
Someone I grew up with voted Trump in the recent election, and surface level that made me mad, but when I discussed with them about it, it was basically they were focused on one single issue and they thought Trump was the more likely candidate to solve it. They regret voting how they did now, but I don’t fault them for it. I think there is a difference between MAGA and Republicans/people who voted Orange, and we need to start making that distinction.
This comment section is exactly what the two party system is trying to accomplish. It also explains why no intelligent individual wants to debate politics anymore. There is far too much emotion involved to accomplish anything productive. If you “hate” the other side while refusing to work to understand their mindset then you can understand why no sane person would bother trying to debate with you. Not to mention the logical fallacies thrown around in this comment section alone. Hate is control.
Ok this is American soldiers protecting “or freedoms” in Iraq in the early 2000’s. A million Iraqis died so we could steal their gold and magaz or conservatives or republicans are voting for Venezuelans to die so we can take their oil. You people bring the greatest shame to the United States since slavery
I got banned from yak for two days cus I made a completely unrelated JFK post. Anyways, all of these comments confirm that yes, there are some dems who can’t communicate and devolve to insults. But it also confirms that there are no MAGA members that can defend a single MAGA policy without devolving to name calling
Charlie Kirk was a terrible debater. He used every illogical fallacy in the book. He interrupted people constantly. He used religion to defend secular policy. He didn’t deserve to die, but he was a terrible debater. And also “our side” didn’t kill him. One person killed him. Allegedly. I still think it was Israel but we’ll see at the trial.
My feelings were never hurt? What you’re doing there is a straw man argument. He did argue against a lot of people and won some of them. But if you want to see him argue against educated people, google the video of when he went to London and got absolutely obliterated into silence. Kirk was entertaining to watch argue against stupid college freshmen. He was not a skilled debater
You say ‘your side’ as if by that one comment alone you can guess my political alliance. You understand politics are a diverse spectrum, yes? Furthermore, Charlie Kirk was not a skilled debater. Go check out the videos of him going to very highly respected and acknowledged institutions and getting absolutely devoured by kids younger than him. I implore you to expand your horizons on who Charlie Kirk actually was and his illogical arguments.
just a polite correction— robinson was not politically affiliated, came from a republican family, and was living with a trans person who was rumored to be his boyfriend/girlfriend (whatever). i don't think robinson acted alone, but that's an entire different topic. we simply don't have enough info since all his socials were scrubbed (surprise, surprise).
Most significant definition of corruption that I’m working off of is a government that steals money from the people (like in the form of taxes) and instead of using that money to fund our country (schools, hospitals, food and housing, roads,…libraries…and more) they use it to kill people overseas and steal their resources (oil, gold, poppy fields). That’s corruption.
Oh hell yeah. You can argue all you want I’ve grow up in a conservative community my whole entire life talked down to by people smarter than you and not one of them could fool me into their blood for oil policies. I’m not speaking to you nice now because I think you’re smart I’m speaking nice because you called my previous messages verbal abuse said you got your feelings hurt. Welcome to the tolerant left
I haven’t said a word about me being smart or about trying to change your mind… I’m just trying to understand ur views. As for the verbal abuse allegations, I was responding to ur post saying “anyone who can’t handle being insulted while discussing politics”. Last I checked insults are verbal abuse. I also didn’t say I wouldn’t engage with you because I obviously have. I was saying you can’t call people naive for not wanting to engage with you. (This hasn’t been very productive)
he was influenced by a further right celebrity, used far right dog whistles from 4-chan i believe, and wasn't transgender. that just started because at first it was "it's a brown person/it's an immigrant" but they found out he was white, so they moved to their other current target. he was decided to be cisgender and they started saying actually he's dating a trans person, then roommates with, then his landlord was trans. there was no evidence for any of this.
#17, that did not happen. Not only did you not dm me, but I was banned for 48 hours for something unrelated. I didn’t call you any names because we didn’t speak. I wish I was kidding. You’re a liar and know it and when I saw this post and knew I couldn’t respond, it angered me because 28 people will believe whatever fits their narrative, a false narrative you created.