Wishing harm on your political opponents' voters

Phys251 · May 25, 2017

Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:

1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.

2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.

I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.

Hawkeye10 · May 25, 2017

Hate the sin not the sinner was always the right call.

chuckiechan · May 25, 2017

Phys251 said:
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:

1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.

2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.

I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.

You don't know that. You have just been habit trained to think that way.

What have they done for you lately? They put the country on welfare, while changing out it's low wage workforce for immigrants and wondering why these workers are bitter. This is the legacy of the Obama years - a shrinking of the middle class and a stalling of the economy due to excessive regulation.

The democrat party is working for Silicon Valley and other corporate interests who require cheap labor, and face no backlash for taking your jobs overseas. Not so much as a shrug from Obama. This is not your fathers democrat party. If anything, the republicans are the only ones looking out for you.

To make your first point, watch all the bitching and moaning that I said exactly this: the democrats today do not give a rats ass about the middle class who are paying the bills for Federal, state, county, city, and Obamacare which is one giant wealth transfer program away from the middle class to the burgeoning lower classes. Thank you Democrat party.

Phys251 · May 25, 2017

chuckiechan said:
You don't know that. You have just been habit trained to think that way.

No, that's a thing. An actual thing. Just ask people of targeted groups who can't even go out in public without fearing for their safety.

What have they done for you lately? They put the country on welfare, while changing out it's low wage workforce for immigrants and wondering why these workers are bitter. This is the legacy of the Obama years - a shrinking of the middle class and a stalling of the economy due to excessive regulation.

The democrat party is working for Silicon Valley and other corporate interests who require cheap labor, and face no backlash for taking your jobs overseas. Not so much as a shrug from Obama. This is not your fathers democrat party. If anything, the republicans are the only ones looking out for you.

To make your first point, watch all the bitching and moaning that I said exactly this: the democrats today do not give a rats ass about the middle class who are paying the bills for Federal, state, county, city, and Obamacare which is one giant wealth transfer program away from the middle class to the burgeoning lower classes. Thank you Democrat party.

I know this is a common sentiment, and while I do not entirely agree with it, I admit that there are grains of truth in there. The economy improved substantially during the time that Obama was in office, but most of those gains went to the very top. Too many people in the working class are still struggling to pay the bills through no fault of their own. And those in this group who voted for Trump should not have harm wished upon them, although I fear they may have brought some upon themselves.

reinoe · May 25, 2017

Phys251 said:
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:

1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.

2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.

I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.

It goes a step further than that. Hillary Clinton wanted to starve and make destitute coal miners because they weren't supporting her politically and she received thunderous applause for promising to enact policies that would cause economic harm to Americans. This isn't a new phenomenon among liberals to hate and wish economic and physical harm for the sake of politics. I give you a huge amount of credit though. You actually recognize that other liberals behavior is goddmamn disgusting.

Phys251 · May 25, 2017

reinoe said:
It goes a step further than that. Hillary Clinton wanted to starve and make destitute coal miners because they weren't supporting her politically and she received thunderous applause for promising economic harm. This isn't a new phenomenon among liberals to hate and wish economic and physical harm for the sake of politics. I give you a huge amount of credit though. You actually recognize that other liberals behavior is goddmamn disgusting.

This thread isn't about Hillary. But what you said about her is demonstrably false.

Henrin · May 25, 2017

How about some examples of conservative policies that target certain groups of people.

Beaudreaux · May 25, 2017

Phys251 said:
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:

1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.

2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.

I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.

The other posts in this thread haven't made much sense to me, and didn't seem to address the topic, so...

Let me see if I got this straight:

1) Since conservatives (actually just fiscal conservatives, but hey, let's just lump everyone we hate together because it's easier) don't agree with the federal government providing private sector services with tax money, we are voting against our own economic interest by voting for fiscal conservative politicians (which I don't think really exist anymore, but still), and; 2) that since Progressives are the smartest mammals on the earth, and know that conservatives are simply ignorant, hateful, evil people driven by pagan beliefs and unbridled bigotry of anyone not like them, that they deserve any ill that befalls them because conservatives want to throw millions of helpless people, that can't by any stretch of the imagination take care of themselves, off of government programs (free or heavily subsidized health insurance, and so on), and; 3) since Progressives are the only mammalian species that is both brilliant, loving, and accepting, that even though all the ills will befall the backward evil conservatives that Progressives should not wish harm upon them, at least not openly, because it will make Progressives look like hypocrites for preaching acceptance and diversity while actually hating on and wishing harm (Get that? Wishing actual harm!!!) on non-Progressives.

Yep, I think I got it now. Nice sentiment.

Praxas · May 25, 2017

Henrin said:
How about some examples of conservative policies that target certain groups of people.

Gay marriage bans (at the time)
Abortion
Food stamp recipients being drug tested
Transgender bathroom policies
Muslim immigration ban
Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor

That should do it for now

Henrin · May 25, 2017

Praxas said:
Gay marriage bans (at the time)

They were not opposed to gay marriage to target gays, but because they believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Having values on how things should be doesn't mean you're out to target people when you defend them, but that you want to uphold your values.

Abortion

Bull. They are not opposed to abortion to target women.

Food stamp recipients being drug tested

So targeting people that use a government program? You realize that the government has the authority and duty to make terms of use for their programs, right?

Transgender bathroom policies

So being against transgenders using bathrooms of the opposite sex is targeting them? ok? I guess agreeing with different bathrooms for the sexes is targeting only one group of people now. Who knew?

Muslim immigration ban

What Muslim immigration ban?

Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor

Are both those points about taxes? If so, that seems equal to me.

Vetplus40 · May 25, 2017

Phys251 said:
This thread isn't about Hillary. But what you said about her is demonstrably false.

He graduated with honors from the Trump school of "alternative facts". Most likely "eaked" through high School if he even made it that far.

Beaudreaux · May 25, 2017

I'm a conservative, so let's look at your list according to my beliefs:

Praxas said:
Gay marriage bans (at the time)

Only certain religious extremists believe in SSM bans, IMHO. I know I'm not against SSM.

Praxas said:
Abortion

That's not a cut a dried topic. I'm pro-choice, but not after the fetus is viable. I support Roe v Wade.

Praxas said:
Food stamp recipients being drug tested

You have to pass a drug test to get just about any other type of money from the feds, why not welfare? Do we want to spend our limited tax money on people that will use the money to trade for or buy drugs instead of feeding their kids? It happens. I don't have a problem with drug testing for welfare recipients (SNAP and especially WIC would be fine to not drug test for if there was a way to ensure the SNAP and WIC money was not being traded to drug dealers)

Praxas said:
Transgender bathroom policies

There needs to be a reasonable understanding here. The City of Charlotte made it impossible for the CMPD to even address a person that was potentially a sexual predator in a public restroom, bathroom, or changing room. Then the State of North Carolina went nuts and the pendulum swung from one idiotic extreme to another. I don't have a problem allowing transgender people to use the restroom, bathroom, or changing room that they wish to use. I do have a problem with creating ordnances that tie the hands of police by not allowing them to even ask why a person is in a particular area or what they are doing there. Both the City of Charlotte and the North Carolina General Assembly were wrong on that one. Big time.

Praxas said:
Muslim immigration ban

The First Amendment prevents such a ban, and Trump was damned wrong when he said that. However, what I am in favor of is restricting the immigration of people from areas of the world where there is no reasonable expectation of the US Government being able to vet potential immigrants, including war zones, areas where terrorist groups are a high percentage of the population, areas where the local government either doesn't exist or is lacking in the ability to provide background data on the people that live there, or a number of other reasons that should be simple common sense if it were not for politics.

Praxas said:
Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor

That doesn't really happen. It's just an over used talking point that doesn't end up ever happening by the time laws finally make it through Congress. Plus, have you really looked at who pays the taxes in this country? The rich pay the taxes, but the Middle Class is who's getting screwed, not the poor. 45% of Americans pay no income taxes, and the top 20% of earners (a chunk of the upper middle class and of course, the rich folks) pay almost 87% of the federal income taxes.

Praxas said:
That should do it for now

Except for what I wrote, I agree, that should do it for now.

Praxas · May 26, 2017

Henrin said:
They were not opposed to gay marriage to target gays, but because they believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Having values on how things should be doesn't mean you're out to target people when you defend them, but that you want to uphold your values.

When you're out to specifically force your views onto others, damn straight it is targeting. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. But conservatives were even against civil unions which left no choice but for gays to seek out the right to be married. It was the Republican platform that conservatives supported. so yes, it was a targeted policy by conservatives.

Bull. They are not opposed to abortion to target women.

Bull**** they aren't. In some states conservatives even forced policy such as forcing a woman to get an ultrasound and see propaganda. Save it hypocrites.

So targeting people that use a government program? You realize that the government has the authority and duty to make terms of use for their programs, right?

It still is targeting them. I never said they didn't have the authority. I said they used policy to target folks. I am right.

So being against transgenders using bathrooms of the opposite sex is targeting them? ok? I guess agreeing with different bathrooms for the sexes is targeting only one group of people now. Who knew?

Targeting policy by conservatives non the less and transgendered people were ALREADY using the restrooms of their choice.

What Muslim immigration ban?

The one Trump railed about in his speeches in the campaign. Even judges saw through his BS and that is why his immigration ban has been halted, thank god. You can play dumb all you want (maybe it's not playing I don't know), we all know what Trump was doing with his ban and that was targeting Muslims.

Are both those points about taxes? If so, that seems equal to me.

No, cut in taxes for the rich and cut in benefits for the poor. But then you knew that already and just play dumb.

Praxas · May 26, 2017

Beaudreaux said:
Only certain religious extremists believe in SSM bans, IMHO. I know I'm not against SSM.

Good for you, you are the minority of conservatives that believe that. It was part of the Republican platform thanks to conservatives. Conservative policy targeting gays.

That's not a cut a dried topic. I'm pro-choice, but not after the fetus is viable. I support Roe v Wade.

Conservatives have been rallying for abortion bans and have even gone so far as to make policy for women to be FORCED to get ultrasounds. Again conservatives targeting women.

You have to pass a drug test to get just about any other type of money from the feds, why not welfare? Do we want to spend our limited tax money on people that will use the money to trade for or buy drugs instead of feeding their kids? It happens. I don't have a problem with drug testing for welfare recipients (SNAP and especially WIC would be fine to not drug test for if there was a way to ensure the SNAP and WIC money was not being traded to drug dealers)

You do realize that cocaine and other REALLY harmful drugs can be passed through the system really quickly (days maybe a week at most). This policy was to target marijuana users. Just own up to it. Marjuanna is no more harmful than alcohol is but then you know that already.

There needs to be a reasonable understanding here. The City of Charlotte made it impossible for the CMPD to even address a person that was potentially a sexual predator in a public restroom, bathroom, or changing room. Then the State of North Carolina went nuts and the pendulum swung from one idiotic extreme to another. I don't have a problem allowing transgender people to use the restroom, bathroom, or changing room that they wish to use. I do have a problem with creating ordnances that tie the hands of police by not allowing them to even ask why a person is in a particular area or what they are doing there. Both the City of Charlotte and the North Carolina General Assembly were wrong on that one. Big time.

And YOU guys label transgendered sexual predators because they use a restroom that feels comfortable to them. There are pictures where transgendered males would get harassed in bathrooms of their sex because they look like women and vice-versa. It didn't solve anything, you only targeted transgendered folks just trying to live their life. Pathetic and ANOTHER example of conservatives targeting and using policy against folks they don't like or even understand.

The First Amendment prevents such a ban, and Trump was damned wrong when he said that. However, what I am in favor of is restricting the immigration of people from areas of the world where there is no reasonable expectation of the US Government being able to vet potential immigrants, including war zones, areas where terrorist groups are a high percentage of the population, areas where the local government either doesn't exist or is lacking in the ability to provide background data on the people that live there, or a number of other reasons that should be simple common sense if it were not for politics.

Bull**** and even the judges saw through Trump's BS. How many times did he rally that he would do a Muslin Ban? Plenty, which is what he was trying to do here and luckily the courts saw through his bull****. Yet another con policy exposed.

That doesn't really happen. It's just an over used talking point that doesn't end up ever happening by the time laws finally make it through Congress. Plus, have you really looked at who pays the taxes in this country? The rich pay the taxes, but the Middle Class is who's getting screwed, not the poor. 45% of Americans pay no income taxes, and the top 20% of earners (a chunk of the upper middle class and of course, the rich folks) pay almost 87% of the federal income taxes.

Yes, it does happen. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to benefits for the poor. That is EXACTLY what Trump's budget plan is doing. So spare me your BS.

Except for what I wrote, I agree, that should do it for now.

Yep, you've refuted NOTHING and I've proven that conservatives use policy to target groups. You're dismissed con.

faithful_servant · May 26, 2017

Phys251 said:
No, that's a thing. An actual thing. Just ask people of targeted groups who can't even go out in public without fearing for their safety.

I know this is a common sentiment, and while I do not entirely agree with it, I admit that there are grains of truth in there. The economy improved substantially during the time that Obama was in office, but most of those gains went to the very top. Too many people in the working class are still struggling to pay the bills through no fault of their own. And those in this group who voted for Trump should not have harm wished upon them, although I fear they may have brought some upon themselves.

They feel that way because they've been told to feel that way, not because of any real threat. Look at this country over the last year or so and what you will see is LIBERALS attacking people for being conservatives, not the other way around. If there is a group that has cause to be afraid to go out in public, it's conservatives in cities that are liberal bastions of intolerance. But you know what?? We aren't afraid to go out in public. Why? Because we're adults and adults face their fears head on.

faithful_servant · May 26, 2017

Praxas said:
Gay marriage bans (at the time)
Abortion
Food stamp recipients being drug tested
Transgender bathroom policies
Muslim immigration ban
Tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the poor

That should do it for now

The biggest opposition to homosexual marriage has come from the black community - overwhelmingly liberal.
So trying to help people stop using drugs when they too poor to afford them is a bad thing...???
99% of us don't care what bathroom you use, a lot of us do care what locker room you use.
There is no Muslim immigration ban.
We want tax cuts across the board, coupled with spending cuts.

These are the kind of lies you've been indoctrinated with. NOT ONE SINGLE THING YOU SAID WAS TRUE.

Perotista · May 26, 2017

Phys251 said:
Somehow the sentiment that conservative voters are voting against their own economic interests in the name of religion and xenophobia has morphed, among some circles on the Left, into actually wishing harm on conservatives via the effects of those policies. Perhaps this started as the idea that only harm from some conservative policies, such as the one to throw millions of working- and middle-class Americans off of healthcare, would get enough people in the Republican base to change their minds in future elections. One could make a case that that may happen, but to let that degrade into a desire for harm of conservative voters is an attitude I reject because:

1. Progress is not a zero-sum game. Just because some conservative people get hurt does not mean I get helped.

2. We liberals need to be better than that. Social and economic justice is for everyone, not just those whom we like or whom we agree with; limiting them to that set is just tribalism.

I know that part of the reason for this sentiment is that today's conservative policies will actively target particular groups of people, and this elicits a vengeful, "now you know how it feels" response from some. But that targeting just means that those bad policies need to be stopped. It is not sufficient reason to wish for harm on those who support those policies, no matter how hateful they may be.

People vote the way they due to a lot of different reasons. One of the biggest is just plain loyalty to a political party. Candidates don't matter, visions don't matter, stances on the issues and even political ideology don't matter, which is the better candidate don't matter. It is all about the R and the D. History has shown that approximately 90% of the base of each party will automatically vote for their party's candidates, no question's asked. That average is of all elections going back to Truman. There are always exceptions, but an average is an average.

Lucky for this nation those who identify with the two major parties have been shrinking. Down from 65% in 2012 to 57% today. For the non-affiliated, elections do turn on more than just the R and the D and the more non-affiliated there are, I think the better this nation will be.

Slingshot Bob · May 26, 2017

faithful_servant said:
They feel that way because they've been told to feel that way, not because of any real threat. Look at this country over the last year or so and what you will see is LIBERALS attacking people for being conservatives, not the other way around. If there is a group that has cause to be afraid to go out in public, it's conservatives in cities that are liberal bastions of intolerance. But you know what?? We aren't afraid to go out in public. Why? Because we're adults and adults face their fears head on.

See my hat in my avatar? I were it in public any time I please, never had no guff over it and better not.

Praxas · May 26, 2017

faithful_servant said:
The biggest opposition to homosexual marriage has come from the black community - overwhelmingly liberal.

Bull****, Republicans even made it their platform to resist it.

So trying to help people stop using drugs when they too poor to afford them is a bad thing...???

The thing is that the most harmful drugs (ie cocaine, meth, heroine, etc.) are out of your system in a few days (at most maybe a week for some). This is entirely to target marijuana users. Sorry but marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and in many cases it is less harmful. I haven't seen a fight break out with potheads, but plenty with drunk idiots.

99% of us don't care what bathroom you use, a lot of us do care what locker room you use.

conservatives over whelming do care about it or they wouldn't have created a law for it.

There is no Muslim immigration ban.

According to Trump during his campaign that is EXACTLY what he wanted and yes that is what he was doing. Even judges could see through yours and Trump's bull****.

We want tax cuts across the board, coupled with spending cuts.

No, you want tax cuts for the rich and cuts to benefits for the poor. That is Trump's tax plan and that is who you support.

These are the kind of lies you've been indoctrinated with. NOT ONE SINGLE THING YOU SAID WAS TRUE.

Yep all what I said was true and you haven't refuted a bit of it. Keep lying to yourself, you can't bull**** the rest of us.

Henrin · May 26, 2017

Praxas said:
When you're out to specifically force your views onto others, damn straight it is targeting. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. But conservatives were even against civil unions which left no choice but for gays to seek out the right to be married. It was the Republican platform that conservatives supported. so yes, it was a targeted policy by conservatives.

Marriage is a government contract, so whoever won the gay marriage fight was going to be forcing their views on others in some way or another.

Bull**** they aren't. In some states conservatives even forced policy such as forcing a woman to get an ultrasound and see propaganda. Save it hypocrites.

And? The idea is that these women will change their mind if they see what they doing. Does it work? Well, no, not usually, but that is the point of it. The fact is they are focusing on protecting life in everything they do.

It still is targeting them. I never said they didn't have the authority. I said they used policy to target folks. I am right.

The program affects the poor, so naturally whatever policy they create with it will target that audience. You're basically complaining that the government is regulating its own programs.

Targeting policy by conservatives non the less and transgendered people were ALREADY using the restrooms of their choice.

People believe that those little signs should be obeyed. That's all there really is to it. Yes, that means transgenders have to obey those signs just like everyone else. You also helped my argument when you stated they were already violating the signs. Why do you think they were the focus? Maybe because they were the ones constantly breaking the conservatives view of the rules.

The one Trump railed about in his speeches in the campaign. Even judges saw through his BS and that is why his immigration ban has been halted, thank god. You can play dumb all you want (maybe it's not playing I don't know), we all know what Trump was doing with his ban and that was targeting Muslims.

Speeches doesn't equal the EO's. Find it in the EO's or find another argument.

No, cut in taxes for the rich and cut in benefits for the poor. But then you knew that already and just play dumb.

Actually, no I didn't. You framed your sentence in such a way to give off the impression both were about taxes. I just figured that was really strange and asked for clarity before putting too much effort into responding. Anyway, many conservatives are against public assistance so as a result they will try to destroy such programs. This doesn't mean they are attacking the poor, but actually means they are attacking the existence of public assistance in government.

Kurmugeon · May 26, 2017

The fact that there is a NEED and Possibility to make the OP thread is proof enough that the Democratic Party has completely lost its way, and that the Far-Left has become a form of political corruption evil.

For Decades, the Moderate Left provide Race-Neutral, Political Party Neutral, Pragmatic Solutions.

The Far-Left provided Antifa violence, BLM Violence, Dallas Assassinations of Police, and jeering crowd in support of more death of Cops and Whites.

The Far-Left Provided silencing of debate and free speech on campus.

The Far-Left LIED and Decieved U.S. about the nature of the ACA, to create a Wrecking Ball, that gave "Free" health care to millions of Illegal Immigrants, even while it took employer provided health care from millions of middle class Americans, and forced them into two to three part-time jobs, instead of a single full time job.

The Far-Left enabled Anti-Male discrimination, blocked education and job denial, based solely on Gender, and had the Gall to call it "Justice".

The problem is that Extremists, on either end of the Political spectrum are not limited by common sense, ethics, or compasion!

The Democratic Party has embraced and become saturated by the Far-Left... it needs to die.

We need a new, Slightly Left of Center, Political Party to take the Place of the Democratic Party.

-

Phys251 · May 26, 2017

faithful_servant said:
They feel that way because they've been told to feel that way, not because of any real threat.

For you to say this is to trivialize the spike in hate crimes since Trump's election, the physical attacks on Trans* people, the "routine" shootings of Black people by cops, and so forth.

You shouldn't tell people who belong to one or more of these groups how to feel if you don't understand what they have to worry about on a daily basis. You can't tell them not to wonder if this won't be the day that they're not literally assaulted, and then their attack is minimized or excused in a blame-the-victim fashion. This happens all. The. Time.

Look at this country over the last year or so and what you will see is LIBERALS attacking people for being conservatives, not the other way around. If there is a group that has cause to be afraid to go out in public, it's conservatives in cities that are liberal bastions of intolerance. But you know what?? We aren't afraid to go out in public. Why? Because we're adults and adults face their fears head on.

Lemme let you in on something here: Critiquing is not the same thing as attacking. When we critique the SCROTUS's hate agenda, we are using the same free speech rights that you guys use to support it. When we march for science, we are not wishing harm on those who oppose it. Really, that could use its own thread, and if I do write it, I want to thank you in advance for giving me the inspiration for doing so.

Praxas · May 26, 2017

Henrin said:
Marriage is a government contract, so whoever won the gay marriage fight was going to be forcing their views on others in some way or another.

Are you forced to marry someone of the same sex? No, therefore it isn't being forced on you.

And? The idea is that these women will change their mind if they see what they doing. Does it work? Well, no, not usually, but that is the point of it. The fact is they are focusing on protecting life in everything they do.

These women already have a lot going on, they don't need to pay or get probed by force. You support that, typical conservative nonsense.

The program affects the poor, so naturally whatever policy they create with it will target that audience. You're basically complaining that the government is regulating its own programs.

No, it is NEGATIVELY affecting the poor and again, you don't care about cocaine or heroine abusers, it targets marijuana users. Another targeted group by cons.

People believe that those little signs should be obeyed. That's all there really is to it. Yes, that means transgenders have to obey those signs just like everyone else. You also helped my argument when you stated they were already violating the signs. Why do you think they were the focus? Maybe because they were the ones constantly breaking the conservatives view of the rules.

and when a transgender who looks like a man (but is a woman) goes into the women's restroom, they are going to be harassed. Again, you don't care like the con you are.

Speeches doesn't equal the EO's. Find it in the EO's or find another argument.

Wrong, it does because it shows intent which is what the judges ruled on.

Actually, no I didn't. You framed your sentence in such a way to give off the impression both were about taxes. I just figured that was really strange and asked for clarity before putting too much effort into responding. Anyway, many conservatives are against public assistance so as a result they will try to destroy such programs. This doesn't mean they are attacking the poor, but actually means they are attacking the existence of public assistance in government.

[/quote]

And that attacks the poor by con policy.

Again, all you have done is proven me right. Cons target groups by their policies.

Henrin · May 26, 2017

Praxas said:
Are you forced to marry someone of the same sex? No, therefore it isn't being forced on you.

Do you think government employees are forced into things? Yeah, they are. Are they somehow not people now?

These women already have a lot going on, they don't need to pay or get probed by force. You support that, typical conservative nonsense.

That has really nothing to do with the argument you were making. The fact is the intent of the regulation was never to target women.

No, it is NEGATIVELY affecting the poor and again, you don't care about cocaine or heroine abusers, it targets marijuana users. Another targeted group by cons.

Any kind of restriction on the program you would argue hurts the poor. I don't see how this is a constructive argument to be having at this point. The fact is the government can regulate their own programs and it is their responsibility to do so. If you don't like a certain regulation they decide to include on their programs that is perfectly fine, but to pretend as if it is out of line for them to do is absurd.

and when a transgender who looks like a man (but is a woman) goes into the women's restroom, they are going to be harassed. Again, you don't care like the con you are.

Separate bathrooms designed for transgenders has been proposed plenty of times by people. Liberals reject the idea as discriminatory like somehow the existing bathrooms aren't already.

Wrong, it does because it shows intent which is what the judges ruled on.

Where was it found in the law? The targeting had to have actually happened for the courts to decide an EO is illegal.

And that attacks the poor by con policy.

Again, all you have done is proven me right. Cons target groups by their policies.

Considering the view is the same across the board for all classes of people, no, it doesn't.

Phys251 · May 26, 2017

Slingshot Bob said:
See my hat in my avatar? I were it in public any time I please, never had no guff over it and better not.

Nobody has the right to physically assault you over your hat.

Anyone has the right to critique you for wearing it.

See the difference?

Wishing harm on your political opponents' voters

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

chuckiechan

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

reinoe

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

Henrin

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Praxas

Henrin

Vetplus40

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Praxas

Praxas

faithful_servant

faithful_servant

Perotista

Slingshot Bob

Praxas

Henrin

Kurmugeon

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

Praxas

Henrin

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice