up beyond belief, passing counterfeit $ and the video showed no actual ‘murder’ attempt what-so-ever.
But heck; why let evidence change minds when such a BS narrative story-line has been made-up and mocked by a mass of monkey-see monkey-do crowdsters?? /s
You can't argue with Holy Doctrine.
Was that 53% before or after they burned down significant parts of Minneapolis?
Maybe Walz’s wife could market a scented candle based on that?
Ah, the smell of burning government buildings and Korean convince stores.
I was initially supportive of BLM despite the most vocal aspects of it being opposite of my politics. It quickly became apparent that the movement was violent, irrational, and more intent on far left destructive goals than improving anything. When the details of each of these cases showed that the narrative was false and the "villain" of each was flawed/mistaken at worst I saw the movement as evil
I mean what kind of monster thinks that black lives don't matter, right?
Too bad the organization didn't actually give a shit about black lives, and proved it by having rich, white trust fund babies burn down black neighborhoods.
BLM was certainly lucrative for a few black people.
Given their actions, the founders of BLM don't value black lives beyond what they can grift for themselves off the dead bodies.
It quickly became apparent that the movement was violent, irrational, and more intent on far left destructive goals than improving anything.
The issue is never the issue. The issue is advancing marxism. That's why it was supported by Harris and Walz, both marxists, as well as the marxists in Hollywood and the mass media.
Liberals spent the last decade moving leftward on questions of race and sexual orientation—and so did conservatives.
I was unaware that race and sexual orientation were economic in nature.
The explicitly racist and even fascist elements of the right—the sort of people who chant antisemitic slogans while carrying tiki torches
*gasp!* You mean... the FBI?
It is amusing from what has happened since last October 7 to keep using antisemitism as a cudgel aginst the Right. While there are antisemites on the Right, the problem of antisemitism has far more political power on the Left these days.
What a fucking joke. Antisemites don't just have more political power on the left; they ARE the left. This has been true for decades. The Ds will accept any Jew who makes lots of money, gives lots of that money to the party, espouses 100% of the party line, and doesn't do any of that icky religious stuff. All the rest can fuck off and (actually) die with their supposed war crimes and their supposed white privilege.
If you are a neo-NAZI who really wants to hear someone yell the word "kike," you used to have to watch a Hollywood movie about repugnant, working class white guys sitting in a redneck bar. These days, you can just visit any college campus, any blue-leaning city council meeting, or any unfilmed Democratic fundraiser.
+1
The same unhinged clowns that accuse conservatives of antisemitism support fucking Hamas. Trump and Vance should bring that up Tuesday night, and how that factored in Kamala’s benefactors picking Walz over Shapiro for VP.
To Marxists, everything is economic in nature.
Nope, they’ve determined that race and gender are more important
Let's not confuse early 20th century Marxists, including the man himself who tried to instigate revolution based on economic class (and did), with early 21st century Marxists, who are trying to instigate revolution based on race and gender. Of course, many of the tactics, and the end goal of destroying liberty and free-living people, are the same.
That's why I keep pointing out that marxism is a modern theology. Its whole purpose was to target and replace Christianity as the dominant western belief system.
The economics of votes.
Yeah it's pretty confusing when libertarians use the term liberal and leftist interchangeably. Leftists are by definition illiberal. And the fact that leftists have attempted to redefine the word liberal doesn't mean that serious people have to go along with the charade.
Or the more obvious explanation; the labels of republican and democrat has lost any significant distinction, and voters are grouping around a scale sliding from individual freedoms to state control.
Yes. Hardly anyone would give a shit about trannies if public schools and the Regulatory State weren't pushing and funding an agenda for them.
And the important part of that is that the left side of the equation is rapidly shifting toward government control and interference leaving many people behind to now be labeled "conservative" regardless of any shift from the original conservative population.
In the next phase, we will be "kulaks" and "counter-revolutionaries". Also "heretics" and "blasphemers".
Substitute “Global Elites” for “academic intellectuals” being in charge, and you’ve got Communism 2.0 all figured out.
And the proles can’t bend over fast enough for it.
Do they really think they will be better off? Or do they just hate people who are successful enough to enjoy life, and want to fuck them?
"But whether or not the people who score higher on the scale are racists, it seems fair to say that the people who score lower on the scale are racial liberals."
Is this "fair"? That would seem to accept the premise that such theories of racism are "liberal" rather than a new form of racism by the Left which assumes that non-white people have no control over their fates.
non-white people have no control over their fates.
That's Critical Race Theory in eight words.
Shorter version: Kill Whitey!
"Many social conservatives have tried to use those trans-rights conflicts as a wedge to reopen older debates about gay liberation; one way to read that drop in gay-marriage support from 55 percent to 46 percent is as a measure of how many Republicans have been receptive to that sort of messaging."
Or it could be a measure of how oppressive of dissenting opinions LGBTQ+ activism has become in demanding celbration of their subculture and a growing resentment of that subculture becoming a sort of established state quasi-religion. Things like charging children with felonies for scuffing a "pride" crosswalk.
This guy gets it. Still amazes me how Reason will trade identity authoritarian actions for appearing celebratory of random identity groups while ignoring the over reach of government for the movements.
Just like progressives, Reasonistas need to out-libertarian their predecessors. If 10 or 20 years ago, libertarians said "Sure, let gay people live like everyone else", activist libertarians have to say "We demand official sanction and promotion of letting gay people live like everyone else, no matter how crazy gay they want to be."
It's funny how the difference between "you want to be gay, fine" and "you want to be gay and demand I lop off my kid's dick/tits for your affirmation, fuck off" is lost on leftists like Jesse.
You know the fags a horrible people because they demand constant validation. People that are naturally good do not need every other person telling them they are good
I find this to be far more common in trannies than gays, at least outside of their Meccas like Folsom Street when their full deviancy is put on display. And that's more of a function of the culture of the Bay Area (or places like NYC's bathhouse scene) than it is of gays in general.
There's a bit of a seen/unseen there. For most people, most of the gay people they notice are the ones demanding constant validation. It's not really reasonable to generalize about a group based only on its most obnoxious and visible members.
oppressive of dissenting opinions LGBTQ+ activism has become
Yes, it is so oppressive to demand that you treat gay people like human beings and not like subhuman deviant pedophiles.
You don’t have a right to creep on children, groomer.
I remember when the fundies said gay marriage would lead to the exploitation of children, oh how I laughed.
I’m not laughing anymore.
Scuffing a pride emblem painted on a road leading to arrests is NOT oppressive?
That’s heresy against the state religion!
Yes yes we know. Vandalism when your team does it is not really a crime, it's an act of political defiance that should be treated like free speech. But vandalism when the other team does it is a serious act of violence that should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.
Shut up you hypocritical faggot
For that to make any kind of logical sense, you’d have to think that skid marks on pavement are vandalism. Which is a ridiculously authoritarian stance.
So, prison time for scuffing a painting ON A ROAD is NOT oppressive. Got it.
Can never criticize the Left. That's radical individualism.
TOTALLY NOT a leftist shill
This might make sense if the same people were not aggressively pushing MAP acceptance and setting up secret talks about sex to be explicitly kept from parents. Add to that don't have your entire ideology created by pedophiles, but that's a bit aside of the current actions.
Now fuck off you pedo groomer POS.
This might make sense if...
Okay, so it makes sense then. Because your entire "if" clause is full of strawmen and wild exaggerations.
Fat faggot says what?
Propaganda and mandated beliefs work (to an extent).
Shocker?
In other news, a surprising number of North Koreans express positive beliefs about Kim Whoever-is-Current ...
Everyone needs a Dear Leader.
Kadasian?
Identitarianism is the most important thing.
Since when is identifying people based on group mechanics a good thing?
Since it became a lever of power and came to dominate the concepts and lexicons of anyone seeking power?
1848?
1,000,000 BC?
Thread winner! Raquel Welch in her prime in a loin cloth for the win
Since when is identifying people based on group mechanics a good thing?
Maybe the “Queers for Palestine” would like to chime in on that?
Since when is identifying people based on group mechanics a good thing?
Let's start with the "white working class", or "evangelical Christians", or "rural, salt-of-the-earth 'real Muricans'".
It's funny how there is a huge overlap between the people who yell against identitarian politics and then during the holidays, yell about the so-called "war on Christmas".
So sad.
Yes we know. YOUR identitarian politics are fine, THEIR identitarian politics are awful.
Fat faggot says what?
Jesus Christ, try using a counter-argument that didn't pass its sell-by date in 2006.
Remember when these discussions used to center around what “rights” actual are? Like, what’s a “trans right”?
A wrong that identifies as a right?
One right to rule them all?
The explicitly racist and even fascist elements of the right—the sort of people who chant antisemitic slogans while carrying tiki torches
To be fair Republicans are no longer the genocidal fascists of the 1940s. They are the less murderous Tiki-Torch ‘Unite the Right’ who chant “Jews will not replace us” modern-type fascists.
So we’ve established you know next to nothing about the history of eugenics.
Non-sequitur.
HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN!
He was still a fucking far-right fascist (redundant for effect).
Eugenics is a progressive leftist cause. There’s no assumption of “right wing” in racial sanitation.
Hitler wasn’t a fascist he was a national socialist.
And the early Italian fascists were all syndicalists. Who justified their nationalism using Marx. Italy needed an empire to reach the industrial stage before they could have a proletarian revolution.
They’re only “right wing” because they fought bolsheviks.
Hitler wasn’t a fascist
This is Glenn Beck level stupid. You and many other conservatives like Tucker Carlson are trying to rehabilitate the NAZI movement.
No, it’s just the actual history. You’re just trying to obscure how virtually identical your right wing boogie men are to your left wing heroes. You can’t even continue to claim anti-semitism is “right wing”, anymore. These must be strange times for you.
Welocom to sbp. The resident pedo Marxist. Ask him why there's a 2 in his name
We've played this game with Buttplug a billion times already.
He knows now that the Nazis were socialist. We gave him hundreds of links. He saw it was written right into their name. He saw how the Nazi party's political platform said it was dedicated to advancing socialism. He saw the links and excerpts given of Goebbels and Hitler speeches extoling socialism.
Buttplug knows.
But Buttplug also now knows that his own social, political and economic beliefs swing dangerously close to Nazism, and isn't comfortable saying so in public.
He also knows that it's one of his trolls that will get coveted guaranteed replies. Remember, before his fifty-cent factory fired him he was paid for engagement. Good or bad.
"But Nazis can't be socialists, they were Nazis! And they were fighting socialists! That proves it!"
As for calling out his enemies for doing the exact thing his side does, that might be a classic Alinsky tactic (or should be).
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
You and other democrats are basically Nazis. Period.
You’re also pedophiles.
Gives "Hitler Youth"a different spin.
How does it feel, by the way, to be on the same side politically as Dick Cheney now?
War criminals flock together.
Dick misses water boarding people and wants a chance to teach his daughter the same skills.
Saying that Nazis and Fascists are not one and the same is in no way rehabilitating Nazis.
Is that the kind of far-right fascism that combined socialism with state control of corporations and the economy?
turd, the shit-stain of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It's been safely established that Buttpedo knows next to nothing about most topics.
He knows all about dark web searches for child porn.
It's why he was banned, after all.
TBF, he knows next to. Nothing about pretty much everything, so his complete lack of understanding of history is not that surprising.
Poor Bushpig is so woefully inept.
turd, the TDS-addled shit-stain of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
As bad as that may be, the Left IS chanting for a new holocaust for the Jews.
"From the river to the sea..." implies a holocaust on Jews in the area.
Didn't see the Right intimidating Jews on college campuses earlier this year either.
If a conservative (or moderate), tired of endless meaningless accusations, admits publicly to being a “racist”, does that count as shifting left?
Trans left?
Politics is about rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
Are gays enemies? Then oppress them. Are they friends? Then give them special benefits.
And so with other groups.
The merits of a particular idea rarely get into it.
As it was since the time of photo-human chimps. And probably before that.
Is that where they get new paparazzi from? I had always wondered...
Flinging shit goes way back.
That's prime, mate
Being good at throwing stuff is how we conquered the world.
Including elections?
That obviously follows.
But flinging poop was our original power.
Being good at throwing stuff was only a small part of it. The bigger part was what we threw. A spear tipped with a sharp piece of flint has much greater effect than a handful of poo.
Reagan biopic panned. When will conservatives stop trying to be creative? They don’t have what it takes to make a simple movie.
Wall Street Journal Kyle Smith
Mannered acting, dismal cinematography, clunky attempts to enhance excitement via gimmicks such as slow motion, and a musical score like a fountain of goo all serve as flashbacks to Reagan-era network schlock.
…..
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)Barry Hertz
The film’s sense of history is hasty, its characterizations crude. And by combining a twinkly-eyed tone with some of the goofiest performances in recent memory, the whole thing constantly threatens to reveal itself as a stealth parody flick.
….
The film’s treatment of its subject is belligerently hamfisted, disingenuous, and incurious.
0
Boston GlobeOdie Henderson
Reagan is the worst kind of hagiography. It’s a wretched 2½-hour bore that’s uncurious about its subject.
I would have made this into a masterpiece. Joaquin Phoenix as Ronnie, Crispin Glover as Cap Weinberger, Jenna Ortega as Crazy Nancy, – it would be a dark comedy.
Liberals got the definitive Sarah Palin movie made. It was a thing of beauty. Just don’t do what you have no talent for, Team Red.
Um, OK.
Tell you what, we'll grant liberals, who are oh-so-good at pretending, projecting, and emoting, control of Hollywood, if they agree that people who are good with numbers, logic, and reality get control of everything else.
numbers, logic, and reality get control of everything else.
No chance. Liberals created Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
You can proudly and rightly claim the pulpits, clergy, farms, and Texas oil fields.
"Liberals created Silicon Valley and Wall Street."
Really? How "liberal" are the tech overlords who see themselves as rightful rulers of the universe, and vastly superior to the rabble (including their own minions)? Sounds like good, ol' evil capitalists to me.
As for creating Wall Street, does your mind go blank thinking back more than 10 years ago. Older narratives (and actual history) tell us that Wall Street was created by, get ready, evil capitalists, who in that day were despicable far-right Nazis.
But I might accept your offer. In the civil war/zombie apocalypse I would rather hold the oil fields and farms. You can have Apple HQ and Goldman-Sachs.
"But I might accept your offer. In the civil war/zombie apocalypse I would rather hold the oil fields and farms. You can have Apple HQ and Goldman-Sachs."
Yep.
During Trump's first campaign, when the kind and inclusive Left were going after his foreign wife for being foreign, I enjoyed telling them that we could do an experiment; they could take *their* favorite immigrants, and we'd take all the Eastern European supermodels. We'd see who did better in the long run ...
I’m ready to do my part and sponsor as many Ukrainian supermodel refugees as I can.
So brave!
Notice he stated the 2 most government corrupt/paid industries.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
And hospitals ... and universities ...
You don't want your automobiles and bridges designed by people who think math is racist? Whyever not?
I like my stuff to actually work, not some Neo-cargo cult sculpture.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It is cute that you actually believe Democrats are liberal.
Compared to Christian National Socialists in 1936 they were. Compared to Christian National Socialists in 2024, they are again. Look up the definition. Every other country knows Liberal means laissez-faire. Nazis lime Bolsonazistas in Brazil now call themselves liberal to cash in on the camouflage, just as infiltrating MAGAts cross-dress and pluck to try and pass for libertarian.
Ah yes, the Leftist favored boogeyman that doesn't exist in any tangible way in USA. Regress harder.
Number 2 labor day weekend lol.
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/reagan-takes-no-2-spot-at-labor-day-box-office.html
Oh no. Shitlib movie critics hated it.
85% RT. LOL.
You fucking bushpig dems can't help yourself.
It’s 98% now.
Our elites will have to hate it harder.
Didn’t they decide to eliminate audience scores?
Yup, just like audience votes.
Critics are the lamest NPC’s out there.
I wonder what the audience thinks..,
Edit: I should have looked down.
98%? lol
""It’s a wretched 2½-hour bore that’s uncurious about its subject.""
I wonder if this person is voting for Harris? The irony?
But whether or not the people who score higher on the scale are racists, it seems fair to say that the people who score lower on the scale are racial liberals. So what did Wood find?
What does "racial liberals" mean here? I know "liberal" is supposed to mean someone who favors individual liberty; how exactly can that be reasonably tied to viewing society through the lens of race?
'I know “liberal” is supposed to mean someone who favors individual liberty'
WTF have you been for the past 30 years?
Forget it the author is a fag leftist. Read the bio, nyt, Atlantic salon, and slate all publish him. He's a bog standard uniparty globalist.
How can this possibly be? Trump is literally Hitler and MAGA are brownshirts which is why we must reluctantly, but strategically, vote Blue no matter who.
Not just "vote" but "VOTE", including whatever it takes to claim Trump lost.
"Republican Voters Got More Socially Liberal Under Trump"
Here's why. True liberals who used to imagine that the Democratic Party was somehow a home for them, woke up and realized that it was actually an antidemocratic trojan horse for totalitarian cult of global imperialist billionaires and bureaucrats, empowered by the most sophisticated surveillance technologies in history.
So they left.
At the same time MAGA was chasing the Republican moneylenders out of the temple. The neocons, the GOPe, the cruise ship conservatives, the military/industrial complex, the BBB government contract grifters were all fleeing to the welcoming arms of Big Brother.
And lastly, Evangelicals were waking up to the fact that censorship wasn't the child-protecting friend of the faith that they thought it was, and was instead being wielded in order to attack and destroy them, by people who arrest rape victims’ fathers, declare math to be white supremacist, finance ethnic cleansing in western China, and who partied, a mile high, on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express.
They realized that the same mechanism used to ban Playboys and naughty lyrics, enabled the Woketians and the Davos cult to ban Christianity and the Bible.
But the social liberalism of the new Republicans is not the same thing as the occult craziness of the woke, even though the same appellation is applied to both.
enabled the Woketians and the Davos cult to ban Christianity and the Bible.
I'm glad we're finally banning Christianity. We need to advance past the rotting sepulchre.
Wait - is this like the "ban" on saying Merry Christmas? Completely made up in your head and non-existent?
"I’m glad we’re finally banning Christianity."
Now that's some real libertarian thinking, right there.
He is a pro government, pro Democrat, soros fascist. Which is why he celebrates the bushpigs joining his side.
Shrike favors a far left Marxist regime where the age of consent has been abolished and pedophiles are a protected class. So he can fuck all the little boys he wants to without being prosecuted.
Beria is his hero.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Mother's Lament 8 mins ago
“I’m glad we’re finally banning Christianity”
To be fair, it wasn’t your first attempt.
Kirchenkampf
Civil Constitution of the Clergy
cont...
War on the Cristeros
Society of the Godless
cont...
The Four Olds
The Agrarian Reform Law
We can talk more too about what you little rascals got up to in North Korea, Vietnam, Myanmar, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, East Germany, etc. as well if you’d like.
Off topic:
Who are you voting for in your provincial election next month?
A. Eby
B. Rustad
C. Someone else
D. You don’t care about provincial elections and you just stay home and jerk off and fantasize about voting for Trump in an American election
Do you jerk off wishing for a 2nd braincell, asswipe?
FOAD.
I hope you have a wonderful and relaxing Sunday Sevo.
Get rammed with a barb-wire-wrapped broom stick, shitstain.
Not Eby, you fucking freak. Why would you even put him up there? Are evil Marxist drug pushers the #1 pick for Reddit-tier antitheist, polysexual grocery-bagger edgelords like you?
So D?
I haven’t been up there since Covid, but there seemed to be the same amount of drug users back when the Liberals were in charge. I don’t live there though so what do I know.
I don’t use Reddit, I’m not a antitheist, and I don’t even know what a polysexual grocery-bagger edgelord is.
but there seemed to be the same amount of drug users back when the Liberals were in charge.
Well there’s a insane lie. Turns out giving druggies as many free drugs as they want on the taxpayers dime isn’t the miracle cure for the drug epidemic that was assumed.
There’s a lot I dislike about Rustad, but like in the US, when the choice is between Boss Hogg and Cthulhu and his civilization destroying demons, you go with Boss Hogg.
He’s an imperfect vessel but Rustad is the only choice to thwart Eby, as even Kevin Falcon realized. So of course I will vote for him.
Right now stopping you Nazis is far more important than anything else.
I don’t live there, but it seems like there’s always been a huge drug problem there. I’ll take your word that it’s gotten worse because I haven’t been there in a while.
So you calling me and democrats Nazis is fine, but some progressives comparing Trump to Hitler is way over the line and partly caused his assassination attempt?
Nothing hypocritical about that.
"...So you calling me and democrats Nazis is fine, but some progressives comparing Trump to Hitler is way over the line and partly caused his assassination attempt?..."
If you had a second brain cell, you might learn what a "straw man" is, asswipe.
It’s not a straw man Sevo. I’ve seen plenty of posters on here saying people comparing Trump to Hitler contributed to his assassination attempt, including ML.
Hope you are having a nice day.
So you don't know what a straw man is? Not surprising.
FOAD, asshole.
No I do Sevo.
Have you thought about joining the curch of latter day saints?
No. I would never join that church.
Why do you ask?
comparing Trump to Hitler is way over the line and partly caused his assassination attempt?"
I've never said that. I've always said the obvious; his assassination attempt happened because the Biden administration and Democratic Party operatives in the FBI and SS tried to kill him.
"So you calling me and democrats Nazis is fine, but some progressives comparing Trump to Hitler is way over the line and partly caused his assassination attempt?
Because you are Nazis. Not rhetorically or figuratively, but actually and literally.
The Democratic Party over its long history, until right-fucking-now it, has been consistently the second most evil political party in the Western world, with the second worst record of genocide and enslavement.
Worse than anyone other than the German NSDAP, easily beating out Mussolini’s Fascists, the French Revolution’s Jacobins, the Spanish Falangists and any Eastern European Communist party.
The Democratic party singlehandedly fought to enslave and preserve slavery culminating in a bloody civil war that killed over a million people.
And when that was foiled they created their own paramilitary, just like the SA, the Klu Klux Klan, so they could continue to terrorize Blacks, lynching them on the slightest excuse. The Democratic Party’s very own Brownshirts terrorizing millions of Americans for over half a century.
And then to really get revenge on their former victims they enacted and enforced Jim Crow, then resegregated the civil service and fired thousands of black professionals.
And none of this was perpetrated by any other party. It was all Democrats. The Republican party was expressly formed as anti-slavery.
It’s no wonder that Ida B. Wells said in 1885, “I am not a Democrat, because the Democrats considered me a chattel and possibly might have always so considered me, because their record from the beginning has been inimical to my interests.”
But then they continued. Filibustering the Civil Rights act, the 1956 Southern Manifesto, bombing black churches, and when that game was over they blamed it on others and claimed the Southern Democrats “switched sides”.
Even though the Record of Congress shows that only one single, solitary Southern Democrat, a man with a black daughter, “switched” parties.
The hundreds of others stayed Democrats until the day they died. Some, like KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd, feted and honored into the 2000s.
And still they carried on, stuffing Blacks into projects and putting the vast majority of abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, so that they’re being aborted at rates of 4:1 over whites.
Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger explicitly said she was targeting blacks for eugenics, and Democrats have proudly carried that up till today, ensuring billions gets funneled into PP eugenics factories.
And it wasn’t just Blacks.
With the Indian Wars the Democrats genocided Native Americans, killing entire tribes right down to the babies.
With the Indian Removal Act Democrats kicked the “Five Civilized Tribes” out of their own cities and off their own farms and into the wilderness in an ethnic cleansing so brutal that it is called the Trail of Tears.
All Democratic Party initiative BTW, the other parties opposed it, and Jackson and Van Buren carried it out.
Not content with two ethnic cleansings, the Democrats rounded up thousands of patriotic Americans into camps for the crime of having Japanese Ancestors.
And it wasn’t just about race. The Democrats enacted prohibition, ferociously opposed universal suffrage and got the US mired in Vietnam, wiping out villages there and shooting kids.
I can hear you sputtering that it doesn’t count because that was a million years ago, so let’s look at now. We are now finally witnessing the logical fruition of their centuries long radical utopia:
Censorship, electronic surveillance, internal spying, illegally using the CIA and FBI to spy on the opposition candidates and on journalists and civilians, political monopolies and cartels, weaponization of the intelligence agencies, turning the FBI into their own Stasi, pouring billions of dollars into campaigns, changing voting laws by fiat, a woke revolutionary military, book banning, bleeding the First Amendment, canceling careers, blacklisting, separate-but-equal racial segregation and separatism, castrating children, arresting the political opposition and operating kangaroo courts.
The only reason you guys are not number one is solely because of numbers as your prey was more scattered. Any Native American or African from the 1800's will attest to that.
You can post that same screed as many times as you want. Doesn’t make it any less bullshit.
You need to get your info from places other than Dinesh D’Souza films.
What party did the president who signed and lobbied for the 1964 civil rights act belong to?
In 1964 Goldwater was opposed to the civil rights act. Johnson signed it.
The voting base in the south gradually switched to the GOP as the northern, progressive wing of the democrats took over the party.
Strom Thurmond never had a relationship with his black daughter and went to his grave never apologizing for his support of segregation. He paid her and her mother off so his racist colleagues wouldn’t know he had been fucking the help.
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,” – Trent Lott GOP senate leader
You are just a fucking contrarian conspiracy theorist. It’s not as black and white as the parties “switching,” but the GOP gradually became more open to conservative southerners opposed to civil rights. As the traditional southern dem segregationists retired and died off they were replaced by conservative southern republicans who were pretty damn similar. Jessie Helms is probably the best example.
There’s a reason the majority of political scientists, historians, and other experts ridicule your idol Dinesh’s ideas. It’s not “marxists have taken over academia,” but because that’s what the evidence points to.
I find it funny you cite slavery and Jim Crow as why dems are Nazis because you are actually implicating your allies.
Why is it republicans and Maga that are complaining about confederate monuments being torn down? Why are they against renaming places named after Confederates? Your pal Nardz was vehemently opposed to the Charlottesville Robert E Lee statue being removed. It’s democrats, BLM, and progressives pushing for the removal of Confederate and Jim Crow monuments. I assume you agree with them since you think the Confederates and southern segregationists were comparable to Nazis.
It wasn’t just the democrats who fucked over the indigenous population. Both parties participated. Some Republicans may have been more sympathetic to the Indians, but it was a national problem. Not just a dem one.
So you are for people today being held responsible for the sins of their ancestors? Because that’s what you’re advocating.
"What party did the president who signed and lobbied for the 1964 civil rights act belong to?"
Larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats.
"In 1964 Goldwater was opposed to the civil rights act. Johnson signed it."
And WHY did he? He explained it quite explicitly.
"The voting base in the south gradually switched to the GOP as the northern, progressive wing of the democrats took over the party."
As the South became less racist, it became less Democrat.
"“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,” – Trent Lott GOP senate leader"
Would you like me to provide quotes about Robert Byrd from prominent Democrats? They are even MORE supportive and he was an active Klan member.
"Why is it republicans and Maga that are complaining about confederate monuments being torn down?"
Once you start erasing history, as we have seen, it tends to get a bit out of control. Best to not start that ball rolling.
"Why are they against renaming places named after Confederates?"
Republicans spilled a lot of blood dealing with Democrats. They are trying to be nice to those bigoted sacks of crap.
"Your pal Nardz was vehemently opposed to the Charlottesville Robert E Lee statue being removed. It’s democrats, BLM, and progressives pushing for the removal of Confederate and Jim Crow monuments. I assume you agree with them since you think the Confederates and southern segregationists were comparable to Nazis."
Far left IS awfully fond of erasing problematic history. The Right seems to prefer dealing with it and moving on.
"It wasn’t just the democrats who fucked over the indigenous population."
Republicans were not around when Democrats did the whole "Trail of Tears" thing.
Just sayin'.
"Both parties participated."
Not really. Seemed to be a heavily Democrat action.
"Some Republicans may have been more sympathetic to the Indians, but it was a national problem. Not just a dem one."
Ahhhh, the usual "When Republicans are wrong, THEY are the bad guys. When Democrats are wrong, AMERICA is the bad guy". Pretty boring, honestly.
It was a Dem action. I know you love them, but the reality is what it is.
"So you are for people today being held responsible for the sins of their ancestors? Because that’s what you’re advocating."
Hell, the Democrat candidate for President supports holding people responsible for the sins of their ancestors, even if their ancestors did not actually, you know, DO the sin.
That whole "reparations" thing. Where Harris would get money even though her family owned slaves.
Care to guess what President has zero ties in his familial history to slavery?
“ “What party did the president who signed and lobbied for the 1964 civil rights act belong to?”
Larger percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats.
“In 1964 Goldwater was opposed to the civil rights act. Johnson signed it.”
And WHY did he? He explained it quite explicitly.
“The voting base in the south gradually switched to the GOP as the northern, progressive wing of the democrats took over the party.””
If ML is going to say Democrats are Nazis the GOP is too if he holds them to that standard.
“ As the South became less racist, it became less Democrat.”
As the country became less racist the south took longer than the rest of the country.
Robert Byrd apologized for being in the Klan. It doesn’t excuse it, but Thurmond never apologized for his racism.
“ Far left IS awfully fond of erasing problematic history. The Right seems to prefer dealing with it and moving on.”
It’s not erasing history. It’s choosing how we honor and commemorate history and historical figures in our country and communities. The majority of Americans don’t want to honor traitors who seceded to preserve and expand slavery. They don’t want public places to be named after segregationists. It’s conservative southerners and rural residents (the most gop and Maga voters) that are fighting tooth and nail to glorify the confederacy and Jim Crow.
“ Republicans were not around when Democrats did the whole “Trail of Tears” thing.”
True. Where did Jackson’s party get most of its support? The south and rural areas. Ya know the parts that are the most GOP and MAGA friendly today.
““So you are for people today being held responsible for the sins of their ancestors? Because that’s what you’re advocating.”
The irony of that went over your head.
“Hell, the Democrat candidate for President supports holding people responsible for the sins of their ancestors, even if their ancestors did not actually, you know, DO the sin.
That whole “reparations” thing. Where Harris would get money even though her family owned slaves.
Care to guess what President has zero ties in his familial history to slavery?””
Most likely one of Kamala’s slave ancestors was raped by their owner. This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. I think reparations are a bad idea, like a lot of Kamala’s ideas. My original point was to point out how ridiculous ML is to label Democrats Nazis.
Kamala’s family owned slaves. No raping needed there.
“As the country became less racist the south took longer than the rest of the country.”
Wasn’t Biden condemning busing during his Senate career?
“Robert Byrd apologized for being in the Klan. It doesn’t excuse it, but Thurmond never apologized for his racism.”
Nah, he never really did apologize for it. He JUSTIFIED it, not apologize.
“True. Where did Jackson’s party get most of its support? The south and rural areas. Ya know the parts that are the most GOP and MAGA friendly today.”
You mean the solid Democrat South?
It took the south getting over racism to stop being Democrat.
Democrats aren’t Nazis. They’re not honest enough. For all of their faults, Hitler and the Nazis had few problems laying out in tedious detail his plans. They are as detestable.
The claim is the black side of her family owned slaves, but there is no conclusive evidence. Most likely a slave family member was raped. Slave rape was very common.
If you have any evidence that is more conclusive please cite it or tell me where to find it.
Biden has said and done a lot of fucked up things. Fuck Biden.
Fuck Byrd. Doesn’t change the fact your side is the side of Thurmond and Helms.
“You mean the solid Democrat South?”
Today it’s solid GOP and MAGA. It’s the part of the country that wants to continue glorifying Confederates and segregationists. The majority of blacks support democrats.
You can try and spin it all you want, but the descendants of the Confederates and Jim Crow are overwhelmingly MAGA.
"The claim is the black side of her family owned slaves, but there is no conclusive evidence."
Her father said it was the case. I guess he was lying about it because, well, "I'm from slave owners" is a major selling point for Marxists or something.
"Fuck Byrd. Doesn’t change the fact your side is the side of Thurmond and Helms."
They did not actively recruit members for the Klan. Just sayin'.
"Today it’s solid GOP and MAGA."
Yes. Took the South becoming less racist for that to happen. At the time in question, it was as Democrat as Massachusetts is now.
Again, when the South was Klan heaven, Democrats ran the show. When that ended, the Democrats were not running the show any longer.
"It’s the part of the country that wants to continue glorifying Confederates and segregationists. The majority of blacks support democrats."
Are you aware that they voted for Democrats heavily WHILE the Dems still had the Klan as a major member of their coalition. About 50% of them did so in elections.
"You can try and spin it all you want, but the descendants of the Confederates and Jim Crow are overwhelmingly MAGA."
Nah. Democrats heavily. Hell, the current group of DEI activists think less of black folks than the KKK did.
Seems thinking blacks are not remotely equal to white folks is a consistent belief amongst Dems.
MothersLam nailed it, behold the unhinged responses from usual suspects, LOL
At the same time MAGA was chasing the Republican moneylenders out of the temple. The neocons, the GOPe, the cruise ship conservatives, the military/industrial complex, the BBB government contract grifters were all fleeing to the welcoming arms of Big Brother.
This recent complaint on X by one of their standard-bearers, Jonah Goldberg, is particularly notable:
“The new right is simply taking the techniques of the radical left and retrofitting them to a right-wing narrative.”
Yeah, and? This is like complaining that an NFL team in the 40s is abandoning the single wing for the T Formation. Or that the US is using blitzkrieg tactics against the Nazis.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using the left’s methodologies of political warfare against them. These methods aren’t a morally-based framework; there’s nothing inherently good or bad about them.
But it says something about what a bunch of bottom bitches the Goldberg “Remnant” will always be to the left; “we don’t do that!” is a recipe for enabling your own extermination. It’s why these people are completely marginalized as a political force, after effectively running a major political party in the US for nearly three decades. No one takes them seriously except as punching bags and strawmen, and their embarrassing thirst to be accepted in the popular media is why a lot of them are Democrats now.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using the left’s methodologies of political warfare against them. These methods aren’t a morally-based framework; there’s nothing inherently good or bad about them.
Depends on which methods you are talking about. I'm going to say that there is something inherently bad about using civil unrest and ginned up street violence for political ends.
These are useless definitions of liberal (and conservative for that matter).
But that's what passes for trash tier content these days.
"Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve"
Was the equal and opposite cringe question asked as well? You know simply swap the word "blacks" for "whites". Of course they should be spaced out on the questionnaire so as to make it less obvious it's a check question. After all, it's up to the respondent to decide whether "deserve" relates to preference or punishment.
That was clearly part of the criticism. After all, you can say "everyone got what they deserved". You can say "I blame no one but myself for my failures". You could even be a black man and say "I have never had anyone who mattered even be rude to me about my skin, and it's never affected my career".
It's one of the clearest examples because there are so many ways to say "No" that aren't biased.
I agree but my point was that one could absolutely answer either question "correctly" with a "yes" and be absolutely racist/biased because what is "deserved" isn't identified so one could imagine it's almost anything "less money than they deserve", "less prison time than they deserve", etc. In fact I think a "yes" response is more likely to be indicative of prejudice.
"Republican Voters Got More Socially Liberal Under Trump"
But Trump = Hitler!
You want to hear the "N" word repeated over and over?
Talk to a leftist about a black conservative like Dr. Thomas Sowell.
Last I checked he, like most economists, opposes Trump’s policies on economics and trade.
You mean when he said he was the less dangerous choice?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2016/nov/08/sowell-trump-is-the-less-dangerous-choice-for-president/
Or when he reversed positions on Trump?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSJxyVJjAfk
Or he debunked the lies you and Jeff push from the corporate media as truth?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4R6jD73r70
Last video he even says Trump policies are far better than previous dem or rnc administrations.
Here is Sowell debunking another one of yours and jeffs claims.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/22/thomas_sowell_no_hard_evidence_that_trump_is_a_racist.html
Good work buddy. Another person you’ve read some random online quotes from but don’t actually follow.
That doesn’t contradict what I said.
Less-dangerous than the alternative is a weak endorsement. Brits would call it damning with faint praise.
And you still can’t comprehend criticism of one side being simply that. To you it’s all praise for the other side.
Lol.
Never change man. Never change. Wallow in your consistent ignorance.
As for your criticism of one side… you never actually criticize the other side retard. Need me to go through the last 10 articles critical of dems for your comments again?
I also like how you don’t even dispute you don’t follow him and didn’t realize he changed many of his views. Or how you literally oush many of the media lies Sowell criticized. Fucking hilarious.
But please, show us Sowell praising Chase. I'm sure you can. Or is he ignoring the clown as well?
That’s why I don’t like responding to your posts. If I don’t refute every false premise and lie you treat it as implicit agreement. And you put so many into each post that it’s just not worth the effort.
You did say that Sowell considers Trump to be dangerous by saying he’s less-dangerous.
Again, that doesn’t refute my original statement. Adds to it because less-dangerous is still dangerous.
So in your blind, emotional, antagonistic, malicious, mendacious attack on me, you inadvertently agreed with and strengthened my original statement.
What a maroon.
I gave you 4 links. Lol.
Never change man.
So was that a yes for me going through the last 4 articles critical of dems?
The problem with you sarc is you don't educate yourself. It is obvious the only time you even know Sowell exists is when he is shown on MSNBC attacking Trump. Your claim is literally from 2015 where he has walked back most of his criticism, see the video from 2019 where he says it has been better economic policy than prior Dem or GOP presidents. You ignore that because you didn't know he said that.
Remember how you keep asking to go back to the old GOP? Sowell himself said Trump was better than the old GOP retard. You didnt even realize that fact despite being given a link. Because you have no interest on anything beyond your 1st impression narratives.
Like I said, too many lies and false premises.
If you want a conversation keep them down to one or two.
If you want to grandstand against elaborate strawmen, keep doing what you’re doing.
Such a coward.
Is this your new thing? Ignore all arguments and scream lies because you're such a moron you know you can't argue? What is the fucking lie? I gave you links and an argument and you shout and run away. Lol.
Be honest sarc. We know your Maine ballot. Chase then Kamala. RCV for the win to pretend you voted L.
"I never argue with mystics." --Ayn Rand
Any research would cut into his drinking regimen. Ot would also reduce the amount of time he has available for passing out blackout drunk in a pool of his own urine and vomit in that alley behind the dive bar.
Priorities!
Last time I checked, Sowell opposed Democratic socliast/Keynesian stupidity even more.
Let me put it to you this way. Would you rather eat something from Taco Bell, or an actual shit sandwich?
More like a choice between dog shit or cat shit, because neither political options are Taco Bell.
Biden continued and strengthened Trumps shitty policies on economics and trade. While I damned him for it, Trump supporters were completely silent. They can’t praise him for it because he’s The Enemy, even though that would be honest. They can’t criticize him because that would mean criticizing Trump.
Partisanship truly is a mental illness. Those affected by it perpetuate the duopoly and the erosion of our liberties.
You support and promote advantaged trade lol.
You damned him even for retaliatory tariffs that got China to crack down on IP theft which was a much higher cost than the tariffs were.
I mean you promote the “old conservative” free trade policy that is a set of agreed to tariffs and regulations, not free trade. You didnt even fucking know Reagan issued tariffs for fucks sake.
The fact that the only economic topic you even rail against is tariffs despite then being such a small cost to consumers is hilarious to me. 50B a year while you say jack shit about regulatory policies that are estimated well into the high hundreds of billions. Because you decided the tariff issue was the only talking point you have without realizing every president has issued tariffs.
Everything you say is based in ignorance.
Magnificent argument against things I never said. You tell me what I didn’t say, why I didn’t say it, and then proceed to attack those reasons.
It’s all in your head, buddy.
All in your head. If you had any friends they’d tell you to get back on your meds.
And sarc will complain if someone posts a link to what he said. Pathetic.
The fact that the only economic topic you even rail against is tariffs despite then being such a small cost to consumers is hilarious to me.
Gee, this sounds a lot like a certain someone around here who only ever pushes back against the welfare state when it's the vermin immigrants using it, even though they are a small proportion of the overall cost of the welfare state.
Maybe you should take your own medicine here.
Got a link, you fat fuck?
Trump is an opportunist and a mercantilist, but if the worse thing he does is try a bunch of tariffs and piss off trading partners who have varying degrees of command economies, I will take it.
In comparison, Democrats 3.0 are now speaking openly of price controls and Neo-fascist economic dreams, never saw a confiscatory tax scheme they did not love, and are eager to replace free markets with 5 year plans. That is indeed a shit sandwich.
psst: there is a way to vote against Team Red mercantilism AND against Team Blue price controls
Nonsense. Two gangs of muggers see some taxpayers approaching, and fight over who gets to rob and murder them--assuming there is no Libertarian alternative to which the victims might appeal. That alternative in 2016 wrecked the muggers' plans.
No culture war configuration is permanent. Time and again, once-vivid fights have receded, as with same-sex unions, or disappeared almost entirely, as with interracial marriage.
He said from his faraday cage bunker, in which light, nor sound, nor radio waves can penetrate...
"The Strength of the city is determined by how we treat the most vulnerable"
*sound of reel-to-reel tape fast forwarding"
"Chicago's 2025 budgets shortfall projected to be $1 billion dollars."
Reason: Hey, Rick, we're dropping this pallet of cash in your driveway.
Me: It's an ECONOMIC EMERGENCY!
Reason: Whycome you declaring an economic emergency when we just dumped money in your driveway?
I just wanted to point out that Trump was the first president who came into office officially supporting gay marriage. Obama explicitly opposed it in 2008.
That's the issue. If Obama were running today, with his same policies and positions at he did 16 years ago, he would be called a far-right extremist.
Then Gary Johnsons 4M spoiler votes respun, reshuffled and rerattled the outcome of 13 states casting 127 spoiler votes. Suddenly Dems were classically liberals and against rolling queers. Suddenly they were FOR the 1972 libertarian position on women having rights. Leveraged, law-changing Libertarian spoiler votes tilted the entire playing field and let voters spit in the eye of BOTH looter factions. Lookit how seriously the looters take us now, despite Jesus Caucus nazis infiltrating and burning the place down! https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/
So my hypothesis is:
Team Red did not become more socially liberal on gay marriage. They just went silent on the matter for a while.
See, in the 00’s, the argument went something like this: “I’m not opposed to gay people, I just think that marriage should be defined like it has been historically and Biblically, that’s all. Gays can have civil unions and have all the secular benefits of marriage, and that ought to be good enough.” That proved to be a losing argument, of course, and after Obergefell, the die-hard bitter clingers on the matter had to find another way to fight their battles.
And then Trump came along, and with him, the radicalization of the right (e.g. “taking the red pill” and so forth). So instead of becoming more liberal on the matter of gay marriage, the radicalized right realized that the reason why their argument failed previously, is because they had already given too much ground in accepting gays in public spaces in the first place. The way to beat gay marriage is to not even tolerate gays in public spaces at all.
So we get things like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, and the war against drag queens, and boycotts of Bud Light, and pushback against Disney when they portray too many gay characters in their media, which is all an attempt to push gays out of public spaces. They are playing the long game now. They are betting on the fact that when today’s kids are voting age, they will vote against “the gay agenda”, including voting against gay marriage, because they will view the world through the lens of their conservative parents who tell them that gays are deviant sick pedophiles, and there will be few if any counterexamples for them to see of gays acting like normal human beings.
Trump is pro-gay marriage. Mentioned it more than once in his 2016 campaign.
Your entire rant is laughable.
Also "Don't Say Gay" did not ever exist.
Are you CAPABLE of basic honesty?
I think this is your way of admitting that I'm basically right but you don't want to acknowledge it.
It's me saying you're fundamentally wrong from the word go.
Like you could not conceivably be MORE wrong without actively trying to be.
Okay, so explain where I'm wrong in the thesis that I presented.
Well, for starters, there was never a 'Don't Say Gay' bill.
Well, voting for Trump did not make the Right anti-gay marriage. He was the first President to support it openly in his campaign.
"Don't Say Gay" was never a thing. Literally never.
There's no "war" on drag queens. There IS an attempt by you (well, and people like you and that you support) to normalize pedophilia. I do not get why you think diddling kids is OK, but that is what it is.
Conservatives do not argue that gays are deviants. The people who want to diddle kids are viewed as deviants, including by gay folks who do not wish to be tarred by them.
The "Gay rights" groups desperately needed something to justify their existence. So, trannies became their cause celebre. They stopped actually giving the tiniest sliver of a damn about gay people.
No, he is not.
Okay, so maybe you can explain where I am wrong in the thesis I presented above.
Why stop at just the 'thesis' above?
Effectively every sentence has some grevious factual error, to the point that it's unrecognizable.
Trump has supported gay marriage.
There is no push against homosexuality.
There is a push against extremist literature in schools, but some of this is explicitly pornographic and the objections are on those grounds. Similarly, there are objections against schools actively deceiving parents about their child's preferences or decisions to transition. That's hardly the same as trying to stamp out gays.
That's the issue. You aren't fighting Trump. You are fighting some fictional Trump-Satan who holds every single view 100% wrong. Therefore, you are imagining his positions rather than learning them.
This isn't some fantasy. This is real life.
There is no push against homosexuality.
Yeah there is.
There is a push against extremist literature in schools, but some of this is explicitly pornographic and the objections are on those grounds.
This is completely bullshit. A lot of the books that were banned were ones that had zero 'pornographic' content and only discussed gay-related themes in a positive light. For example, read this list:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-banned-books-in-america/2/
"And Tango Makes Three" is a children's book about two gay penguins. Zero 'pornography'. Still banned.
"I am Jazz" and "Being Jazz", books about Jazz Jennings. Zero sexual content. Still banned.
You can go on and on with the list. There are lots of books being banned that don't have anything to do with anything pornographic.
Similarly, there are objections against schools actively deceiving parents about their child’s preferences or decisions to transition. That’s hardly the same as trying to stamp out gays.
That is only part of the issue. The whole point of the 'Don't Say Gay' law was that gay stuff wouldn't be talked about in the class at all.
And I'm not talking about Trump's positions. I'm talking about the radicalized right-wing positions that were brought about in the same time frame.
As long as we have public schools that everyone is forced to pay for, everyone will have a say in how they operate. If a significant number of people don't want gay and trans stuff (or other currently controversial topics) taught in schools, then maybe it shouldn't be. If parents want their kids to read such books, they are welcome to acquire them elsewhere.
Prophesy is itself a fallacy. Once "some" replaces "all" in major or minor premises, syllogistic logic breaks down and probability theory is the next step in defending whutever conclusion you want to defend. A good source is late Reason contributor Petr Beckmann's Introduction to Applied Probability Theory.
They are betting on the fact that when today’s kids are voting age, they will vote against “the gay agenda”, including voting against gay marriage, because they will view the world through the lens of their conservative parents who tell them that gays are deviant sick pedophiles, and there will be few if any counterexamples for them to see of gays acting like normal human beings.
Assume true:
So the fuck what?
When is tolerance a requirement for a successful society?
The Neocons have been losing their grip on the Republican party and are moving to the Democrat party and reasonable and anti-war Democrats have been moving to the Republican party.
The reality is that even tough the Republican party is often called conservative, it really is more of a classical liberal party with a small minority of conservative members.
I believe that we are seeing a restructuring of the two major parties. Where warmongers like Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney are aligned and it appears that the warmongering and corporatism party will be the Democrat party. That the Republican party will become the anti-war and common man's party.
I not sure which party will become the fiscally responsible party, but get the impression that neither will be truly fiscally responsible , but that the Republican party will be more fiscally responsible than the Democrat party who will spend us into oblivion at a faster rate than the Republican party will.
I'll take peaceful rational Democrats joining the GOP and warmongering Republicans joining the Democrats.
BTW, somebody tell Reason that elephants, even LGBTQXYZ123 elephants, have eyes.
Well, that puts them miles ahead of the writers at Reason.
If they had eyes, they'd see the unpleasant realities behind the rainbow imagery.
Jesse parrots the misnomers and equivocations both looter factions spray as smokescreens. What happened was the LP demanded no coercion of pregnant women for 100 days in its 1972 and 1976 platforms. The Suprema Corte copied this into ROE and the Prohibition party, conscious that unborn are not constitutional persons, demanded the Constitution be hacked to make them so, and God's Own Prohibitionists aped that. The original LP vote count increased 5000% in 1976, and 25000% in 1980. After Dems lost in 2016 thanks to 4M LP votes, they too moved away from totalitarianism and toward individuals having rights. Now mathematicians whoring got the GOP have explained that to the mystics. Q.E.D. Presto-change-o. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/spoilers-and-voters/
My hovercraft is full of eels
Has the writer never heard "the ratchet moves only one direction" before? The leftward move of the culture, interrupted only by occasional moments of stasis, has been in place since the "counterculture" of the 60s. Which is now the mainstream culture.
Republican Voters Got More Socially Liberal Under Trump
Alternative Headline:
Republicans Stayed Pretty Much The Same Under Trump, Insane Progressive Policies About Neutering Children As Policy And Locking Students In Their Homes 24/7 Made The Errant Sociopath Who Happened To Vote One Way Or The Other Seem Relatively 'Moderate'.
Imagine Bill Clinton running as a Republican today - Christofascist!!
Leftists successfully moved the Overton Window. It's not because they are correct, it's because they have been more effective in their propaganda.
But there is a third possibility: that liberals spent the decade moving leftward on questions of race and sexual orientation—and so did conservatives.
This is nonsense.
The reality is that a large section of conservatives splintered off, rejecting conservatism in favor of embracing populism instead – which is just leftism with slightly different policy goals. And they did it knowing they were making social/political/moral compromises which they deem necessary “to win” and “prevent” a much greater loss. They are, in fact, very much slaves to the so-called “binary choice.”
It’s ultimately just cowardice, and it’s what makes their political candidates irrelevant. By a wide margin, they’re not voting FOR their guy, they’re voting AGAINST the other one. Sure, some are kool-aid drinkers and all in on a Dubya or a Mitt or a Donald or even a Jeb had it played out that way – but most of them don’t WANT their guy, they’re simply terrified of what happens if he doesn’t win. (This is especially bad at the federal legislative level.)
So, they vote for Candidate Default. This is why they don’t actually care about anything he says or promises. The goal isn’t those promises. It’s just to stop Other Candidate. And if it means they have to get on board with killing tiny humans or reckless spending or ruling by fiat – so be it. Like the average leftist, their mentality is exactly the same: “ends justify the means,” “it’s for the greater good,” “whatever it takes to win,” (or, if they’re really being honest, “fuck the moral high ground”), blah blah blah. All that stupid unprincipled utilitarian consequentialist nonsense that let’s them rationalize atrocity. To the point that they start believing it’s what they always stood for.
Don’t be fooled. Conservatism – and especially Christian Conservatism – still has virtually no tolerance for abortion, LGBT-pedo, DEI, CRT, social justice, ACAB, identity politics, or anything generally socialist/communist. They’ve just been marginalized to the point of irrelevance, while one of two Collectivist ideologies promising either “kinda Marxist” or “extremely Marxist” are the only dominant players in the game anymore.
Actually it's 'especially' Catholics against abortion (where it all started) and nobody cares if Johnny is infatuated with poppy butt holes; but his disgusting personal preference doesn't grant him a 'special' status to control the entire world to his whim. The rest is wildly true; No tolerance for identify-as politics and socialism/communism. The two of those have left the biggest stains on human history and the leftards just want another repeat in the US.
Then why do you keep claiming bigots like you are the majority of Americans.
Face it the number of people like you is getting increasingly smaller and irrelevant.
If you had any self awareness you would maybe realize that you are in the wrong, but you won’t. Your make believe Romain god has conditioned to believe your viewpoint is never wrong.
I almost pity you, but then I remind myself you CHOOSE to belong to the biggest pedo organization in the world.
Do American a favor and kill yourself.
Then why do you keep claiming bigots like you are the majority of Americans.
Because even most classical liberals and populists are against the LGBT preying on children, doofus. Heck, even most uncivilized societies don't put up with attacking the most vulnerable.
You seem to think there's a glut of pedophiles and their enablers like yourself that can stand up to the number of people who would put you in the dirt for even looking lecherously at a child.
You are dead wrong, and you will find that out very very soon if you keep up with your pederast ways.