darth_ender

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.

And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

It doesn’t take much tweaking to turn that statement true, however. Either you support him because he’s a racist or you support him because you believe the issues he’ll advance are important enough that his racism is an acceptable risk. Winston Churchill was a raving anti-Semite, Susan B Anthony was racist as shit, Thomas Jefferson owned and raped his wife’s half-sister. But people supported their causes and history still treats these people kindly because we still do.

I think the problem people on the Left have with Trump is that we thought society moved on a little bit further on racial issues than we really had, so we thought these historical examples didn’t apply to the present. Turns out, not so much.

There are slight differences, though. Trump made racism the centerpiece of his political campaign, and had no other coherent policy positions other than racism, so supporting him to advance a policy position that wasn’t inherently racist was an act of faith, rather than weighing the relative values of concrete ideals.

But you have to also understand how things are perceived. Gosh, I am not even trying to defend Trump; I can’t stand the man and I think he has permanently damaged conservative causes, as the prevailing opinion of this thread demonstrates. But this popular view that the majority of his supporter are racists as well is unfair, or at least mischaracterizing. The example of my father in an earlier post shows that many people didn’t support Trump out of racism. Yes, he has some minor racist tendencies, but he certainly wouldn’t support those extreme groups who feel empowered by Trump. To illustrate, I literally saw my father cry only once in all my childhood (he’s a bit more emotional now, but back then, he was a tough guy). The one time he cried was when he was watching To Kill a Mockingbird after Tom Robinson was killed. Is my father a deplorable?

From my own perspective, I oppose illegal immigration. However, I don’t support a wall that costs inordinate amounts of money, damages the ecology, and sends a nasty message to Mexico. I support immigration reform that allows for easier legal immigration, while enforcing laws that preserve our national security. Am I a racist? If you think I am, don’t tell my Latina wife.

Many conservatives enjoy the bombastic, oversimplification of the Trumps and Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world. They don’t see the building of a wall as inherently racist. They see it as a means of preserving law and order and security.

My point to this is that, while Trump is clearly a racist, I believe the majority of his supporters have deluded themselves into believing he is not. This is not because they too are racists (or at least not tremendously so). This is more because of their confirmation bias that has led them to believe that Trump is being misinterpreted by the media and he just is a little too outspoken.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Sorry, you missed again. Firstly, that was something Clinton said once, while Trump’s racism has been confirmed by every second of his existence.

I am sorry, but Hillary has revealed her arrogance and contempt for conservatives more than once.

Secondly, you misunderstand my position. I said that if you voted for Trump, you’re a racist or fine with voting for a racist. Under this statement, you cannot make the example you made—key word: “share.”

Actually, you said this:

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

The slightly different wording, plus the additional sentence that follows, creates a very different meaning, don’t you think?

dahmage said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

hillary never said half the country was deplorables. she said half of those supporting trump were. (or something like that) and for the record. yes i did agree with her. wasn’t a smart thing to say in a political race though.

You’re right, she did say half of Trump’s supporters filled what she termed a “basket full of deplorables.” I concede that point.

However, there are a lot of people who don’t share my views on pretty serious topics. To consider everyone with whom I strongly disagreed a deplorable is pretty arrogant. My dad, for instance, is a Trumpt supporter. He is also mildly racist, in the sense that he does hold some archaic views. But he is not antagonistic, would never protest equal treatment, would never condone separation of the races, etc. He does not see Trump as such a guy, either. He believes Trump’s s***hole comment, for instance, was taken out of context and was not racist in intent or view.

Now, I think my dad is actually a really good human being. Yes, he’s older, holds older views, some of which could be termed racist. However, if you think my dad is a deplorable individual, then it reveals more about your arrogance and the arrogance of any liberals who feel they are somehow better people because they don’t recognize their own biases and bigotry.

Possessed said:

I’m probably going in tonight to do another alcohol detox. It’s either that or I’ll end up killing myself.

I am happy to hear this and I hope you come through a stronger man for it.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

I’m not attacking you for saying this, but from my perspective conservatism has many misguided ideas like using supply-side economics (which historically doesn’t work), or removing regulations that protect businesses from hurting or taking advantage of people (a recent example of which is Net Neutrality).

I am genuinely interested in having examples of how conservatism has helped this country, and as a Democrat I’d like to hear it from someone who isn’t full of Fox News talking points. (Also I’m not saying that liberalism is somehow superior.)

In a room full of people who do not believe that certain conservative principles are worthwhile, it’s hard to argue for the value of certain conservative strengths. I agree with CatBus that ACA was actually a good conservative move, even if most Republicans are opposed to it. I don’t have the time to go into depth or do the research, but there are good conservative principles that even the Democrats support, whether they realize it or not.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.

And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Fallacy fallacy. Nice.

We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.

Except that you actually did create an either/or fallacy. But you’re right, if you insist on pointless games, nothing will result from it.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

You’re great at these non-responses.

Said the king of needless responses.

Could you please illustrate how I am great at non-responses? First, a non-response would have to hold no substance or bearing on the subject at hand, or it would have to evade the point of the initial topic. Second, if I’m good at it, you likely have several examples. If you could point to just a few, I would appreciate it.

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

Does it matter? If we set specific guidelines for when they are and are not permissible, then the “when” of the abortion doesn’t matter nearly as much.

Of course, other things could be taken into account, such as pain inflicted and such, but the issue becomes nearly moot.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

Well, it’s hard to sound intelligent in your arguments when one ignorantly makes insulting comments, but I hope the substance of my previous posts will be taken into account more than my error.

Yes, and I agree with your sentiment, seemingly on all fronts—from Frink’s responses, to conflating the bad apples with the whole bunch, to liberals thinking themselves or their arguments intellectually superior.

For myself though, I really wonder how often Republicans (or perhaps mainly those with power or influence?) use “defending the life and liberty of the child” as a banner of supposed morality when really that’s not their endgame at all. For example, it was people on the Republican side that conflated Starbucks removing winter depictions from their cups as a moral attack on Christmas.

I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of petulance on the Republican side, and I am actually pretty quick to condemn it. I don’t know how apparent I’ve made that on this forum, as I try to stay out of the political debates most of the time, but in real life, I make no bones about how I hate it when conservatives get up in arms over non-issues.

I appreciate your response.

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

We seem to be saying the same thing. It’s just that your use of ‘Democrat party’ could be interpreted to imply that the modern Democratic party has more than a nominal relationship to the party as it existed a century ago, and I wanted to give more historical context in this regard. The fact that many constituencies which were solidly Democratic many years ago in the south are now solidly Republican is not exactly in dispute.

I apologize, both for my snarkiness, as well as for my confused message. I was trying to say, as it seemed to me that Frink was painting Republicans or conservatives as hindrances to these progressions, that conservatives and Republicans have actually advocated for disadvantaged demographics and brought progress to the nation. Sure, the nature of both parties has changed drastically, but many of the core principles remain, and conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

Well, it’s hard to sound intelligent in your arguments when one ignorantly makes insulting comments, but I hope the substance of my previous posts will be taken into account more than my error.

I have often used the terms interchangeably. I was not trying to tie American Democrats to any Turkish parties. However, I have edited the original post for accuracy.

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Democrat Party

You can do better.

I’d like to know what you are taking issue with

Calling people by their preferred names is a sign of the most basic level of respect, and bothering to learn their preferred name is part of that. You don’t have to call Republicans “Rethuglicans” to be disrespectful. In Sci-Fi terms, When Doctor Who insists on calling Mickey “Ricky”, it’s a sign of disrespect, even if there’s nothing insulting about the name “Ricky” per se and it could have been an honest mistake the first time.

Forgive my obliviousness to what you’re referring to, but do members of the Democrat Party not prefer to have their party referred to as the Democrat Party?

Again, perhaps the offending context would be clarifying. You’ve removed the rest of the sentence.

JEDIT: Rereading my post, I only say Democrat Party once, and I don’t know how I misused it.

JEDIT x2: Oh, I guess I never realized that was offensive. I will fix it.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

Yeah 'cause that’s even close to what I said.

Not everything communicated is actually said. It’s essentially what you have implied, both in that comment and in past conversation in this thread.

Ok fine. If you think I’m implying you’re a racist, then it’s pointless to make another response to you. So this is my last.

No, I think you are generalizing all Republicans and conservatives as racists. It’s like, well, many racists!

Racist: Oh, those blacks are so prone to crime.

Nearby black guy: Now wait a minute! I’m not a criminal. I’m a well-respected citizen!

Racist: Well, I’m not talking about you of course. Just all those criminal black people.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

“Republican lawmakers, including Lindsay Graham.”

Feel better now?

Not really, because you use so much emotion about this issue to complete disrespect my views. You want to know something? I am very emotional about this topic as well, and not because I am an uneducated, anti-women knuckle-dragger.

I’m sorry your party has lost its way.

Bear in mind, I abandoned the GOP in September of 2016. I feel the Democratic Party is very lost as well. Truthfully, both parties make me sick. But in the case of abortion, I am much closer in alignment to the Republican Party, and not very aligned with the Party I now technically belong to (Libertarian).

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

A constructive dialogue would be possible if people were willing to talk and listen to each other. The 20 week point is when fetuses may be able to feel pain. I think circumstances do make a difference. Sadly, this all becomes a moot point. Inflicting pain and killing a life just because it is inconvenient/unwanted is what troubles me. Whatever policy views one has, I don’t know how one can’t be troubled by that.

Of course that troubles me. But the Republican Party tries to make all abortions illegal after 20 weeks, and that’s bullshit.

Some do. And I thought this wasn’t about the Republican Party. It was about one guy who said history was on his side.

Oh, I guess it was about one party’s views. Maybe you should go a reread the rest of my long post, now.

One guy plus everyone else who voted that way. Including a few asshole Democrats, by the way.

But he was the one who said the thing that really fired me up.

Since you’re not reading or comprehending my posts I don’t see why I should return the favor by the way.

Ah, this must be the very definition of perpetuating misunderstanding. I am at least attempting to understand. You are consciously choosing not to. Got it.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

Yeah 'cause that’s even close to what I said.

Not everything communicated is actually said. It’s essentially what you have implied, both in that comment and in past conversation in this thread.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Frink, I appreciate how much you have shared here. But there is no talking about it constructively because you always get so offended.

I’m offended by Lindsay Graham, and specifically his equating this issue to all the other civil rights issues of the past. I don’t believe a woman should be able to get an abortion at 37 weeks just because she’s changed her mind.

But many liberals do believe that. And I see nothing wrong with the equating of civil rights. Conservatives want to preserve life and freedom, and as I pointed out, Republicans (who were still conservative, even if the party was different then) advocated to end slavery and give women universal suffrage. They see restricting abortion as preserving the child’s rights and freedoms. There is a comparison to be made, whether you care for it or not.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

“Republican lawmakers, including Lindsay Graham.”

Feel better now?

Not really, because you use so much emotion about this issue to complete disrespect my views. You want to know something? I am very emotional about this topic as well, and not because I am an uneducated, anti-women knuckle-dragger.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

A constructive dialogue would be possible if people were willing to talk and listen to each other. The 20 week point is when fetuses may be able to feel pain. I think circumstances do make a difference. Sadly, this all becomes a moot point. Inflicting pain and killing a life just because it is inconvenient/unwanted is what troubles me. Whatever policy views one has, I don’t know how one can’t be troubled by that.

Of course that troubles me. But the Republican Party tries to make all abortions illegal after 20 weeks, and that’s bullshit.

Some do. And I thought this wasn’t about the Republican Party. It was about one guy who said history was on his side.

Oh, I guess it was about one party’s views. Maybe you should go a reread the rest of my long post, now.

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

A constructive dialogue would be possible if people were willing to talk and listen to each other. The 20 week point is when fetuses may be able to feel pain. I think circumstances do make a difference. Sadly, this all becomes a moot point. Inflicting pain and killing a life just because it is inconvenient/unwanted is what troubles me. Whatever policy views one has, I don’t know how one can’t be troubled by that.

Agreed, and while I sympathize with TV’s Frink’s plight and actually support his stance in those specific circumstances, his purely emotional argument any time someone tries to discuss the topic interferes with any constructive dialogue. To me, the circumstances do matter. Even the time frame, while not enough of a justification for me, is still pertinent to the debate, as you have pointed out, Mrebo.

Frink, I appreciate how much you have shared here. But there is no talking about it constructively because you always get so offended.