> If about 47% of your country was happy to kill democracy and reward immoral behaviour just to retain power
And these 47% would say exactly the same thing about the others. That’s the divide GP was pointing out and ironically your response is perpetuating it. Stop dehumanizing people.
But there was only one side that is proven literally trying to kill democracy. There is no both sides in this argument.
The republicans might be crying about it, but they have zero proof. Whereas they've literally given us their plan out loud of how they were going to cheat. And they followed through.
A lot of the right-wing people that I follow also seem to think that they are having democracy taken away from them. They point to their freedom of speech being restricted, biased fact checkers, big tech being against them, and ballot stuffing.
Except there really was one candidate who would have been happy to kill democracy.
I can't speak for the beliefs or rationale of the people who voted for him but its crystal clear what Donald Trump stood for.
I don't think its dehumanizing to talk about the fact that lots people, many or most individually good, chose to vote for a sexist, racist, authoritarian.
And does anybody really doubt at this point that Trump is those things?
Even though it is a difficult, unpleasant, and heated conversation to have.
> What do you think those 47% want with gays, abortion (is murder!!!!) and foreigners?
Trump didn’t run on an anti-gay platform.
You’re right that anti-abortion is still big. Until you can convince people that it’s not murder, it’s pretty hard to get them to back down from that stance. This is honestly the only reason the Republicans trap so much of the religious vote.
“Foreigners” is also not something Republicans are against, it’s illegal immigration that’s the complaint. That’s why they support reforms that still allow significant immigration.
> Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go against their religious views about such activities.
> Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
And these 47% would say exactly the same thing about the others. That’s the divide GP was pointing out and ironically your response is perpetuating it. Stop dehumanizing people.