Polls

Congressman Bob Good of Virginia was chair of the GOP Freedom Caucus with a solidly conservative voting record. He supported Ron DeSantis in the primary, and Donald Trump went after Good, demanding he be primaried as a RINO. It had nothing to do with Good's view or voting record.

Good lost the GOP primary, so here is my question for Republicans: When voting for a candidate for congress or the US senate, which is more important: the candidate's views and voting record (if he's held office before) or his loyalty to Trump?

To me it seems the very existence of the right relies on toxic messaging. Imagine where we would be if it weren't for Limbaugh convincing millions of normal Republicans to stay mad at his oxycotin-induced hypotheticals, for example - J6 couldn't have been possible without that accumulated decades of fake fury.

Meanwhile, the left only seems to engage in it either to fight fire with fire or, as is becoming increasingly common, because it's actually a right winger enjoying the anonymity of the internet for an easy false flag maneuver. I haven't seen anyone on the left who actually seems to enjoy toxicity the way the right seems to.

So, I think if we came up with an objective definition the right would just say it is biased against them and refuse to stop. Because it is true the right would be nothing without toxic messaging, so in a way a truly objective definition would be biased against the right.

‘You need a girl that would still love you if you had nothing.’

Guys always talk about it you need to be rich etc etc… but you need a girl that would love you the same if you were homeless

Sometimes, people say that they know when someone is attractive or not in unbiased or "objective" way, even if I don't believe in objective, but they'll say "Their not for me, or their not my type, but their certainly attractive, like cmon"

I heard about this being true but is this really true?

Lets have a topic about flowers! got a fave?