From what I have read here all Trump supports are dumb uneducated Southern rural living rednecks. It looks like the ones supporting Trump may not have any First Amendment rights in NY City. FDNY boss Laura Kavanagh hunts down staffers who booed NY AG Letitia James, cheered for Trump at promotion ceremony
Is that right? ALL of them? Are you sure you're not just trying to play victim by exaggerating what the mean people say on a message board? I'm pretty sure that employers have some latitude in dictating expression of employees at official functions. You should check that out before the sorrowful lamentation about suppression of Trump supporters' 1st Amendment rights. You're not all always victims, ya know. No matter how nice it apparently is to feel that way.
I don't know if they do or not. I just posted a article bringing up the question. I don't care who they are or where they come from myself. I was just going by what some have written here on this thread. Why would I be a victim? I don't care about any of it, but I can sit here and talk shit just like most of the other posters on here.
You're "question" was pointing out how mean people were to so unkindly characterize the voters of a criminal traitor. Then to lament that those people, in your apparent observation, were having their rights infringed upon. You wanted people to lament how patently unfair it is for those poor, downtrodden people. Since you are one of them, it was just your opportunity to play victim. Please don't do so though, if you don't mind. The unfairness and victimhood you endure makes me feel very sad inside.
Usually, gov’t employees are not allowed to electioneer while in uniform or on duty. Sometimes gov’t employees are required to attend official functions that may include elected officials they do not like in which case they are required to keep their mouths shut. I don’t believe this is a question of1st amendment rights being violated but rather one of a employer-employee relationship
I didn't write the article. Not sure where you get all these things you think I want or feel like. And you have no clue what I am one of whatever that is. I do know what you are one of though.
So it is your view that one party is evil and the other is not? That’s the way you think people work?
No, but you presented it. Why? Because it's such a great example of how mean people are when they describe Trump voters. Sad. We share your pain. You've alluded that you're a Trump voter. Or at least a Republican voter. Which at this stage of things is the same as saying that you're OK with voting for a party led by a guy who led a criminal conspiracy to overturn a federal election, which included coercing state officials, establishing slates of fake electors, and idly watching as his supporters beat the crap out of hundreds of cops. So you're OK with all that, but here you are wanting sympathy because you feel aggrieved at how people view Trump voters. And you feel aggrieved about Trumpys' 1A rights because you don't understand 1A very well, apparently. Well, here's your sympathy : boo hoo. Sorry life made you such a victim.
You are very correct. This board leans very left and the hate is concentrated and real. The libbies are supposedly all about tolerance, with one large exception…they despise white, rural Christian men. Some might even call that…racist.
I am an old white rural male and don’t feel despised by anyone. I’m one of the most tolerable people I know. In this town there is a business with a large billboard saying Liberals are communists and F your climate change. On the door of the establishment is a sign saying If You Voted For Joe Biden You Are Not Welcome Here. To me they seem intolerant and hateful and just a-holes in general, but since I am an old white guy I am able to pass as intolerant and hateful so they let me in where there are many other similar signs vilifying Hillary and Obama and liberals in general available for me to ignore. Never been in a store with signs saying Conservatives not wanted, and I am Asheville semi-regularly, although there may be one somewhere.
My answer here is somewhat nuanced. Evil is a broad term that can refer to a lot of things. To a degree we all are evil in one way another. Pride, gossip, lust, selfishness, greed, laziness, hatred, unforgiving spirits, lying, stealing, blasphemy, idolatry, covetousness...all of these are examples of evil that are quite universal among human beings. It is why we all need salvation. If we all made a pact to not vote for someone who is evil, then no one would cast any votes and we would not have any people in political office. So, what we are really discussing in politics is degrees of evil. Not all people are equally evil, and not all parties are equally evil. Some types of evil are more malevolent and harmful in nature than others. Some instances of evil are of greater severity than others. Given the capacity of government to harm others, it matters who we support and who we do not support. To answer plainly, I do not believe the DNC and the RNC are in the same neighborhood when we analyze questions like this. I think efforts to equivocate between the two is like trying to equivocate stage 2 and stage 4 cancer because both stage 2 and stage 4 cancer are cancer. The DNC is stage 4 cancer IMO. They are more corrupt from a moral standpoint. We know this from what they shamelessly advocate out in the open. There is a progression to being given over to evil, and it starts in secret. There is a stage where a person hides in shame. Then like cancer it progresses from hiding in shame to boasting about it in the open without shame. The DNC does this. They glamorize evil. They celebrate it. To my knowledge the RNC as a whole does not do this. There are certainly examples of morally corrupt people in the RNC, but it is not in the same neighborhood as what we see in the DNC.
I can tell that you are a very decent person, even if you are a dem…it comes through in your writing. You ostensibly reside in a red area or a red state…I’m sure you do not fear for your safety though. I’d hesitate on planting that Biden sign in your yard lol.
"Then like cancer it progresses from hiding in shame to boasting about it in the open without shame. The DNC does this. They glamorize evil. They celebrate it." You do not produce examples of these evils that the DNC both glamorizes and celebrates?
I I feel no compulsion to advertise my choices of politicians. Wouldn’t matter anyway as we are the last house on a dead end road. Only the lost would see it. Also, I’m a NPA - most recently a Republican until January 2021.
Yeah, this book is typical soft social science garbage. See here for two researchers whose work was used in the book. The Truth About 'Rural Rage' The overarching argument of White Rural Rage is that ruralness can be equated with racism, xenophobia, conspiracism, and anti-democratic beliefs. But rigorous scholarship shows that rural identity is not reducible to these beliefs, which are vastly more numerous outside rural communities than within them. To get to a conclusion so at odds with the scholarly consensus, Schaller and Waldman repeatedly commit academic malpractice. Consider the "ecological fallacy" of political geography, on which some of the most salacious arguments in White Rural Rage depend. Most people know that you cannot argue something about individuals because of how groups to which that individual belongs behave. The most famous example of this poor reasoning is thinking that because the richest states of Massachusetts and California vote Democratic, rich people everywhere vote Democrat. The opposite is true. But Schaller and Waldman depend on this well-known fallacy to support their most provocative claims. Because authoritarianism predicted support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries and because rural residents tend to support Trump, they say rural residents are the most likely to be authoritarian. Because white evangelicals are most likely to support Christian nationalist beliefs and because 43 percent of rural residents identify as evangelical, they say the hotbed of Christian nationalism is in rural communities. Perhaps the most egregious form of guilt-by-association comes in a weakly sourced analysis of who supports "constitutional sheriffs": Not a single study of rural attitudes is cited in that section of the book. It gets worse. In several instances, the authors misinterpret what the academic research they cite says. For example, they use a report by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats to argue that "rural Americans are overrepresented among those with insurrectionist tendencies." But the actual report concludes exactly the opposite: "The more rural the county, the lower the county rate of sending insurrectionists" to the January 6 Capitol riot. Moreover, when a peer-reviewed article in the journal Political Behavior compared rural and non-rural beliefs on whether politically motivated violence is a valid means for pursuing political change, it revealed that rural Americans are actually less supportive of political violence. Furthermore, the book takes six pages to decry rural people whom drive trucks for non-work purposes. It never ceases to amaze me how urban dwelling, permanently online leftists still haven't discovered the fact that people tow and haul for recreational and home improvement purposes. Oh, well. At least leftists got a few days to inject that sweet, sweet, moral superiority directly into their veins.
So, non-work purposes? This is like someone in a city buying an F250 because they sometimes buy in bulk from Costco or have a boat lol. Which definitely happens too. Also something ridiculous that should be decried. You seem to have missed the point. I'm not sure they have any better reason to own one of those vehicles than anyone else that say the same thing.
