Speaking as a right leaner, I think people on either side tend to froth at the mouth when you paint their whole side of the political spectrum with the same brush. They might be tempted to respond very defensively/unreasonably when you lead off with a question calling them morally degenerate.
Why not ask the question like this: "What do the republicans on this forum see in Trump and feel the need to defend him when it's pretty clear he's done a lot of immoral and illegal stuff? I'm genuinely curious to know."
Communism, like fascism, destroys the individual. Maybe this argument isn't compelling to you, though, if you think fascism has also gotten a bad rap and never had a chance to really shine?
Unbridled, unregulated capitalism creates a lot of the same problems, but at least the country keeps running with that system in place. There do need to be more checks and balances on it, because we're starting to see corporations achieve the same kinds of power that dictators enjoy.
Playing devil's advocate here...approving this amendment would have disallowed criminals to serve sentences that require performance of manual labor, right? I'm sure this is why it was shot down. I 100% think criminals should have to work.
Honestly? I'm happy Trump won, compared to Harris.
But the gloating and carrying on has got to stop. Yes, a lot of people on the left are overreacting--saying they're gonna leave the country, saying it's all over for women, saying the country is going up in flames, etc. But a lot of folks on the right overreacted 4 years ago, too.
I remember before Trump came along that your average folks on the right were the thick-skinned ones compared to the folks on the left. Now look at us being playground bullies. The jokes about "lib tears being sweet" were funny the first or second time. But it's time to move on be the bigger party. We need to be better than this.
Title of post asks, "when is making light of a murder unacceptable?" I think making light of any murder is unacceptable.
Making light of any death in the particular is almost always unacceptable, unless the particular person is Hitler, Bin Laden, etc. Still, even jokes about these people can go too far. People will joke about Lincoln's murder, which is particular, but obviously enough time has passed and the intentions behind the joke aren't "personal," meaning, no one is celebrating that Booth killed him; it's just dark humor.
Exceptions can be made for general jokes, like how 9/11 jokes (sorry for poor timing of this example) are ok because they don't hone in on one victim in particular and almost never relate specifically to any victims at all.
That's not what you said before. Nekorah said romantic feelings are tied to sexual attraction. You quoted his specific text and then said that your example disproves that. To anyone reading, that sounds like you don't believe romantic feelings are tied to sexuality.
I'm glad you were able to explain yourself a little more clearly here. But the burden now falls on you to say how all people who experience sexual attraction now fit into your model where the statement "romantic feelings are tied to sexual attraction" isn't valid.
You're trying to say that romantic feeling is NEVER attached to sexual attraction based on a <1% exception to the rule. That's not how you science, bro.
None of your whole post really grapples with any claim I made. The only real claim you're making is that Trump is a bad person, which I won't argue, because I a) didn't vote for him, and b) is besides the entire point of what I said.
Im not arguing about the candidates you mentioned, since I didn't vote for any of those either. I wrote in the American Solidarity candidate because that platform aligns with my values (the Venn diagram is almost a perfect circle).
You didn't answer my questions above, but I'm curious how you believe not endorsing anyone jives with your mission to seek truth.
The left generally seems to view sex and reproduction as two entirely distinct things, when in fact they are inextricably linked. The right values nuclear families because the nuclear family is society's microcosm, like Nekorah suggested, and it is in the nuclear family where men and women both get their needs met and become their best selves. The sexual revolution denormalized the nuclear family. Liberals tend to claim that the right is obsessed with fathering children on helpless women, but in actuality a world where sex is seen as separate from reproduction, men tend to view women as pleasure objects instead of the other equal half of a partnership.
You could have written someone in. If you care about seeking truth, does that mean just throwing out options you find that don't align to the truth and calling it a day? Or does it mean actively seeking out the option that's as close to the truth as you can find?
How do you see yourself as carrying on your search for truth in your decision not to vote?
What didn't you like about the third party candidates? I'm not just talking Chase Oliver and Jill Stein, because there were plenty of others. I voted for a candidate I knew would get maybe 10,000 votes tops, but I determined they were the best of the bunch. Hopefully you don't judge a candidate's worthiness solely on whether they have a shot at winning.
Wild fantasy scenarios that expect people to go vote every 4 years? What are you talking about? They don't even need to vote for the same 3rd party candidate, just any 3rd party candidate at all will do. It would send a message to the elites that Americans won't tolerate their bullshit.
Simply not-voting isn't protest against a broken system. It's laziness and immaturity.
But anyway, enough about what I think. Since you believe democracy is dead, and that apparently those millions of people shouldn't have to change anything about themselves, what do you suggest that would a) revitalize democracy, and b) not require anyone to change?
Idk what you're talking about. There were libertarian and green party candidates up and down the ballot in my state. What state do you live in again? Oh wait...
What it comes down to is locus of control. I can control who I vote for, the letters I write to my congressman, and...I guess that's about it. It may not seem like much, but it's something, and it's a damn sight more than the 33% of Americans do who didn't vote for a president this cycle. Voters incite change. Like you suggested: we need to start at the ground level. Which doesn't start at legislature, actually. It starts with us, the little people.
Oh, he still would have won. But imagine the precedent set for '28 if we were able to look back on an election where a 3rd party candidate received backing from millions and millions of voters who couldn't be bothered to get out and do their civic duty. It would make people much more likely to consider voting 3rd party next time around.
Minimum wage and abortion are all jurisdiction of the states now, so under direct influence from their populace (I'm fairly sure based on the ballot of the state where I live). Medicare/medicaid should also be the jurisdiction of the state government, not federal, although I generally would agree with you that healthcare needs to be much more affordable for all.
The other items you listed are definitely federal issues, and if the two parties in power had a 3rd party threatening to syphon voters away from them, I bet they'd start listening to their bases on them. Democracy is only dead if people don't engage in the democratic process, i.e., vote.
I'm sure this sentiment is why a good chunk of democrats didn't vote this time around. Funny--if they'd just decided to put their vote toward a third party candidate---literally ANY third party candidate---that would have incited some real change around here and restored general faith in democracy and in voting.
