Good point that makes sense!

Sure, but if fetuses are people, you should be able to take out a policy at about 6 weeks.

Great, show them. At no point do they say this is my opinion or this is what I think.

Will do.

YOUR comment, which you somehow claim does not express YOUR opinion:

It is true if you believe that it takes more to being a woman than just saying you’re a woman. That seems to be where the disagreement lies.

-MANY of these, which are usually triggered by slurs:

-Coupla trolls and a verbal attack, but hey…

-Getting jucier:

-Ahhh:

-And there it is:

As a group, for folks so convinced you have the moral high ground, you really seem to be prone to denying your own actions. You’d think you’d be proud to stand by your words.

In any case…

Take care.

And you as well. I’ll be blocking you now, so you won’t have to worry about any future fact checking from me.

To be spreading bigotry I would first have to express my opinion, which i never did.

Except for in that moderator removed comment that began this lovely discourse between you and I. I replied while it was still up, so I know what it said. Did you know anyone can see those here?

https://slrpnk.net/modlog?commentId=15633710

And that ain’t all you can see.

https://slrpnk.net/modlog?userId=11402933

results in name calling and bullying even if it didn’t even occur.

Believe me, when I find a conservative expressing a non-repugnant opinion some day, I’ll be so excited to have found such a unicorn that I’ll be happy to give credit where it’s due.

“Bullying” is what conservatives call it when you call them out on their bullshit. Like how we spent several years having to listen to every conservative on social media somehow use social media to tell us they were being unfairly driven from social media.

The party of taking things away.

It applies to literally anything they champion.

Thank you for at least responding to what was claimed instead of something that was not. I have some nipticks (such as sussing out why those criteria were chosen - seems pretty clear to me), but I’ll dig into your links!

Not saying they are, and neither is the article referenced in the meme.

And by the criteria used for the study, their attitudes and values don’t substantially differ. That’s the point of the article, and is a distinctly different statement than “both sides are the same” - because there is a spectrum of folks on that “side” as I outlined in another reply.

Here is the article shown in the meme: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/biden-moderate-democrats-republicans-conservative-study-john-kasich-aoc-a9699431.html

Here is a snippet of that article:

Our findings show that concerns about political moderates — and specifically politically moderate men — are not unfounded. As America battles a global pandemic and an economic collapse and reckons with systemic racism, IDEALS suggests that moderate men may be the least likely to make a positive difference.

When broken down by political leaning, IDEALS found that moderate male students in their senior year were time and again the least likely, or among the least likely, to somewhat or strongly agree with the following statements:

And here is the table they are referring to in that quote:

Also thank you for not making a deal out of my typo, which I will now go correct.

Here’s a very exhaustive 2019 article demonstrating it’s not a new concern:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/kamala-cop-record/596758/

I can forgive a politician a vote on a crime bill that looks ill-conceived two decades later, or a too-slow evolution toward marijuana legalization, or even a principled belief in the death penalty, something I adamantly oppose. I find it far harder to forgive fighting to keep a man in jail in the face of strong evidence of innocence, running a team of prosecutors that withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and utterly failing as the state’s top prosecutor to rein in glaringly corrupt district attorneys and law enforcement.

At best, Harris displayed a pattern of striking ignorance about scandalous misconduct in hierarchies that she oversaw. And she is now asking the public to place her atop a bigger, more complicated, more powerful hierarchy, where abuses and unaccountable officials would do even more to subvert liberty and justice for all.

And here is a recent article about her campaign, which discusses some of the related points, including her own staffs refusal to admit the same: (more detail within the article) To be fair, it does not claim that was the only factor (nor do I, but IMO it was enough to make the difference, and it was fucking disappointing)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kamala-harris-what-went-wrong-1235183829/

Here’s what that conversation didn’t include: any mention of voters who may have sat out the election in disgust over the American-underwritten atrocities in Gaza; any meaningful engagement with the critique that attempting to court Republican voters might have come at the expense of turning out party faithful;

Here’s where she agreed to ensure Republicans would have a seat at her cabinet, and a discussion of her Republican-targeted campaign ads in AZ: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/14/kamala-harris-ad-trump-arizona-00183578

Here’s an article discussing the national strategy to target Republicans:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/harris-campaign-launches-new-ad-aimed-persuable-republicans-rcna173907

And another:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/politics/harris-rural-red-county-strategy/index.html

Even fox news got in on the action: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-campaign-organizes-target-republican-voters-touts-support-from-gop-dissenters

You can read more about it in your pick of articles here:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kamala+campaign+targeted+republicans

And ultimately - you don’t have to agree. To me it was readily apparent as it was happening, but if not, I think several of those articles describe the phenomenon persuasively.

Republicans showed their asses all through 2017-2020 worse than they have in recent decades. By any reasonable measure, the party should have imploded. Instead, it compelled the supposed opposition party to move to the right to compete with open faced fascism. That’s not OK.

old traditional Republicans like Liz Cheney

Just one more thing - you may want to do some reading about the history of the Cheney family, and consider whether anyone in their right mind would say “Yes, it’s a good idea to put a Cheney up on stage at the DNC while simultaneously disallowing anyone, even elected representatives, to speak for a single moment in support of the people of Gaza.” Because no one needed tea leaves to see that was a bad idea even without the Gaza angle.

Yes I do, but neither I nor the meme is claiming “both sides are the same” nor that any of this would have happened if Kamala had won:

Kamala Harris would undoutable be accepting open bribes for the Qatari government of a 747 jumbo jet which she’d still own personally after her term in office. I’m sure we’d also be stocked up on KAMALACOIN too. The HARRIS GOLD CARD for immigration preferential treatment would certainly have happened. Canada, Europe, and our other allies around the world would absolutely still be citing and recognizing the end of American leadership around the world. Tim Walz would have demanded Zelensky say “thank you” to Harris during their White House meeting.

You are dropping this as some kind of gotcha, when it refutes no claim I have made.

removed an extra word

And progressives chose to stay home on election day rather than vote for someone who isn’t 100% in agreement with them on everything.

Not this one. I held my nose and voted Harris.

I appreciate your lengthy response, but I disagree with you on some fundamentals, especially but not only your portrayal of Harris’ campaign and progressive policies.

I’m not donning a tinfoil hat nor breaking any new ground, nor even veering off from fairly mainstream analyses of Kamala’s campaign to say she tried harder for R votes than for D votes. You can disagree, but I don’t think you will convince me otherwise. Plenty of articles out there written by folks more eloquent than I break it down better than I could or would try to here.

they are just self-aware enough to not be dismissed outright, but not self-aware enough to actually change a thing about themselves and become a better person.

That really covers the whole ball of wax, doesn’t it? This is exactly the attitude I have towards someone who describes themselves as a political centrist in any context.

You guys are really on a roll with these strawmen, keep them coming!

edit role/roll whoops!

It’s unfortunate that you see it this way, but you do you.

I prefer to see it as a reminder of things like this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642

Both sides aren’t the same, but there’s a big chunk of Dems that are really close to the Repubs, then there are the Dems who are actually working for progress and change. (Which I hear there’s an entire study about somewhere.)

There are also the Dems who only support progressive issues when they are convenient.

If what we want out of our Dems is something other than R-lite, it’s a distinction to be highlighted more, not less.

For example, when Kamala spent most of her campaign courting R votes instead of D votes, which really didn’t pan out well, I hear.

I’m a progressive and open to multiple correct worldviews, except the maga one, which I know to be wrong, immoral, and harmful to my fellow man. I find that to be common sense.

To be fair, that’s another thing that we seem to have allowed the right to take from us, just like the Gadsen Flag. Plenty of people use the term “common sense” without using it in the way recently popularized by US fascists.

I do find it interesting that your side has taken the position that anyone that disagrees with you in any way is your enemy.

You are willfully spreading bigotry via strawmen and a poor understanding of those you seek to oppress. That’s what makes you my enemy. Not that you disagree “in any way.”

I dont belong to any party thanks.

So? No reason to think you voted for anyone other than Trump based on positions you’ve expressed. And even if you did, you are clearly on board with the destruction of everything that doesn’t center cis white hetero men as is currently taking place.

Sopme people believe folks should be who they are, and others want to force them into boxes, discriminate against them, and generally poke their nose into shit that’s none of their business, and that they poorly understand in any case.

Most of those same folks in the second group are real big on taking rights away from anyone who isn’t like them. (GOP is, after all, the party of taking things away, and has been for as long as I can remember.)

And no one really wants that shit here, or has much tolerance for it.

You are getting what you want in the streets right now, a lot of terror being visited on those who don’t conform to the maga worldview. They’ll get around to physically attacking queer folks soon instead of just trying to take their rights away. So go ahead and enjoy it until we find a way to put a stop to it, but don’t come here to try spreading more of your baseless shit and expect a warm welcome.

That seems to be where the disagreement lies.

No, it’s where your strawman lies.

…Except that qualified immunity exists,

Qualified immunity specifically does not apply in cases where someone’s clearly established civil rights were violated, though the criteria for that is specific. Further, it applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases. It may certainly help them in some instances, but it’s not going to be a blanket shield.

1 Was a constitutional right violated?

2 Was the right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation?

https://www.justia.com/civil-rights/government-violations-of-civil-rights/qualified-immunity/

Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law.” While this is an amorphous, malleable standard, it generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts.

In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the victim has no legal remedy, simply because that precise sort of misconduct had not occurred in past cases.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/

While yes, IANAL, I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated by the behaviors of ICE under Trump, in many, many circumstances.