“Your original article was asking for a conversation. You have a conversation with a human being, not with a political party. You seem to be confusing the two.”
But no one will have a rational conversation with me. It’s open borders, post-birth abortions, liberals support terrorists, and on and on. But so little of it makes sense, and there’s nothing to talk about but vague generalities that are more like as not untrue.
What you say is one thing, but all that matters to anyone else is what you do. And that’s where the party comes in.
“There are many reasons why people choose to vote for Trump. You should listen to them.”
He is the most dishonest, dishonorable, most authoritarian person ever to sit in the White House.
He’s a cruel and heartless bigot. He’s a truly horrible human being, and don’t take my word for it; that’s what most Christians and conservatives said about him pre-2016. He says insane, dangerous things in every speech.
A long list of his own former military and national security people — many of them life-long Republicans — call him unfit to hold the office.
It’s not just the Russians who are supporting him; he’s got the KKK and Nazi vote sewn up as well.
There weren’t good people on both sides. When you show up for a rally and some people on your side are chanting, “Jews will not replace us,” good people go home.
So, can anyone give me something to hold onto? I can imagine agreeing with him on some things, but actually voting for him? It’s hard to fathom.
“Liberals absolutely cheered the suicide of Wynn Bruce. There were many articles on Medium applauding him for killing himself. For example…”
You do realize the title is Why Is Almost No One Talking About the Climate Activist Who Set Himself on Fire? The author is literally complaining that people aren’t behind this.
Remember, there is no “none.” Every position has supporters, regardless of whether it makes sense. You’re giving me an article on Medium about someone I’ve never heard of, explicitly complaining that not enough people are talking about him.
Go find articles in major magazines and newspapers that anyone applauds this sort of thing. Actually, don’t bother, because they aren’t there and you’d be wasting your time.
“You are explaining away the mudslinging against liberals, while supporting the mudslinging against conservatives.”
I keep saying it, but it’s not mudslinging if it’s true.
Why do the conservatives I interact with not seem to understand equivalency? I am making supportable, verifiable claims about majority opinions, those of influential minorities, and/or those in leadership positions. Vague, unsourced, incorrect statements are not equivalent, and disregarding them is the logically correct position to take.
Both sides are not the same. Five feathers don’t balance five bricks.
One last time for the record: it’s not mudslinging if it’s true.
“You say no liberal wants open borders or cheers Hamas terrorism.”
Not none, just very few.
“But you don’t accept that no conservatives wants to take healthcare away from women.”
This one is the most ridiculous line yet.
People who say “take healthcare away from women” are counting abortions and other services received from places like Planned Parenthood. Under that definition, conservatives aren’t just trying to take women’s healthcare away, it’s the right’s #1 priority and has been for decades. You can’t just change the definition, and claim statements still hold.
