So contextualize it, then Phil. Make the case on the merits, rather than act like the case is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained. A lazy tactic often-used by people who can't make the case on its merits.
MAGA supporters on here were recently cheering on the idea of schoolteachers spanking misbehaving students. In that case, they should be happy at Biden's speech where he verbally spanked the misbehaving members of America in front of the whole class.
Here is our context, Biden claims that MAGA Republicans are a problem for our country. He clarifies that he isn't talking about all Republicans, and to make sure people understands who he is talking about, he defines MAGA Republicans: Now we are trying to figure out how this fits into that context: This is another key to recognizing MAGA Republicans. If they are doing those other things and this as well, chances are pretty good they are MAGA Republicans. If they are only do this, and not those other things, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Does that help?
I am talking about something that I don’t believe has ever happened in this country before and involves a massive amount of people. Poll after poll shows that about 70% of the people who voted for Trump continue to say that he won the election. That’s about 50 million people. Trump created this out of thin air, but 50 million people want him to be reinstated as president even though they know he lost. What are they other than traitors? Are they just uneducated morons? And, they are voting for candidates who continue to preach the big lie, and who intend to change the laws so their candidates will be elected even if they actually lose. You can’t turn the other cheek on what is happening even though a massive amount of people appear to support overthrowing American democracy. This is what happens in many countries around the world. Complacency must not be allowed to take hold.
Interesting... it helps, but not much. How many of those boxes do you have to check for you to be a "MAGA Republican," and therefore, an enemy of the Republic? It's ambiguous and I think that's the point.
Supporting a right to life for unborn fetuses hurts our democracy? If you have a traditional view of marriage and believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you're a threat to democracy?
Be clear, Phil. Do these policy disagreements I mentioned make one a threat to Democracy? Don't beat around the bush.
A single one of them, by itself? Probably not. Any six or seven of them, possibly. Most screenings and diagnostic tools related to humans don't have clear cutoffs.
Not sure I like the “MAGA Republican” phrase. There are some MAGAs who aren’t registered Republican, for example. Many may be in the South who never formally changed parties - but still. Plus, it’s just a broad phrase which could alienate those who voted for Trump for partisan or policy reasons but don’t support what happened on January 6th. My concern is about those, for example, who think the break-in and attack on the Capitol was justified. Seems like a pretty fair metric to me in terms of the danger to democracy. I’ve read that number is as many as a third of Republicans alone. If correct, that’s over 10 million Americans without even getting to independents and registered Democrats.
So a combination of policy disagreements regarding issues like abortion and same sex marriage can make one a threat to the Republic. Thank you, Phil. That's all I wanted to know. If that's what you believe, and that's what Joe Biden said, it's terrible, but at least have the honesty to recognize that speech as divisive.
Again, you insist on taking small parts out of context. Why are you so determined to get as close to the edge as you can? A combination of policy disagreements regarding issues like abortion and same sex marriage that includes a willingness to engage in violence can make one a threat to the Republic.
If protecting the lives of the unborn and traditional Christians values means me "getting as close to the edge as I can," I'd be happy being the biggest "edgelord" in the world. I'm doing something right. And if that means I'm being "divisive," I have no interest in unity. But the truth is, that's not me being divisive. Joe Biden calling people with these beliefs a "threat to the republic" is divisive.
What if there was no willingness to engage in violence? Only policy disagreements. You say I'm persistent on standing close to the edge. You seem persistent on stigmatizing people with mere policy disagreements as "threats to the republic."
Yes, both you and he contradict that statement. All you have to do is say, "715, people with mere policy disagreements do not pose a threat to our democracy or our republic, even if it's regarding issues like gay marriage or abortion." You do that, and I'm good.
