Can we all just shut the Hell up for a while?

[OlderAndWiser]

If any of you are not already aware of this, I am a conservative. I am a card-carrying, life long, Christian, previously-worked-for-the-Republican-party, death-penalty-supporting, conservative. I am proud of my views as I believe that my politics represents what is best for this country. I wish everyone else would agree with me so we could get on with the business of fixing this country.

However, I understand that my liberal friends also believe that their views represent what is best for this country. They sincerely hold their beliefs and I respect them, even though I think they are wrong. I have been dating my current girlfriend for 1 1/2 years, she is a staunch liberal, and she and I respect each other. It can happen!

As a conservative, I hear liberals - primarily younger liberals - become very acerbic in painting the distinctions between liberals and conservatives. They want to portray conservatives as genuinely bad people and liberals as worthy of praise and glory. Liberals all support such worthy and noble causes while conservatives are just a bunch of rich,white, selfish bastards. Somehow, liberals act as if this never ending liberal PR campaign will actually convince others to adopt liberal political views. After all, conservatives are just a bunch of hypocrites, right? (While liberals are quite adamant about opposing "slut shaming," they have no hesitation to engage in "conservative shaming." Neither group has an exclusive franchise on hypocrisy.)

A few of the labels that I hear liberals use to distinguish liberals and conservatives are "love" and "tolerance." The notions advanced by liberals are that they are motivated by love for their fellow humans, that they truly embody the Great Commandment to "Love Thy Neighbor." (And I know that many liberals would never express the concept in these precise terms, since "love thy neighbor" is a part of the Christianity for which many of them have disdain.)

Liberals scoff at the idea of a conservative being compassionate and suggest - at least sub silentio - that conservatives are filled with hate instead of love. Similarly, liberals consider themselves as tolerant of others who are different from themselves while the also believe that "conservative" and "xenophobe" are practically synonymous.

I am writing because of my concern for the political tensions in the US which are so incredibly heightened. While many are bemoaning the divisiveness in this country, no one is actually doing anything about it. Instead, the morning after the election, one of my liberal Facebook "friends" wrote that anyone who voted for Trump was an "asshole." It is difficult to see that tactic leading any of us towards reconciliation.

Liberals, us conservatives are not stupid and calling us names like "asshole" and "dumb shits" accomplishes nothing. We are not filled with hate. I participate in volunteer activities and charitable endeavors for the benefit of others who need some assistance and many other conservatives do the same. When Portland Press Herald columnist Michael D. Harmon, an ardent supporter of Second Amendment rights, recently died as a result of the accidental discharge of his handgun, many liberals posted gleeful messages on Facebook and twitter. "Gun rights advocate killed in gun accident. Whoopsie," posted #TrumpIsATraitor on Twitter.

Is this an example of the love and tolerance which you profess to hold in abundance?

Conservatives, you are not off the hook! Liberals are not stupid simply because they disagree with you. Many of them are very well educated and are true patriots in their zeal for this country. Most of them are not seeking "free stuff" for themselves. They abide by and accept the political process in this country and most liberals are not exemplified by the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken. If you want liberals to turn it down a notch, you need to set the example and do the same thing towards them.

If you are still under age 18, it is understandable that you might still talk like a child. But, if you are over the age of 18 . . . let's all act like grownups!

P.S. If you want to reply to point out that conservatives also do some hypocritical things . . . I already know that. The point is not to build lists of complaints which we can use to criticize each other. The point is to say "can't we mutually exist without constantly bashing each other?"

[hellionthesagereborn]

Actually I think liberals fake caring, its a way of showing they are better then others because they are more "moral" then every one else which is why they are the least tolerant people out their (in my experience). Also its ironic that they mention that conservatives are rich white men when in reality most liberals are now the educated (as they have taken over academia) and rich. Meanwhile if you look at red states they are in rural areas so in fact one has a much better argument that liberals are the rich white people party. The problem is that liberals own the media, they own academia and they now are using this authority to silence opposition (which has been quite affective up until recently). Before all you had to do is claim some one was racist and that was enough to destroy their careers and keep others from speaking out (not unlike the mcarthy era accusations of communism). I think the elitism has created the corruption. I think its true that not all liberals are intentionally doing wrong (which is actually statistically provable) but I think that since they have no outside opinion, have the educational system (which not only indoctrinates people early into their ideology until they are unable to distinguish it from themselves thus making it incredibly difficult to question as you are essentially asking them to question the very foundation of themselves) which gives them significant leverage with spreading their view of the world (not to mention as I have seen them arguing that since more educated people are liberal they must be smarter and better then conservatives or other ideological groups). I think for the most part it is specific groups of liberals who are as you say they are not i. e. that they are using the ideology for personal gain and are infact trying to increase friction or keep issues unresolved because it benefits them to do so (hence why after all of these years of liberal policies most black communities, especially in areas run by liberals, are still in terrible shape, because they won't vote democrat if the problems get resolved). However I would agree that it is not the majority, I think the majority are just misguided and being manipulated. I have issues with conservatives of course but since liberals dominate at the moment its hard to point out conservative hypocrisies. Personally I think instead of ideologies we should go by facts.

[goaded]

From the left side of the aisle, it looks the opposite of what you just wrote.

The idea that the media is left wing has been ridiculous for decades, now. MSNBC, which I expect you consider particularly left wing, are hiring ex-Fox presenters now, they have a Republican congressman on for hours every day, and almost nothing negative is ever said about their advertisers or parent companies.

"The Liberals" don't own academia, either, but critical thinking does exclude some particularly right-wing ideas like creationism. John Yoo, author of the so-called Torture Memos in the Bush adminstration is a Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. If he's not excluded because of right-wing views, who would be?

You talk of the education system being indoctrination, but it's republicans forcing anti-scientific and historically inaccurate ideas into textbooks.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Well of course because you are liberal you will not see the media that is telling you what you want to hear as being liberal. I don't have a particular ideology and I can say that CNN the owners of which contributed massive amounts of money to hillary, who admited to editing footage to make clinton look good and Trump to look bad, when studies show that journalist are almost all liberal and donate to liberal candidates over and over again by multiple studies, while they like CNN and MSNBC which has cut off and/or "lost their feed" in the middle of an interview but only when it was a conservative who was starting to criticise Clinton, I think its fairly obvious that the media is incredibaly liberal. Its really not something I think that can be argued, its fairly obvious to most people even many liberals have admitted to this. newsroom.ucla.edu/.../Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for education, yes liberals do own education thats kind of strange that you would say otherwise, when the majority of all educators and directors of educational centers are liberal, when their is explicit bias against conservatives in schools thats really pretty solid evidence that education is dominated by liberals. As for creationism, thats not conservative thats religious and only about 14% of people stated they didn't believe in evolution. Liberals try to use the almost 50% of people are "creationist" but that is an intentional misrepresentation as creationism simply means god created the world which is not mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory. Again all of this is really not something that can be argued against based upon the massive amount of evidence we have showing it to be true: www.forbes.com/.../#61423d9d1458 www.nas.org/.../A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for the rest of your claims, what makes conservatives anti-science? What makes you say that they are misrepresenting history? In fact I would say their is far far more evidence to suggest the exact opposite, that is that liberals have been anti-science to the extreme like when they claim their is no difference between men and women when all data says the exact opposite (in fact their is a 2.7% genetic difference between men and women which is the equivalent of the difference between humans and chimpanzees, that's a huge difference) and they completely misrepresent history like when they claim men could vote for all of history but women couldn't completely ignoring the fact that men and women couldn't vote only the rich could, that included rich women. Or how they ignore the roots of slavery of how the irish where slaves etc. etc. Liberals as far as I can see are the ones anti-science, anti-history and anti-truth.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Your example here illustrates the issue we (the Left) have about the Right being anti-science. You're correctly stating that there is a large genetic difference between men and women, but you're leaving out the past 100 years or so of social, psychological, and cultural evidence that suggests we are in fact much more similar than the genetic code alone would have you believe. Another issue would be the apparent case that many Conservatives don't understand that the whole Irish slave thing is largely a popular myth and the degree to which they were slaves (to the Vikings) is completely different than the case of the African Americans.

You're leaving that out, and this happens a lot. You're in effect using a limited or sometimes flat out incorrect understanding of science to dictate public policy on science and education as a whole. I worked as scientist (computer science and astrophysics) in academia for many years and I saw this time and time again.

[goaded]

"[liberals] completely misrepresent history like when they claim men could vote for all of history but women couldn't completely ignoring the fact that men and women couldn't vote only the rich could, that included rich women"
In the USA? I can't find any evidence to support that claim. I'd be interested in a link.

[goaded]

'33 percent of Americans think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." ' and 'roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”'
www.pewforum.org/.../

Where does your 14% figure come from?

The NAS "has been funded extensively by politically conservative foundations", which in itself doesn't mean they're right wing, it just means they say things the right wing likes.

Your UCLA link (from 2005) is interesting, but wrong. In it's opinion, Fox News is centrist and "The National Rifle Association comes out as a centrist group; the Rand Corporation turns out to be left-leaning." fair.org/.../

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Strange that you couldn't find it, it took me only the time it took to type in male suffrage and then clicking a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_manhood_suffrage
and in the UK: www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...bout-male-suffrage.html
As for evolution I thought I provided the link can't seem to find the original but here is one: www.slate.com/.../...tion_less_in_creationism.html
As for 33% from your link they don't list what questiones where asked and they only had a sample size of 4,000 people usually a sample size of a nation of over 324 million would be much larger at least tens of thousands. That said its still not a sign of anti science, that would mean they would have to disagree on everything which they don't or even disagree with most of what science has shown to be true, which they don't. Furthermore as I pointed out liberals have ign

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded I don't know what the NAS is, but again, your saying that its wrong because fox news is viewed as centrist but that doesn't really mean anything that's your opinion, as I pointed out the owners of CNN and the people who run it all have donated and voted for liberal candidates, in every poll and survey done journalist almost always gravitate towards the left. So you ignored that fact, giving me an exception doesn't mean anything sure their are conservative and liberal media but that wasn't what I was arguing I was arguing that the most prominent media and most common is liberal media. Anomalies will always exist.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly No I did not leave anything out, where is this evidence exactly? The male brain and the female brain are provably different, dramatically so. They are different anatomically, biochemically, genetically, neurologiclly, psycologically and behaviorally. This is provable from how women develop differently then males from childhood to adulthood, to how they cope with stress (women are more self destructive hence cutting being predominantly a female occurence) they differ in their interest hence despite the greater freedom of choice, despite all of the many incentive programs to get women into male dominated fields the gender divide in occupation is even greater now then before. So no, their is ample difference in everything we do which is backed by hard science. Thats not to say that we are not similar but we trying to overstate that fact to the point of ignoring the many difference is just dishonest.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly As for irish slaves, no thats real that happened. Oliver cromwell sold off 300,000 irish slaves to america and the west indies and yes according to historical documentation they where not treated the same as black slaves they where treated worse (almost certainly due to the British hatred of the irish). The term slave is derived from the term slav or slavic i. e. eastern europeans or whites who where enslaved so often by so many different groups that there very name became synonomous with forced subjugation. So no its not a myth. As for my understanding of science, no its pretty accurate, here is some links: www.cam.ac.uk/.../males-and-females-differ-in-specific-brain-structures
www.shavemagazine.com/.../10-Psychological-Differences-Between-Men-and-Women
www.psychologytoday.com/.../differences-between-men-and-women
www.ancient-origins.net/.../white-slaves-barbary-002171
www.africaresource.com/.../

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly The whole claim that white slavery is a myth is not based upon fact, I have yet to see them disprove it but rather only create opinion pieces and straw man arguments like claiming indentured servituted doesn't count which of course wasn't the statement made. The problem is the left dominate everything so much that people get fired and lose their jobs speaking out against it as one dean at a university had happen when he mentioned that women tend to do better at English and worse at math and men tend to do better in math and worse in English. Its simply not PC (i. e. fitting the liberal narrative) to talk about it, that's why we don't mention it or how for instance the first slave owner in America was Anthony Johnson a black man (who was as well as being a plantation owner was well respected in his community because racism didn't come into play till whites pushed for abolishment of slavery and racism was used to justify it in a nation where "all men are created equal"

[goaded]

Nothing in your links about voting shows that rich women could vote. Everyone knows it was limited to landowning males.

The slate link refers to the Pew survey I linked to earlier. The sample size is sufficient to ensure a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.0 percentage points. If you can get people to disbelieve Evolution, it's a small step to get them to disbelieve climate change.

The NAS is the organisation that wrote "The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism
in the University of California" you linked to, earlier (talking about education).

The UCLA study showing left-wing bias in media (in 2005) had many biases. A simpler measurement of bias is how often congressmen are quoted in the media: "Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5-6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5-6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7-8/04)."

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded yes it was based upon land ownership ergo a woman who owned sufficient amount of land could vote. Also you stated women couldn't vote but men could (or at least implied as such) which I showed to be false, I also by extention showed that the liberal/feminist narrative of women having no right to vote but men having it was out right false which in turn proved my point that if anything liberals where anti-history (along with democrats ignoring the fact that they where the party of the slave owners and segregation/jim crow/reading test laws). As for your claim that media outlest quoting republicans is some how evidence of no left media bias thas just absurd. When a media outlet misrepresents a republican quote thats not them being bias in republican favor thats bias in favor of liberals, its slandering repubilcans. How can you claim thats a more fair measure of determining bias?

[goaded]

It's not enough to say you've shown something, you have to actually show it.

"a woman who owned sufficient amount of land could vote."
Show me one genuine link that says that was the case. I do not believe that was the case throughout the history of the USA, I doubt it was in the UK, either.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded I don't have the patience to go through all the state laws, it was state based, their was no federal law on voting so states whent by property, new jersey allowed it, I believe pensyvania allowed women to vote, Utah did so did others. In any case you are still ignoring everything else I can only presume thats because you cannot refute what I stated so your trying to nitpick my one statement. Here this will state some of the states that allowed it, and again this was dependent upon the time (in Canada any woman who participated in the military (in nursing capacity or such) was given the right to vote).
classroom.synonym.com/...te-early-1800s-16200.html
en.wikipedia.org/.../Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
www.history.com/.../the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment
classroom.synonym.com/...te-early-1800s-16200.html
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/.../
And the reason why men got the vote first was because of conscription as well so not sexism.

[goaded]

Hey, I found one! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufferage

"Short-lived suffrage equity was drafted into provisions of the State of New Jersey's first, 1776 Constitution, which extended the Right to Vote to unwed female landholders & black land owners. [...] the provision was subsequently replaced in 1844 [...] which reverted to "all white male" suffrage restrictions"

So, for nearly sixty years extremely rich, unmarried women (and blacks) were allowed to vote there. I did not know that.

It's hardly "completely misrepresent[ing] history" (which is what you said) not to emphasise what was probably a couple of dozen women's right to vote 200 years ago.

I am "ignoring everything else" because I don't have the patience to go through it all. I will just add this, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

[goaded]

Correction, just for 30 years, "... until 1807, when the Assembly passed a law limiting suffrage to free white males".
www.heritage.org/.../new-jersey-recognizes-the-right-of-women-to-vote
en.wikipedia.org/.../History_of_the_New_Jersey_State_Constitution
"in the intervening decades no other state had followed New Jersey’s more progressive voting approach"

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@hellionthesagereborn Well, the science behind men and women being different is correct in regards to the physical differences (and genetic, etc) but it ignores the political and philosophical aspect - should we treat women differently than men in the context of things there is very little difference between the two? Like political discourse, voting, employment, pay, etc? Those questions go outside of what science is and into the philosophical, so using a scientific basis for an argument there is irrelevant.

As for the Irish slaves thing, as I said, it's a common myth. Perhaps that's why the articles one may read on the topic are completely devoid of references to first order sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irish_slaves

www.history.com/.../5-myths-about-slavery

https://www.snopes.com/irish-slaves-early-america/

www.slate.com/.../...es_people_trot_out_about.html

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Okay. Now what? So some women could vote some couldn't, most men couldn't vote that was the argument. You shifted the goal post and I provided, you then shifted it again demanding it be applicable in all circumstances, then you shifted it again to be applicable at all times. Most women couldn't vote, most men couldn't vote either that was the statement, that is the misrepresentation that liberals/feminist make routinely which is all women could not vote and all men could. So why not just admit that this is a misrepresentation of history? Why keep shifting the goal post? What would be so bad about just admiting that liberals can and do make mistakes that they can also be bigoted and ignore facts when its convient to do so? Are you afraid that you might be far to similar to the conservatives you hate?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Who said anything about limiting women in the social and legal spheres? Not once was that stated. Not once. So what are you trying to argue? I stated men and women are different and that is a provable fact. If your claiming that we are going to use that difference to punish women in some way you are entirely incorrect. As it stands women have more rights and privileges in this society then men do. For starters they can vote and be recognized as a citizen without having to sign a selective service card. That means in fact they are held in higher esteem then men. They also have greater rights in reproduction (not hard to do when men have none) as well as many many other rights granted to them at the expense of men. Furthermore that is shifting the goal post, no one was arguing tha women should not have rights, what liberals/feminist claim is that men and women are identical or nearly enough which is false.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly As for white slaver, you didn't check the sources on that did you? Their are three of them for the wikipedia one, one of which is stating how its racist to claim that whites where slaves (which of course is illogical) two which rehash the same argument that is that one librarian who studied history states that its a myth. It also provides no links or data of any kind and is circulated on liberal sites who I would like to point out have a vested interest in it not being true. Further more the rest also have only one source, Liam Hogan said librarian and amateur historian. Thats not good evidence. One man saying its not true who conviently supplies no evidence what so ever is not a valid argument. You might as well just say "na uh" because thats how much value that has. Also neglected to disprove the claim that slave is derived from the term slavic.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for white slavery, see my argument with @HungLikeAHorsefly

[goaded]

OK, I admitted I was wrong about women never being able to vote in the US (although it was not a *right* until the 19th amendment was passed in 1920; NJ repealed their law allowing women to vote).

This conversation started with me quoting you and asking for a link.
"[liberals] completely misrepresent history like when they claim men could vote for all of history but women couldn't completely ignoring the fact that men and women couldn't vote only the rich could, that included rich women"

I think the issue I had with your statement was mostly the "completely misrepresent history" part. Do liberals really "claim men could vote for all of history but women couldn't"? Even if they do, is that so far from the truth?

I think you have to agree, throughout history, including the history of the USA, women were usually excluded from voting, even if men of the same social level were allowed to vote.
Suffrage for the poor, non-whites, etc. all happened 50 years before the 19th amendment.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@hellionthesagereborn If you want to go down that route, the entire issue of Irish Slavery was brought up by a guy named James F. Cavanaugh in 2003 in an article about his family being sold into slavery to the Caribbean. It doesn't cite a single source, record, or any piece of evidence that backs up his claim, and it isn't peer reviewed by any historian whatsoever with any knowledge about either the Irish or the slave trade. That's not history - that's just storytelling. Follow-up pieces don't do any better.

As for women, I assumed you were getting at equal rights and all that by saying men and women are biologically different. You won't find many biologists that will disagree with you. But, the two issues are apples and oranges - they aren't that related. So, I'm not really sure why you brought it up.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded It wasn't a right for men either. Thats the point I was making. Also if you look at the history it was women who fought against womens right to vote since men only got that right because they where conscripted against their will into police posses, bucket brigades and rescue teams for fire department, and of course soldiers in the military all against their will (something of which is still true to this day, a man has to sign a selective service card in order to be able to vote, be acknowledged as a U. S. citizen, take out state/federal loans, get a drivers license etc. all of which women get for free), women didn't want that responsibility. So no, men didn't get the right to vote except late, only 67 years before women, and women didn't want the responsibilities that came with that right hence most anti-suffragest being female. so basically your argument is men and women couldn't vote and that's why women had it worse.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for the misrepresentation, have you ever heard of male suffrage? Even once? No. Thats because of liberals and the liberal educational system conviently excluding that from history (along with the requirements of the "right" to vote. Though since they have to pay for it its not really a right so much as a privilege, unlike for women.) They also ignore how women could own land, work etc. They ignore how the slave trade actually worked, how every group in the world where slaves or slavers at one point in time how blacks where as much apart of the slave trade as victims to it, how while the europeans came in and conquered the indians, the indians themselves gained power by conquest themselves so its a little unfair to claime that when white people did it it was bad but when indians did it it was okay, kind of racist actually when one thinks about it.

[goaded]

OK, I've wasted hours reading about Suffrage over the last few days because of this argument and you just want to misrepresent what I say and claim I've never heard of male suffrage, after I talked about how various classes of (male) people gained the right to vote and how, except in a very minor case (found by me not you, by the way, and which was repealed) women only got the *right* to vote fifty years later than ALL men had it, and that was less than a hundred years ago.

How many police posses, bucket brigades and rescue teams have you been conscripted into? There's not even a draft any more.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Well, everything you stated was incorrect. I stated liberals claim women couldn't vote and men couldn't, you wanted evidence I gave it. You didn't do much of anything as far as I can tell until I told you I didn't want to read every state law. Then you fixated on one law, new jersey, which repealed the law rather then acknowledge that multiple states allowed women to vote meanwhile men did not have the right to vote. I don't think you mentioned male suffrage once, in fact I do believe I had to link sources so you would believe me. So, no you did not mention it or acknowledge its existence. So now your trying to ignore why men got that right sooner, again it was conscription which women did not wish to be apart of, and pretending like it was some kind of sexist conspiracy. As for the draft, yes it does exist in fact we to this day have to sign up for it when you register to vote, further more its irrelevent whether or not I am affected by it because the argument was that the rea

[hellionthesagereborn]

further more its irrelevent whether or not I am affected by it because the argument was that the reason men got the right sooner was because they where conscripted and women where not which I have proven, thoroughly.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Actually others mentioned it too:
https://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm
https://www.proclamation1625.net/
If what you stated was correct then by extention claiming irish where not slaves would also be incorrect and nothing but story telling because as I pointed out, no evidence what so ever was given to show that to be the case. You also neglected to mention that slave comes from the term slavic which again where whites who where enslaved. Also the first slave was owned by a black man anthony johnson who came over as an indentured servant and in fact his slave was originally an indentured servant as well so most black slavery started as indentured servituted from what I can gather. But again you did not address any of this.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly I don't know what your talking about with your statement about women. I stated that liberals claim their is no difference or no significant difference between men and women and I stated that is provably false. At no point did I ever mention rights under the law at any point, in fact no one is arguing that, well except for maybe that men and women are not equal under the law as most laws favor women to the detriment of men.

[goaded]

"I stated liberals claim women couldn't vote and men couldn't, you wanted evidence I gave it."
I assume you meant "liberals claim women couldn't vote and men could"?

You did not give any evidence at all. You claimed various things, you linked to a couple of places that did not say what you said they did, but you never showed any evidence. You may believe you had to link sources so I would believe you but the fact remains that you didn't actually do that, so I didn't believe you. If you're making claims, it's up to you to back them up.

I fixated on the NJ laws because it was the only evidence I found that backed up your statement (something you'd refused to do). Show the the other state laws allowing women to vote (bearing in mind one of the reasons NJ changed "suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes", was "no other state had followed New Jersey’s more progressive voting approach").

If you want to talk about ignoring things, where are your responses about creationism?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Oh, well I thought you meant Liberals think there isn't a cultural differences between men and women. That's because no Liberal I've ever heard of thinks there isn't a biological difference, because that's just stupid.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Then you haven't spoken to many liberals/feminist. They (Obviously not all liberals but many) are convinced their is no biological differences between men and women for the most part (with the exception of reproduction).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded I did provide you links on what I stated, I showed you the links that pointed out that men also didn't have the right to vote, I provided the links (many) that showed that many women could vote. So why are you claiming that didn't happen? You are aware that all one needs to do is click on show all and they can see that I did precisely what you claim I didn't? You fixated NJ because it eventually repealed the law, not because their was no evidence or that I refused to provide said evidence. Why would you site the evidence I provided then claim I provide no evidence? What gain is there in that? I never said all women could vote, I said some could and some couldn't and rich women generally where more likely to vote as in the case of NJ, but my core argument that almost no one could vote male or female. Again, you keep ignoring that part.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for property, I didn't say all women whith property could vote so again, your being misleading, in NJ they could, in the Isle of Man they could, in finland women who paid taxes (i. e. property tax) could vote, same with the Czech republic etc. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough to point out every single example of all the laws and rules in all 50 states, in england, and the rest of the western world but I felt I presented enough to establish my argument which, again was that men could not vote just like women for the vast majority of the public and for history, beyond that you are simply trying to create a straw man argument.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for creationism, what creationism are you talking about exactly? Their is young earth creationist, and creationist. Young earth creationist believe the earth is 10,000 years old, creationist believe pretty much what non creationist believe only that god was the one guiding evolution/big bang etc. Those are two very different things, hence me showing the link about evolution because people like to lump the two creationist groups together. And again, I don't suggest some conservatives don't believe in young creationism, my argument was that the claim that republicans as a whole are anti science was unfair on multiple levels and could be applied to liberals.

[goaded]

I was concentrating on the US, since that's what I'd asked for evidence about women being able to vote when men couldn't.

I do admit I missed Wyoming in your links, and the link to "States That Gave Women the Right to Vote Before 1900" in a quick scan through "Which People Gained the Right to Vote in the Early 1800s?". I concentrated on NJ, because it was the first one I found about women being able to vote while some (poor) men could not.

I do see your point that not all men could vote for most of history, but I've seen nothing to show that women haven't (nearly) always come last in the pecking order.
e. g.
England 1918-1928: All men over 21, all women over 30.
NJ 1797-1807: unwed female landholders & black land owners, added presumably to white male landowners. Both revoked.

Basically, there has never been a time when women could vote and their husbands or brothers could not (ignoring age). But I take your point, and it's been an interesting discussion.

[goaded]

I get that creationism is a religious thing, but like I said earlier, it's only republicans doing things like this:
NOV. 22, 2013: "The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.

The monthslong textbook review process in Texas has been controversial because a number of people selected this year to evaluate publishers’ submissions do not accept evolution or climate change as scientific truth."

I think that's an anti-science attitude.

I still don't know where your "only 14% of people stated they didn't believe in evolution" comes from.
In 2013, Pew had 33% YEC and 24% OEC (loosely; the questions are further up the opinion and at the link): www.pewforum.org/.../ (There's also a breakdown by party; republicans have just 43% accepting evolution, opposed to 67% Dems and 65% Independents.)

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Okay, so there are other people than just the one who have written about the Irish slave myth. Two things stand out: the people writing about the Irish slave trade are just random people with no expertise in the matter, nor are they historians. The people that say it isn't true are historians, or are at least people in Ireland.

As for the documentation that the Irish "slaves" were indentured servants... every town that exported indentured servants during this time period maintained registers of those individuals that got sent over. It's actually quite well documented.

Now, you go ask Irish historians, or people that study the slave trade, or people that specialize in the history of the Caribbean or early American history... none of them think there were Irish slaves.

I guess the next step is conspiracy theory.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded I never said anything about that, I stated that their is a difference between creationism and young earth creationism and those are often conflated. My 14% was from a source which I could not find again after my computer decided to freak out (which often happens while I am on this site) so I provided another that showed the number of people who actually disbelieve evolution and it was not that much.
As for the pew research they don't show the quesions asked, they also don't state how many of each group their was furthermore their was less then 2,000 people interviewed in a country of 318.86 million. Thats less then.00062% of the population. Their is a reason why they generally have tens or hundreds of thousands to come to a reasonablly accurate conclusion.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for not accepting climate change, thats not anti science, science is founded upon asking questions. Their is ample holes in the climate change debate from the fact that the earths temperature had been fluctuating since as far back as we know (we have had about 5 ice ages and by extention 5 global warmings. This doesn't even take into account the many miniture global warming/ice ages like the one in the middle ages where for 100 years their was higher global temperatures and then the cooling and ice age in the 1500s). Then you have the fact that outside of these ice ages ice was not even found in high altitudes yet thats precisely what we have now meaning by definition we are in an ice age.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Then you have the fact that atmospheric compisition has flucated and changed, in fact their have been several eras where their was higher levels of carbon dioxide then their are today, also times where their where higher oxygen levels. We have only had the technology to really analyze this data for about 50 years yet most of these global warming periods seem to last 100 years. Their are several people who are arguing that this is not the case from mathmaticians to enviromentalist (like the cofounder of greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore). They claim that the ice caps are melting yet we are having problems of coral reefs bleaching due to exposure to greater amount of sunlight which should be the exact opposite of what is happening if the caps are melting. They claim the polar bear population is declining despite the fact that its larger then its been before.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Thats before we bring up the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because its so beneficial to plants, in fact trees use it to create over 90% of their mass, it causes plants to grow faster and bigger. So we even have questiones on whether or not its bad for the enviroment along with whether or not its happening or if humans have some or any part to play in it. Their is plenty of reasons to question it as none of these points have been adressed in the current debate.(also the 90% climate scientist agree has been debunked multiple times). So thats not anti science thats just critical thinking and asking questiones.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded But again none of that actually matters as my assertion, which you have ignored, is that if we claim conservatives are anti-science then we have to lable liberals the same way. many of people ignore science when its inconvient for them if thats anti science liberals are just as anti science. You negleceted to argue against that point. Is their a particular reason for that? And I am not sure if I pointed this out but I am not a conservative so if your trying to bring up these points to prove me "wrong" your fighting the wrong battle, conservatives and liberals (and most people, scientist included) ignore scientific data when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

[goaded]

They do show the questions asked, at the link I gave: Either “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” or “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”, also:

"The 2013 Pew Research survey varied the exact wording of the question about evolution to better understand public views on the issue. A random group of respondents was asked about the evolution of “humans and other living things” while others were asked about the evolution of “animals and other living things.”1 The survey found that the wording focus on animals vs. humans made little difference in beliefs."

You can doubt their methodology, but it has science and maths behind it. There's a 95% probability that the actual percentages are within +/- 3% of the values given.

[goaded]

I'm not going to argue climate change with you (it tends to be a pig-in-mud thing).

How about the Texas textbooks? Is it not anti-science to not accept evolution as scientific truth?

Or this: "One argued that creationism based on biblical texts should be taught in science classes"? www.nbcnews.com/.../evolution-debate-again-erupts-texas-board-education-f2D11637691

You say liberals do it too? So, on what subject do they disagree with a vast majority of the scientists researching the subject? Examples should be easy, shouldn't they?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@goaded It's also the case that Conservatives have been treating scientists like garbage for the past few decades. There is a clear culture of anti-science and ignorance of scientific methods in academia and beyond, perpetuated by the Right.

When elected, they cut funding for basic research, they cut funding for science education, they block scientific efforts to study the climate, gun ownership, alternative energy, and a number of other areas. They push pseudo-science in our K-12 classrooms and mock the climate science research done by NASA and NOAA (while at the same time relying daily on the National Weather Service). However, if a scientist does the *exact same science* for military purposes, they're fine with it. Curious.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded That was the exact questiones asked or a paraphrasing? I took it as a paraphrasing, usually a proper study lists methodology seperately. Of course this is a survey not a study but I'm use to studies. If that is the case then fine. As for doubting it, again yes I can when you have a population of 318.86 million people and you survey less then 2000 and attempt to apply it, when you don't state where these 2000 where located (i. e. bible belt or was it in a single city or suburb? Was it rural etc.) You can argue the methodology. Thats shit methodlogy, thats not science. Polls have said a lot of things, like Clinton winning by a massive landslide, instead she lost and only got half a percentage point more in the popular votes, something the polls where wrong about. Methodolgy matters.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Your not going to argue climate change because you have nothing to argue, as I stated all of those are facts, scientific facts and none of them are adressed by those who claim climate change is real, caused by people and negatively impacting the world. As for your ancedotal evidence, I don't care. First and foremost because one thing happening doesn't equal all people of that group doing it and two, and this is really the most important part of the argument, you keep brining up conservatives because you are creating a straw man argument. I never said that some of them didn't have a disbelief in certain scientific facts, not once. In fact quite the opposite further more my argument was that if you claim that as anti science then liberals by extention are also anti science. You have managed to avoid adressing this very important fact. Tu quoque fallacy. Straw man fallacy.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded I don't care about conservatives, I disagree with them as well but right now your trying to claim some kind of moral superiority when in fact your doing the same damn things. In fact liberals in general are anti science, anti history and anti fact. I stated this, I don't give a damn what conservatives do, sure some believe absurd things but thats not what I argued and you damn well know it, I stated liberals do the same thing, they believe that which is convient for them to believe. So please if you argue argue against that, not some kind of straw man argument. As for what that is, as I already pointed out liberals claim that their are no differences (beyond the obvious) between men and women. Especialy when it comes to brain structure (my link I provided from the cambridge meta study shows otherwise)

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded like how they claim gender is a social construct (yet some how transexualism is real, you know where a person is socially conditioned to be one gender yet despite this feels like another, the exact opposite of what liberals/feminist say is the truth) and in behavior which again, is provable like when they want to claim that promiscuity is fine and has no negative consequences and that its evil sexism when conservatives are against it despite all the data showing how detrimental it is to women:https://s3. amazonaws. com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts. pdf
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../nihms499028.pdf
socialpathology.blogspot.com/.../...uest-post.html
socialpathology.blogspot.com/.../...uity-data.html
and then of course all the other data I provided like your anti history when talking about slavery or suffrage (which I already provided the links for so I am not doing it again). Anything else?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Curious you would make that claim when I just proved multiple times over that liberals pull the same bullshit. Like having professors fired for questioning climate change (you know asking questiones which is their job): https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/
www.climatedepot.com/.../
Or how nasa is not 100% behind man made climate change: www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
Or that their is some wide sweeping consensus: journals.ametsoc.org/.../BAMS-D-13-00091.1
www.forbes.com/.../#7e34e6ce171b
As for military, what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that conservatives are more likely to be pro war? Because Obama has bombed 7 different countries, the majority of the wars casualities in afganistan and Iraq where under obamas watch and he escalated tention between the US and Russia to an extreme degree. Seems like a poor argument.

[goaded]

Questions are the last two pages of the full report: www.pewforum.org/files/2013/12/Evolution-12-30.pdf (My original link: www.pewforum.org/.../ .)
"Thats shit methodlogy, thats not science." What is? The methodology you just said you don't know anything about?

I explained why "the [election] polls were wrong" is wrong, elsewhere: It's the same principle as predicting a 20% chance of rain tomorrow. If it doesn't rain, the prediction wasn't wrong, if it does rain, the prediction still wasn't wrong.
If it rains 99% of the days when you predicted a 20% chance of rain, THEN the prediction is probably wrong (or you were very unlucky).

I'm not going to argue climate change because there is no point in arguing with someone who claims that "the 90% climate scientist agree has been debunked multiple times" when it hasn't (and it's 97%, anyway). e. g. www.politifact.com/.../ where the only researcher they found arguing against 97% still came up with 91%.

[goaded]

I'm happy that scientists are looking into all aspects of biology and sociology and note that there's still healthy debate going on, but I am not going to get involved.

If liberals are so anti-science they don't like, as you say they are, why don't they de-fund research they don't like? Or insist that debunked theories be taught in schools?

Has any research into comparative biology of men and women been shut down by congress; has it been made illegal or very hard to research in those areas, like the conservatives did with stem-cell research?

Do liberals insist that government departments stop measuring the effects of policy, like the Republicans have done with the CDC with firearm research, and just this week, the CBO with costs associated with repealing the ACA.

Do liberals insist on changing children's science textbooks to undermine settled science and insert religion?

Examples, please.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded The methodology that takes such a tiny sample size and then applies it to such a large group. Most are in the, bare minimum, tens of thousands not less then two thousand. And again regional demographics will have an impact as well as racial, which if they then "stratified" as they said over represents the view point of that demographic which then influences the outcome of others i. e. if hispanics are more prone to be religious and thus more likely to be creationist, then that would increase the creationist in the data despite the fact that hispanics only make up 17% of the population. See the problem? Of course not but thats really not the issue. Again your ignoring everything else, you know the actual statement made. What are republicans defunding, is it because they don't agree with it and most importantly answer my previous statements.

[OlderAndWiser]

@hellionthesagereborn @goaded If you two switch to PM, I'll stop getting non-stop notifications about the latest twists and spins in your debate.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Further more, as I pointed out liberals may or may not defund programs, but thats irrelevent, they fire people, they manipulate facts and information and then force feed it to the public as I have pointed out, as I provided evidence for again and again to you. So no, I don't need to prove anything as I have already done that. Right now what you are doing is ignoring the points I made while trying to attack conservatives both because you think I give a damn about them (I don't) and to distract from the statements already made and proven. So tell me what conservatives defunded if you want to actually prove a claim but at least adress the points I made. Again, and I am getting tired of reiterating this so often with you, I DON"T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CONSERVATIVES. My statement was your accusations are as easily attributed to liberals as conservatives, you didn't adress that yet, please do so.

[hellionthesagereborn]

My apologies, I had no intention of this being dragged out so long.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I agree that the Institute for Policy Studies having terminated Dr. Rossiter is unfortunate and shouldn't have happened (based on the information we have on the issue). However, a lot of the objection you're referring to in the other links is about whether or not climate change is going to end in a catastrophe for humanity. That's a matter I'm skeptical on as well, but it doesn't invalidate the science behind the notion that climate change is happening and humans are causing it. Whether or not it'll result in calamity is yet to be determined.

Insofar as the military goes, I'm not saying Conservatives are more pro-military - there are plenty of hawkish Liberals (I'm one of them). I'm saying that Conservatives tend to be anti-science until it's used for military purposes, and then it's okay.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

As an example, up until a couple of years ago, I worked in high performance computing (supercomputing) research. I did a few projects for NOAA in which lay people (overwhelmingly Conservative) gave us a lot of flak for the climate science we were doing. A year later, I went over to the Department of Defense to head up a research team there. I used the *exact same code* on my projects there, and it resulted in technology that saves soldiers lives on a daily basis. Somehow, the computer models that are defective for climate research work amazingly well for military applications of similar complexity.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@HungLikeAHorsefly That's not really the case, as I pointed out their are so many different factors and unknowns that making claims is simply not a rational thing to do, as I pointed out their is ample discrepancies. As for your simulations, simulations work only when you have all the data, all variables are accounted for and your math is done properly something that cannot be verified with something as complex as climate change, their are so many factors, so many things that we do not understand (as I pointed out we have had climate shifts since as far back as we have geological data as well as atmostpheric composition changes) that to claim that we know something is pretty unlikely. Is their some climate change? Absolutely but we know that because their is always a change, but to say its humans, that its catastrophic or even harmful? That's a big jump.

[OlderAndWiser]

@hellionthesagereborn A few days ago, I posted: "If you two switch to PM, I'll stop getting non-stop notifications about the latest twists and spins in your debate."

@HungLikeAHorsefly Please carry this insanity to your PM!

[fabiolaaa]

Well as a Christian conservative Hispanic woman, I have been disrespected by liberals the most when it comes to my political beliefs. They just cannot accept that I am not a liberal and that I do not believe in the victim narrative. They also have an issue with me not blaming the heterosexual white male for my problems. This robs people of their agency!

I voted for Trump and he had my support after he announced that he was running for the Republican ticket back in June of 2015. I liked that he was not being politically correct when discussing some of the many issues in this country. He is a native New Yorker with bravado who came from a time period where feelings did not matter rather logic. Some are bothered that he was so direct with his approach and that he was not a trained politician. Due to my beliefs I have lost a lot of friends and acquaintances.

As a resident of New York City, I can honestly say that the liberals have been the most intolerant and disrespectful. I have been disrespected, humiliated and even attacked (physically) by Hillary Clinton supporters.

It is interesting when liberals, who are good friends of mine, ask me why I would support Trump and I tell them my reasons. Most of them have said that they never knew such issues existed in the country and across the globe. I think that there needs to be discussions and debates with no insults. Next time I get insulted or attacked by a liberal, I am going to walk away.

[madhatters4]

i appreciate what seems to be the general sentiment but it is still slanted. you say you didn't post this to bash liberals but you dedicated a paragraph to excoriating an example of liberals who are intolerant, and yet don't do so in the same vain regarding conservatives.

the simple fact i think is there are intolerant, ignorant, self-righteous members of both ideologies. i don't think we can say one has more than the other, and invariably when one person says one ideology has more of those negative members they are a believer in the other ideology...

but i agree that we need to can the conservative / liberal banter. ideology shouldn't define us to the point that we can see that we're all humans. conservative doesn't mean intolerant, liberal doesn't mean tolerant. in fact tolerance is really not a trait of political ideology at all.

[OlderAndWiser]

You are right, this was a bit slanted because I see the problem from a conservative perspective. But I do know that there are a bunch of condescending, arrogant conservatives.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

This is my issue... and I agree with you (ok, to some extent). The point of politics and having different ideas, parties, etc, is to propose and come up with solutions to governmental and societal issues. The point or purpose was to take all sides and come up with the most successful and competent solution. That's the idea, anyways

What has happened and turned into (pretty much since the inception of the party system, which dates back to debates with Jefferson and Hamilton primarily, if I'm not mistaken) is this idea of supremacy and taking credit for their own ideals and imposing their will to see who is right. Either liberals are right or conservatives are right. There's no in between and the winner gets credit for it with minimal compromise. As with basically anything in the existence of human history, the further it goes along, the longer it lingers and the greater the divide. Obviously not on this level (ok, maybe arguably), but Sunni/Shiite, USA/USSR, England/France/Germany, etc...

My issue is we are so far removed from it that it's virtually undoable. What does that mean? I'll give you a quick anecdote: I think we red blooded Americans believe fascism and naziism is bad, right? It's been engrained; us good/hitler bad. So, about a day ago, there was a question on here about whether children in school should be forced to stand and solute for the pledge of allegiance. Not to my surprise, some notable people (who I'll keep nameless who are very pro American) said yes... for those who don't know, fascism and nazis were partially founded on the idea of the state is above the individual and the "greater good". The point not being their beliefs. There are countless. The point that we can manipulate our own beliefs to believe what is good and what is bad, but can't see when and where we're being hypocritical no matter how obvious it seems

I don't have a political agenda, really. I mean I have my beliefs, obviously, but they aren't based on anyone's rhetoric. I agree with a bunch of things both liberals and conservatives believe. There's a time and place for everything. The world doesn't work black and white. That's where my issue lies. People seem to do so and my point it's grander than that. But too many people wanna treat it as right vs wrong, good vs bad. And that's where I draw the line on the stupidity and have no problem calling people out on it... Left/right, pro/anti gun, gay/straight, black/white, skinny/fat

tbc

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

All this to say I'm fine with most things people agree with (there are a few that aren't ok), but if people are talking politics and want to have an opinion and play armchair qb, I expect them to know what the hell theyre talking about and not simply throw around words without knowing what they mean or what happens, like economics... I was a business major and blew too much money to not understand macro and micro. I learned too much from political classes and had a mom that worked for congressmen and a bunch of family that work in government from library of congress to military to CIA and FBI to not have some semblance of governmental operations

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, but. . . in partisanship, everyone feels justified in criticizing the other side. So it really doesn't matter whether you think your feelings are justified. What matters is "where is this hate getting us?"

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

I agree. Which is why I said in the beginning is the original point in parties, ideologies, whatever was and is to use different sides to come to the best overall solution, not competing to who is right and wrong

and if you're curious, I'm pretty well aware that my response is probably all over the place. I was too lazy to look it over 😂 So if you have any questions, fire away 👍 I'll warn you, though, that I might be watching Netflix now so I might take a while to respond 😬

[OlderAndWiser]

That's okay. I'm watching the Sugar Bowl. It's a rare night at home watching TV.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Me, too... I'm doing both. Did you see the rose bowl? Holy cow!!!

[OlderAndWiser]

Yeah, almost as good as the Orange Bowl, where my Seminoles prevailed!

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

I don't know bout that. Both good games, though... although neither can compare to my team (Tennessee) coming back, blowing the come back and then winning on a Hail Mary in less than 2 minutes 😂... only my team 🙄

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, that was an excellent game. Being an FSU fan, I have cheered for Tennessee for many years! :) :) :)

[Red_Arrow]

Trump spent his whole campaign insulting anybody and everybody that did not feel the same as he does. He did it live at his rallies, and he does it in his tweets. He recently made a sarcastic tweet referring to those against him as his enemies. And the people at those rallies and those who worship his tweets, repeat the same insults and denigrations ad infinitum.
As for the people who are saying that it is wrong to say "he is not my president", people have been saying that about Obama for eight years. They are still saying he was not born in America (his birth certificate is all over the internet and many officials in Hawaii have made the point that he was born there). They insist he is a Muslim (He is definitely Christian). And these stories and many like them were started or promoted by Trump and his followers love it!
Trump has made clear that he will continue his insults on twitter. That he will make many instantaneous changes on day one, many of which are legally impossible, but he is not smart enough to realize that. His own party (that he adopted so he could run) is torn apart by him and his antics. He has also ignored the experts (the scientists, the intelligence specialists, etc.) and claims he knows better than them. He is scaring people with his intent to run against science, intelligence, and reasoning.
There is the reason for all the hate still boiling over. Until someone finds his off switch, he will continue to foment all the hatred, name calling, distrust, etc. There is no "love and tolerance" in that man, so don't expect to see it from either side while he is in control.

[OlderAndWiser]

The hate from liberals started long before Trump announced his candidacy. Back up and try again OR get the point. All this hate is not going to accomplish anything. It is not a matter of who started it or hos justified you feel. People saying that a guy deserved to die because he was a gun rights advocate is just insane!

[Red_Arrow]

Perhaps you should back up and read what you wrote. You spent several paragraphs criticizing liberals: They say this; they do that; etc. As an afterthought you add a short paragraph suggesting that conservatives do a few of those things, too.

And you are right that all this hate is not going to accomplish anything. I am pointing out that Trump himself stirred up so much and is now making it clear he is going to continue. You cannot expect liberals to tone it down when Trump is still tweeting. He continues to pass out misinformation and roil people up. How can you expect the nation to calm down with the president-elect stirring it up? See www.cnn.com/.../index.html
As for the hate starting before his candidacy, I pointed out that Trump was behind the Obama not a citizen thing 8 years ago, and has kept that and other things going. YOU need to get the point and see that regardless of hate not accomplishing anything, Trump is keeping it going. Tell him to tone it down, not us.

[fabiolaaa]

Donald Trump does have enemies and he is not just referring tot the snowflakes. He is referring to bankers who control the worlds finances. George Soros is one of them. Soros made his fortune off of toppling democratically elected officials in various countries around the world. He started the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Black Lives Matter and the Syrian Refugee Crisis in Europe. Soros wanted Hillary to win because he wanted the US to have a war with Russia over Syria which to be honest the war would have been about ISIS. Hillary Clinton is a liar as the WikiLeaks emails have demonstrated, she is sponsored by Soros and Goldman Sachs etc. Trump has been hated against by the MSM because it is controlled by the elitists and because he was not a puppet. If this election demonstrated anything, it is that
Americans are tired of the establishment and of government officials giving in to lobbyists, special interest groups before the needs of American people.

[OlderAndWiser]

I am a conservative, I see things from my perspective and I make no apology for that. I was motivated by the news story about the journalist who died from the gunshot wound and the unbelievably crass hate that was spewed in his direction.

Trump has stopped talking about putting Hillary in jail and he has toned down SOME (certainly not all) of his rhetoric.

So, until Trump tones it down, you feel justified in spewing hate. That is the attitude I tried to address in this myTake. Obviously, not everyone agrees with the point, so the hate continues. Good job!

[fabiolaaa]

Also Trump may have said things about Mexicans that may have been offensive but he was not lying. Illegal immigration increased tremendously after Hart-Celler Act of 1965 and LBJ's Great Society. America needs to protect its borders and needs to protect the American people. My liberal friends hate that I do not want Syrian refugees coming to America. My reasons are because of the threats of Islam and because the needs of homeless Americans need to be met.
The nation state is sacred and it is a necessary evil. Globalism is a false song that has hurt many countries. Think of member EU countries that have suffered socially and economically due to less restrictive immigration. Open borders, especially after the Syrian refugee crisis, has hurt Europe tremendously with mass rapes, arsons, assaults, bombings, and more acts of terrorism. I have been following Sweden, Germany, France, Austria and other countries are suffering. When Brexit happened I rejoiced, now for Le Pen.

[fabiolaaa]

Yes Trump has toned it down. We will see what happens with Trump on January 20 of this year.

[Red_Arrow]

And just where do you see me spewing hate? I merely pointed out where you are heaping blame on liberals and accepting little on conservatives. And pointed out that Trump is sitll spewing hat that get the liberals going. That is not spewing hate. And yet you are now saying that liberals are wrong in spewing hate, even though Trump continues intentionally riling things up. Right now his job is to bring the country together. He is doing everything he can to keep it divided.
A Gallup survey released Monday shows less than half having confidence in Trump handling an international crisis, wisely using military forces, or prevent major scandals in his administration. At least 70 percent of people were confident in Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in all of the above areas before they took office. www.MSN.com/.../ar-BBxOZ5X?li=BBnb7Kz
Trump is keeping it going and HE is the one that needs to shut it off!

[OlderAndWiser]

You have faith in poll results? They all said Hillary would win the election. . . remember. Obviously, you don't want to get the point, you just want to continue with incendiary rhetoric. If you aren't interested in being a part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I won't respond to you any more, so if you are one of those people who must have the last word, have at it.

[Red_Arrow]

@fabiolaaa - Occupy Wall Street was started actually by a couple of Canadians to "protest corporate influence on democracy, the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth." All things which Trump seems to be bringing back.
Though Goldman-Sachs contributed to Hillary, they did not "sponsor" her. And now Trump has selected Goldman’s second-in-command, Gary Cohn, as his top economic advisor. Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman partner has been nominated as Treasury secretary.
The Senate castigated Sachs for promoting questionable mortgage-backed securities and then placing negative bets against the mortgage market. Sachs paid $5 billion to settle Justice Department charges it had sold shoddy mortgage products and another $550 million in a Securities and Exchange Commission action. And Trump is rewarding them. Far worse than Hillary having them among her donors.

[Red_Arrow]

You are the one who is being incendiary. I showed the solution is to get Trump to stop stirring it up, but you seem to like him doing that. Enjoy your dream world.

[goaded]

"You have faith in poll results? They all said Hillary would win the election. . . remember."
The poll I remember said that she had a 80% (maybe 90%) chance of winning. Then the die was rolled, and it came up 1. That doesn't mean the polls were wrong, it means the die didn't come up with 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

I'm wrong, it was about a 70% chance of Clinton winning (1 in 6 chance of a Trump win), the day before the election:

web.archive.org/.../?ex_cid=rrpromo

It was 85% a week or two earlier (1/6).
web.archive.org/.../?ex_cid=rrpromo

[OlderAndWiser]

@goaded Bad analogy. The polls are not predicting the outcome of a random event.

[Red_Arrow]

@goaded - The last minute releases of misinformation aimed at tilting the voting took the polls way down in numbers. But they were based on the votes of the people polled. And regardless of the lies that Trump says that the popular vote favored him, the popular vote actually was won by Hillary, so the polls were correct in how the overall numbers worked out. But the earlier gerrymandering made the electoral vote come out quite different than the popular one.

[OlderAndWiser]

What gerrymandering?

[LeilaA]

2 cents from outsider - the funny thing about this whole argument/debate, or at least the beginning of it, is the fact that Trump was liberal, way back (as madam Clinton was once a right wing). i'm not from US. seeing these kind of debates, the amounts of dirt and hate and between people that actually live in the same country.. that it very sad. once countries around you looked at the US "empire" with respect or fear or both. today we mostly laugh and shake our heads. we still love ya though... just stop tearing each other up. it should be people vs goverment not people vs. people. best of luck to us all with you new prez. and by the way, i agree with Older. i seen enough of debates and comments to say that sadly many many liberals in your country, think sun shining from their butts and they speak the ultimate truth, and anyone who dares to disagree is uneducated hillbilly, puppy killer arse. and right wing loves to bring god into the debate, thinking that alone should prove their point

[goaded]

"What gerrymandering?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States
"International election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who were invited to observe and report on the 2004 national elections, expressed criticism of the U. S. congressional redistricting process and made a recommendation that the procedures be reviewed to ensure genuine competitiveness of Congressional election contests."

[goaded]

"Bad analogy. The polls are not predicting the outcome of a random event."
But they are predicting the outcome of an unpredictable event; otherwise there would be no reason to bother with the election itself!

It's the same principle as predicting a 20% chance of rain tomorrow. If it doesn't rain, the prediction wasn't wrong, if it does rain, the prediction still wasn't wrong.
If it rains 99% of the days when you predicted a 20% chance of rain, THEN the prediction is probably wrong (or you were very unlucky).

[Red_Arrow]

@LeilaA - Yes Trump identified as a liberal long ago. (Not sure if he really was one.) Then he identified as a conservative. Then he identified as a liberal. Etc.
"i seen enough of debates and comments to say that sadly many many liberals in your country, think sun shining from their butts and they speak the ultimate truth, and anyone who dares to disagree is uneducated hillbilly, puppy killer arse." I don't think you did see enough of the debates if you see the left as the ones thinking that anyone who disagrees with them is all of those things. You should go back and watch them again. Trump interrupted Hillary over and over, calling her a liar. When the moderator would point out that Hillary was correct, Trump would call him/her a liar. And half the time he would not back up things he was saying, but started calling every liberal he could think of names. And between debates, then after them, he was tweeting the same incendiary, name calling things.

[LeilaA]

@Red_Arrow
I have to say im not a supporter of Trump or Hillary. as non American i can only say i seen the results of US latest foreign policy and Hillarys decisions and acts throw the years. can't say i'm impressed, to say the least. Trump did what he thought will bring him victory. he might be "evil" in many things but he is smart.
the debates i was referring to are not between Trump and Hillary. i was talking about the "debates" of "simple people" from both sides of your political rainbow. some are civilized, but mostly and sadly what i see, in social media in particular, is exactly the picture i described. i am not talking about the late year. i'm talking about last 10-15 years at least. generally speaking, from my experience with people of all shapes and sizes, left is always less tolerant when it comes to different ideologies. its "my way or the high way". i also spent half of my life in far left country so... anyhow, respect each other, thats what im saying

[Bandit74]

Yeah, they only isolate people who might be on the fence. I kinda like to pick and choose which issues I support and avoid identifying with either party. I have noticed that liberals are the most condescending people you will ever meet and they are quick to label anyone who thinks differently. They give off this vibe "I am right and you are wrong and if you have a problem with that then kiss my ass" and "you either 100% agree with me or you're 100% against me" there no middle ground with them.

(While liberals are quite adamant about opposing "slut shaming," they have no hesitation to engage in "conservative shaming.")

Not only that, but a lot of the girls who are firmly against slut shaming have no problem with condescendingly virgin shaming guys who post opinions they disagree with. They say things like "OP is probably a pathetic virgin" or "I bet you never get laid" even when the person's sexual history wasn't even mentioned and wasn't even relevent to the discussion. It's like they want to believe that anyone who has views they consider offensive is a virgin.

[Anonymous]

I believe you have earnestly tried your best to write something that would be party neutral though there is still a slant in what you've written, but what is agreeing to disagree going to do? We've been agreeing to disagree for years, and we've had an inept congress that has done nothing in six years because no one: dems, republicans, liberals, conservatives, etc., will agree to anything with one another. It is the parties themselves who have drawn such firm lines in the sand and painted this picture of our nation that you can only be one thing and not the other and as a result any time a political conversation is had, it turns into screaming name calling matches online or otherwise.

No one from the top down wants to give in because now that is apparently some sign of weakness to agree that another party or another view point can actually be respected enough to encourage it into law or even critical thought. So here we are with this stuck in the mud us against them mentality. Simply shutting the hell up, or agreeing to disagree is still no solution...

[CancerianMan81]

it is when you are sick and tired of all the arguing

[LogicBomber]

How about people just stop looking for ways to become offended. Offence can only be taken, not given. SJW bullshit needs to die.

Man up... Legit phrase. Men are biologically stronger than women, men also generally DIE because of the amount of things which make our lives harder than women's. So manning up simply means to toughen up. It's verifiable.
Regardless of how much women want to claim to be "Strong and independent"... the constant need for society to "protect them" and "assist them", push campaigns to support them or protect their egos... MAN UP is a legit phrase.

Don't be a pussy... Is no different than calling someone a dick or a prick for being mean. No one seems to have issue with that. (Mainly because men are not as easily offended as women)

Bitch... a female dog (which later was used to mean a disagreeable woman because "an angry female would bark at you like a "bitch") so if someone is barking at you like a female dog... then the title is valid.

No homo... If you appreciate your own sex but not in a sexual way. This is an accurate sentence. It doesn't mean that homo is "bad" it simply means the speaker is not homosexual but is admiring something of the same sex.

That's so GAY... Gay means stupid now, it used to be a slur for homosexual, but before that it meant happy. When it started to mean homosexual, it was meant as a slur. "That guy over there is a little to 'happy' if you know what I mean" became "That guy is a little to "gay". But then the homosexual community chose to "own" it.
But words evolve and you can't steal a bike and then get upset if that bike is then stolen from you.
Gay now means something stupid or lame. So does retarded. It no longer means what it did.
A person's CHOICE to be offended is their own issue and it is not the responsibility of the rest of society to kid glove you from the world.
Get over yourselves and your need to play the victim.

[MaiNameIsSunshine]

Agreed, while I agree with the left I try not to call myself "liberal", the hypocrisy in the liberal side is the same as that hypocrisy in the conservative side (perhaps even worse, since they preach tolerance for everyone but white straight males). I don't agree with liberals who try to make literally everything PC, but don't appreciate conservatives who are flat out disrespectful because they are against being totally PC. I don't agree with calling all conservatives evil or ignorant because of their beliefs, nor do I agree with being called a libtard because I have liberal views. I could just go on forever really... American politics have really just got to the crapper. It should be taken out to the back of the barn and shot along with Mexico's government.

[Idonthaveausername]

Someone once said that all liberals think conservatives are evil and all conservatives think liberals are stupid. I tend to agree with this for the most part once you look at the consistent arguments from either side.

But political affiliation doesn't inherently make you a good or bad, smart or stupid person. And political affiliation a d different views is no reason to yell at someone or shun them. I have friends on both sides who are decent people and my parents (who are on opposing sides) are terrible people

I agree people should stop insulting and discrediting people for different views. I get that a lot of people are upset about Trump, but there were just as many people upset about Obama and Obamacare. Seriously just give it 4-8 years and we'll probably have a Liberal president again... and then another 4-8 years and we'll have another Conservative. It's not like we live in a dictatorship

[ShortCircuit]

I think one of the biggest problems these days is that people are associating certain traits exclusively to one party or the other (that are not necessarily representative of that arty). Not all liberals are tolerant. Not all conservatives are disciplined. Not all liberals are undisciplined. Not all conservatives are intolerant.

To me it seems that at the most basic level, the two parties stand for the concepts of "safety" and "freedom". If we are all honest, every single person here (as a human being) probably believes in both of those ideals.

Conservatives and liberals aren't much different in terms of our beliefs - rather, the difference lies in which beliefs we prioritize over others. Conservatives tend to prioritize safety over freedom, while liberals tend to prioritize freedom over safety. That's all there is to it.

[Lightspeed-Lemon]

It's all identity politics now and no one thinks for themselves. They just follow the ideology of their party as if it were their religion. In this way, they are like religious fundamentalists, believing there is only one right way of doing things -- their own -- while everyone else is 100% wrong. There's no middle ground anymore, no desire to build bridges. People just want to say, "My team is the best! My tribe is superior!" and prefer to beat the other tribes into submission rather than cooperate with them.

[kilowatt04]

Finally something written by an admitted political partisan that I can respect. I'm a staunch non-partisan, libertarian leaning, and believe in and reject a lot of principles that both sides of the isle adopt as defining, because I think both parties have adopted contradicting beliefs. I wish a lot more of us would be like you, on all sides, and realize that the other side isn't bent on destruction of the country, doesn't just consist of a bunch of awful stereotypes, etc. It takes all sorts to run this world!

[echoaj]

I'm a liberal and you are the type of Conservative I like. A traditional conservative who is not into name calling and will have a decent civil debate not an Alt-righter who bases their arguments on memes, division, trolling. etc..

Both sides have people that are there to fill their ego and paint one side as the devil.

I like Michael Moore tho. He is a good guy, very genuine and I think really cares for the American people. He just has solutions you don't agree with. He has good documentaries.

[Jordan_93]

I'm not from America so I don't know anything about the ongoing discussion about liberals and conservatives but what I got from your essay is that we should just all let everyone think for themselves and there aren't any wrong or good opinions nice take nonetheless

[HauteBrilliance]

tbh i don't understand how "don't be a pussy" is offensive? it just means stop being scared, get over yourself, don't be scared, etc. like, don't get me wrong, when people say "that's so gay" n shit like that, ya that's offensive but some of y'all get butt hurt for the stupidest things.

[goaded]

Most people don't know it's meant to be short for pusillanimous ("lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity"), not a reference to part of the female anatomy.

[YourFutureEx]

@goaded maybe not?
English.stackexchange.com/.../how-does-pussy-come-to-mean-coward

[Anonymous]

Agreed, unfortunately our country is severely divided and until we can all really truly listen to each other and figure stuff out it would be awesome and ideal. It's unfortunate that there has been so much negativity on all sides of the spectrum that it has come to broken friendships and relationships and violence. It's pretty sad, really.

[LittleSally]

I agree with the overall message - just stop wasting your time with negativity... But many people just don't want to do that - which is sad.

Admittedly - sometimes it's just funny - not because it's annoying but because it's SO ABSURD!

[CheerGirl38139]

Just curious how this fits with your insistence on keeping the word "slut" in your personal vocabulary?

[Jordan_93]

He probably just does this for up votes

[CheerGirl38139]

@Jordan_93 no. He's genuine, and a good guy.

But I find that we can all find some duplicity in ourselves if we are honest about it. ✌

[Jordan_93]

A good guy who uses the slut frequently, hmm okay if you say so

[CheerGirl38139]

@Jordan_93 I didn't say he uses it frequently. He knows what I meant.

You're free to leave your own opinion tho. 👌

[Jordan_93]

Are you being sarcastic? After everything I did for you😶

[CheerGirl38139]

@Jordan_93 click on my avatar bro.

Welcome to GaG 🙋

[Jordan_93]

I don't get it?

[CheerGirl38139]

@Jordan_93 😂😂😂👌

[Jordan_93]

Oh nevermind how do you know that I'm new?

[CheerGirl38139]

@Jordan_93 it says Xper1 next to your user name 😉

[Jordan_93]

Oh right haha

[OlderAndWiser]

The word "slut" stays in my mental vocabulary. I don't go around calling anyone "slut." Big difference.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Jordan_93 Wrong. I am not PC and don't pander to get public approval.

[CheerGirl38139]

Even when someone asks those questions on GaG?

[OlderAndWiser]

No. If someone wants my opinion, I will state my opinion. But I don't respond to questions by telling Asker that he or she is a slut. I don't try to convince someone that they need me to tell them how to conduct themselves. Slut shaming is calling someone a slut to their face, to try to induce shame, as a means of attempting to control their behavior. I do not do that.

[CheerGirl38139]

Yeah, we don't agree. I just wondered how you reconciled that slur compared with others that you wouldn't use.

I get so tired of hearing that "its in the dictionary".

Yeah... so is "n! gg@r" and I would never use that word, other than to point out that it's also a slur.

Anyway... there you go. ✌

[Idonotgivearatsass]

I tend to disagree, it would be unhealthy for everyone to get along... conflict is good for you, if you know how to manage it, just as a certain amount of hate is good. Of course, I'm impossible to pigeon hold, because I'll decide each individual issue on it's own merits... some need a conservative approach, others liberal and then there are those that fall in the middle, however, the vast majority of people in this country are incapable of looking at each issue on it's own, instead lumping everything into one giant cesspool and then deciding whether or not a liberal or conservative approach is the best.

[peachblossomluck]

Very well stated. Thank you:) By the way, I'm a Liberal. I think we can all stop taking digs at each other.

[es20490446e]

If we study history, we will see what conservative means: advocating for society not to change, give powers to emperors and rich people, distrust science, and everyone must believe in god because it's written in a book. Arabs, Jews and Niggas are wrong.

How shall I perceive it? It's simply the creed of not thinking.

[Rissyanne]

That thinking you have there... is the exact reason Trump was elected. Liberals love to insult and name call.

[OlderAndWiser]

This is the problem. "I am right so they are wrong. Therefore, they must be idiots. Perhaps if I call them names, they will be ashamed and change the way that they think. It may not be a nice thing to do but I am SO right that it is justified."

[es20490446e]

That said I never call names to anybody.

[OlderAndWiser]

That's what you say.

[es20490446e]

And whoever contradicts me contradics himself.

[OlderAndWiser]

Your opinion is noted and will be accorded the weight which it deserves.