Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

I don't know how devoted Evangelicals are to Trump but I can understand why they voted for him - assuming they did.

They had to have some righteous concerns as to how things would quickly change for the worse for them should they have gotten a "Progressive" supreme court.

Luckily for them Trump saved them from that.

   

What? Someone who doesn't want to cut taxes?

   

Indeed. A liberal Supreme Court might have reversed the rulings on campaign financing which eliminated all limits. That would have curtailed the power of the wealthy to buy politicians. It also might have done something about the absurd gerrymandering taking place in congressional seats.



Yes, luckily.

   

The problem with these 500-odd word articles is that I really only get 500 words or so to try and cover an issue. I'm cross-posting these from the op-ed articles I write for my local newspaper, so I can't always add the nuance I might like to. My parents found this one a bit hard to follow, so I may have overreached this time.

People have quite rightly pointed out that there's a lot more nuance that often gets overlooked in many of the political debates we have these days. But that same broad tendency seems to exist on both sides of the supposed debate-the alienated conservatives and rural people on one side, and the oppressed minorities on the other. I was trying to examine how so many people on supposedly different sides of the debate feel alienated, when you'd think if one of them was losing the other would be comparatively satisfied. We're stuck in a cycle of different sides throwing accusations of everything from racism to violence at each other, and I'm wondering if it's possible for some kind of rapprochement.

As a lot of people posted here, there's more to these things than meets the eye-and the various people of colour who voted for the Fords are proof of that. I'm just thinking out loud here, but maybe working on that kind of commonality might be a way to break the winner-take-all impasse we seem to be stuck in.

   

Campaign financing and gerrymandering...those are big issues for evangelicals, are they?

Could've fooled me. I don't know a lot of evangelicals, myself. I'll take your word for it, I guess. Seems unlikely though. I would expect them to be more worried about issues like religious freedom.

   

You have everything in common with evangelicals and fundamentalists because just like you their main priority is to strip away as much freedom as possible from anyone who doesn't follow the same ideology that you do. A shift in location to the other side of the planet at the time of birth and all of you on the right-wing extremist side would have been the most loyal Islamists imaginable. Please stop pretending otherwise because it's an insult to the rest of us who know what your agenda is and what you're trying to do here.

   

I see...well that's an interesting line of reasoning. So basically nobody likes me, and I'm not invited to your birthday party. Therefore Evangelicals would prefer another Progressive supreme court justice like Kagan or Sotomayor. Is that it?

Fascinating. In fact to follow that line of logic further, I'm a big, fat poopy head, therefore Evangelicals would be against Trump's choice for the supreme court of Neil Gorsuch. Is that it?

I imagine somebody with such awe inspiring reasoning skills as yourself would know best but wasn't Gorsuch the judge who handed down the Hobby Lobby decision?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

You just continue to impress T.

   

Whatever. As long as your good ol' boys keep winning you don't have to, and won't ever, give a damn about anyone else that party HQ has on the official enemies list. At least you're consistent in your banal malice if nothing else.

   

   

Oh boy, a high-school level captioned photo! Whatever will I do now?

Here's one for you, if you're even slightly capable of understanding it - one of the more accurate definitions of evil is that it's merely a measure of how much your choices steal the same right to choose away from the others that you don't like. You don't care as long as you and only you get to win.

Don't ever get into an argument about rights with me. You don't give a damn about rights at all.

   

Sides?? LOL

Here is a clue: Punch and Judy are held up by the same puppet master.
Try to figure that out.

If that is too difficult, here is an easier clue: Your hockey team and my hockey team both play for the same league.

   

That's good advice.

I say that because you have a stated penchant for wanting to strap on a suicide vest and murder people who dare differ with you about your vision of rights.

   

   

No, I specifically said I wanted to kill a malicious and maniacal king, a tyrant that's destroying a democracy. That was all. Americans used to like doing that to aristocrats too, until it became easier to be their baglicking lapdogs instead.

If you want absolute specifics I said that to Fiddy because I'm not interested in his garbage about rights because he only cares about his rights and everyone else be damned. I'll say the exact same thing to you while I'm at it - don't talk to me about rights, not when you support an ideology dedicated to stripping away every single right possible from those who disagree with you, or who live their lives in a way you personally don't approve of, or who you simply don't like. Just be honest for a change and admit that you think at the top of the original copy of the Bill of Rights a big "For US only, not THEM" should be added in with a wide-tip black Sharpie.

   

Rights? LOL
Are those magically poetic words written on paper? or do they have supernatural powers?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next