Well I do know Trump voters and republicans in general have to be much more careful in letting on their politics because democrats, not all but LOTS of them, dont play nice. Put a Trump sign in your yard and expect it to be quickly stolen and your tires slashed. Tell anyone at work and expect to be called racist, sexist, kkk, idiot, etc…
Part of the problem is everyone believes they are the good guys.
The choice may be stark.
But it’s not going to be about concentration camps, racism, forced sterilization, lies or even COVID.
You now have an election about abortion.
God vs the angels.
If one side marches with nazis, they’re not the good guys.
No, we dont.
The president has very little say about abortion. trump is not known to be pro-life, altho he caters to them, and Biden is catholic.
Out here the opposite happens, and it is well known the far right is more dangerous and violent than the far left.
Exactly. Almost nobody supports evil because they like evil. They support evil because they think it’s good and the opposing side is evil. Even most WWII Nazis probably genuinely believed they were the good guys.
This is also why “appealing to people’s sense of goodness” almost never works. People are already acting in accordance with what they believe their sense of goodness is telling them.
Sure.
But if he replaces RBG with a 40yo ardent pro-lifer, who cares about what he says?
Sure, that’s the point.
Republicans are more likely to wind up one one of these situations:
-Their voter base really cares about something like opposing abortion, and their financial base cares about something like deregulating business - it’s easy to make a platform out of that, you just oppose abortion and oppose regulations for businesses.
-Their voter base cares about law and order, and their financial base wants to make a profit off of incarcerations - it’s easy to make a platform out of that just by supporting law and order policies.
The trouble comes when both your voter base and your financial base care about the same thing but take different positions on it. The Democrats are more likely to be in this type of situation:
-Your voter base cares about making healthcare more affordable but your financial base cares about making money off of healthcare - it’s harder to keep both happy.
EDIT: And just to clarify, obviously this is a very simplified description of a very complicated situation, there are some counterexamples, but this is just general trends. And I’m not intending to imply that law and order = racism, it’s just an example that was slightly different from Dr Deth’s example.
Sign stealing is common this time, and for both kinds of signs.
As for your car being slashed because of a sign on your lawn, I’m as sure it is rare as you apparently think it is common.
If you see someone on the internet say that their tires were slashed because of a lawn sign, the first question to ask is where it was parked. If on the street, the slashing was likely unconnected with the sign.
I was actually expecting more of the comments to focus on the situation in the abstract. As in, “accept for the sake of argument that we are the Contrarian Party and we have not tended to play political hardball — i.e., doing whatever is necessary in order to win — and have instead relied on making more sense to the voters than our opponents do and/or on making more sense in our floor statements to Congress etc rather than prevailing by using Parliamentary procedures tricks. Our primary opponents, the Negatorative Party, on the other hand, keeps stomping all over the spirit of the rules if the letter lets them prevail, and stomps over the letter as well if they’ve got the seated officials in their pocket so as to have them look the other way and let it happen”.
Yeah, I have certain specific current real-life parties in mind, but don’t fight the hypothetical anyway, because even if you don’t think the above is an accurate or valid description of the current political situation, I think the hypothetical is more interesting anyhow. In such a hypothetical situation, do the so-called “good guys” benefit or lose their advantage if they decide to engage in mud wrestling?
Do you cheer or boo Butch Cassidy when the question of the rules in a knife fight are clarified?
I’m asking the question. I respect the realpolitik flavor of answer, but the question was whether the so-called “good guys” discard a (pardon the expression) trump card if they opt to descend into the mud and wrestle with the pigs. An entirely reasonable response to that is “no they don’t, it’s how you win”.
I think for most norms, there is no inherent moral value to upholding the norm. Some norms form the bedrock of democratic government, like election integrity, respecting court rulings, observing term-limits, separating civilian government and military, etc., but for other norms that don’t have much to do with the foundations of our government and preventing tyranny, upholding the norm is a strategic choice, not a moral one.
If the Contrarian Party believes in upholding norms and doesn’t believe in murdering puppies, where the Negatorative Party believes in murdering puppies and not in upholding norms, the Contrarians are the good guys.
If the Contrarian party believes in upholding norms and murdering puppies, and the Negatorative party believes in breaking norms and not murdering puppies, the Negatoratives are the good guys.
I don’t doubt that some gop supporters might post comments that they play by the rules and the Dems play dirty but they are just factually wrong.
Not everything is symmetrical or both sides, and the recent actions regarding the supreme Court are just one example among many. Holding Garland off the bench for 9 months (iirc) was outrageous, and the level of barefaced hypocrisy now required to rush a nomination is on a whole other level.
Meanwhile the Dems… did what? Last I saw they were imploring Republican senators to vote with their conscience 
Citation needed.
Well here’s a list of right-wing terrorist attacks. It doesn’t seem to be complete, as it doesn’t include the Kenosha killings. It’s an international list but you can see that the US is the biggest contributor.
I couldn’t find an equivalent list for left-wing terrorism. Searching for “left-wing terrorism” seems to mostly come up with lists of right wing terrorism. So strange. 
Then of course you have the FBI, State Dpt etc designating several prominent white supremacist groups as being terrorists.
Citation still needed. You said the “far right is more dangerous and violent”. Citation needed.
Indeed.
Everybody cheers for Butch.
But if Logan hadn’t been conned into dropping his guard and won then Butch’s preceding line comes into play “Listen, I don’t mean to be a sore loser, but when it’s done, if I’m dead, kill him.” And if Sundance had then simply shot Logan, nobody would cheer Sundance, nor mourn for Butch.
That’s the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.
The good guy wins fair by the rules even when there are no rules.
That’s why humanity gets so knotted up about the notion of justice.
Am I being whooshed? In the current political climate, it’s often hard to tell.
Firstly, while I posted the above cite, DrDeth was the poster who made that claim (although I would agree that it’s correct, in the US at least).
If the fact that a significant number of recent mass shootings and other homicides have been explicitly committed for far right causes, and that several far right groups are now considered terrorist organisations by the FBI and state department doesn’t count as being dangerous or violent…you’re going to have to explain to me what you think those terms mean.