I was able to get out, but that was around 2004, long before social media. I was also too poor to have cable so wasn’t exposed to cable news, although I don’t think it is as bad as it is now. I wonder if I would’ve “escaped” if I was drowning in social media, Fox News, and other right-wing propaganda? I hope the answer is yes.
Would you associate with the Left if you had any other choice?
Our leopards are busy munching down on our faces, their leopards must be far far worse.
We’re nightmares to associate with, nightmares, I tell you. Always discussing our sinister plans for expanding access to health care and reforming our election systems. It’s fucking Marxism is what it is.
Sadly, I have a BIL that is mostly the same opinion. I really like the guy other than his politics.
Mainly his “policy” of “owning the libs”
I don’t see good odds of this going anywhere interesting, but: I’d say the idea is, one, foiling the libs; and then, having done that, sure, two, owning the libs.
Just curious what happens if you follow up with, “What policies, and what makes you think they’re good for the country?”
What policies is easy: guns, taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, affirmative action, what’s being taught in schools these days, whether people who were assigned male at birth should compete in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms — I’m sure you could fill in some more blanks without much effort.
What makes you think is a longer conversation.
My BIL told my Wife (his sister that ‘he likes his policies’). I only see him once a year or so. I suspect that as he recently retired from the oil industry, and he is well off, that he likes the Trump tax policy.
Honestly, the only thing he did that I’d consider to be a “policy” was the tax cuts, and even that was the same thing every other Republican would have done in his position. Everything else he did just seemed like blundering around knocking shit over. Did starting a trade war with Canada actually appear to be a thought-out policy, as opposed to a petulant over-reaction to Justin Trudeau making Trump look bad?
But most of those aren’t policies – they’re barely talking points. I suppose if you draw them out they can explain appointing SCOTUS judges to overturn Roe (abortion) and ruthless deportation initiatives (immigration), but do they ever have those opinions challenged on a “good for the country” basis?
Um…let’s hope the senate does better?
Unfortunately, the only one there I can speak to at length is the only one I’ve asked her about: abortion. And you can pretty much guess how that went: she doesn’t believe it should be legal, because she believes it’s murder; but, so long as it is legal, she believes it shouldn’t be encouraged (let alone helped along by her tax dollars — but discouraging abortions by throwing up roadblocks, from mandatory waiting periods causing at least some people to rethink their decisions to requiring parental consent so at least some such decisions by minors will be overruled to onerous restrictions that cause at least some abortion clinics to shut down, that’s all fine in her book). And, of course, she’s okay with Supreme Court Justices striking down Roe for reasons other than acknowledging that ‘abortion is murder’ — so long as they do so strike it down, that’s the important part.
Which reminds me that I’ve drifted from your point; but all I can really say is that asking her about the “good for the country” basis for opposing abortion is, from her perspective, like asking her about the “good for the country” basis for opposing various other subsets of, y’know, the murder of innocents: sure, she’ll go into a slippery-slope argument about societal approval making it easier to okay yet other murders, and who’s to be next on the chopping block, yada yada death panels yada yada senior citizens — but she doesn’t want anyone to lose sight of the fact that she believes abortion is murder in its own right, and that it’s a little weird to ask about whether legalizing the murder of these innocents or those innocents would be good for the country.
And most of them aren’t about how to make things better for you, they are how to make things worse for other people.
But, to be fair, to a Republican, making things worse for the right people is good for the country.
Better the leopard you know…
Hurting the “right people”
Then they could caucus in a Fiat 500!
Alabama clamps down on transgender children; more red states to follow.
No idea why this thread isn’t used more often.
Well, you can’t expect a non-controversial statement to be a real eye-catcher…