Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

What's the answer for those who believe wokeism is a bigger danger to the country than a bunch of bumpkins who think Trump is their savior?

You're awfully critical of those of us who would hold our nose and vote for Trump, when you are unable to proffer a viable alternative. Some people don't believe 4 more years of wokeism is better for the country. I am surprised you do.

---

I also believe wokeism is probably a bigger danger in the long run, in the same way that communism was a bigger danger than fascism. The left's victims numbered in the 100 millions and those of right perhaps only in the tens of millions. The distinction becomes somewhat academic when you're living under the boot. The European fascist regimes of the last century, which we now see were so terrible, arose to a large extent from fear of the left. It was not an unreasonable fear, either. A strong leader is very appealing when mobs are running rampant, burning down churches, etc. But there is a high price. The most important choice is not between the tyranny of the right or the left, but between tyranny and the rule of law. It's more important than what happens in any one election. It may not always have a champion, but we must insist on it. That's the viable alternative.

---

Practically speaking, what are you suggesting then? Let's say Trump gets the nomination. Is it sit out the election and allow wokeism to rule the day? You see 4 more years of Trump as a bigger danger than Democrat rule?

---

Yes, I'll sit out if he's nominated. There are many fronts on which to fight wokeism. I supported Trump in 2016, despite my misgivings, because there were huge implications for SCOTUS that year. That was the key battle at the time. Trump followed through and put us in a good position to defend ourselves for many years to come. Republicans need to focus on being a party that can actually govern and implement better solutions than the Dems (see health care, for example). There's a spiritual front as well. Marxism appeals to people who struggle with lack of meaning in their lives. So does right-wing extremism for that matter. As Christians I think we need to take a step back and look at what we've become associated with. I'm not just talking about mean tweets. Politics is rough, but this is more than that. The open reveling in lies, paranoia, and even violence is counter-productive to our witness. A lot of people seem to think it's an effective weapon against the craziness of the left, but it isn't. Acting crazy just makes one look crazy.

---

On what other fronts are you fighting wokeism, if not at the ballot box?

I don't disagree with much of your post. I simply don't believe we fight wokeism by allowing the woke to get elected, and to enact their woke ideas, whether through legislation or executive order. 8 years of woke rule will only further erode the mores you and I hold dear. Imagine what kind of legislation would have passed but for a moderate like Manchin. What will the new normal be in 2028? Undoubtedly, even further to the left than where we are currently. Most likely also closer to nuclear war, given the current trajectory. Is that worse than Trump, as bad as you and I agree that he is?

I hear what you are saying, but I just don't know.

---

We can vote for other conservatives. The Senate is an example of how Trump hurts us even there. He didn't help in Georgia last time around. His picks aren't looking great this year. So we get stuck with someone like Manchin, or worse.

It's a two-party system. Dems are going to get laws passed sometimes. Biden is a relatively moderate politician. If his legislation is as unconstitutional as we fear it might be, it's still subject to review in the courts. Look the some of the victories we've had lately. The Heller and Dobbs cases, for example. Those were the product of decades of patient work. There were setbacks along the way, but that's part of the process. That's how you get lasting change.

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

There are many Republicans, like me, who did not support Trump's divisive rhetoric. Dems call it out only when they other side does it.

I fail to see how Trump "divided" the nation. When Hillary lost, the Democrats reaction was the divisive factor. Biden promised to unify and he has not,

Having said that, please tell me how Trump divided the nation....and how has Biden unified.

---

Biden hasn't done much of anything. He is basically a living stereotype. If you think liberals are weak, pandering, and ineffectual, he exemplifies those qualities to an almost cartoonish degree.

Trump lost the election in 2020. He demanded to be reinstated as president last week. That says all you need to know about how divisive he's been, but if you need more, just look at everything he's said and done in the last two years. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote that wasn't designed to provoke outrage. He's still selling the same lies that have led to violence in the past. He's got a majority of Republicans convinced the system only works if he and his chosen candidates win. And so on.

---

But he's not President...and the Dems ARE STILL focused on him and blaming him for everything. I'd say his reaction is what I'd expect after two wasteful impeachment hearings. Trump is and has always been focused on himself....but so are the Dems. THEY keep bringing him up.

---

If the only time he's not divisive is when we pretend he doesn't exist, that's pretty much an admission that he's divisive. And he brought the second impeachment on himself. He's also the front-runner for 2024, so it's not like he's sitting quietly on the sidelines.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

What's the answer for those who believe wokeism is a bigger danger to the country than a bunch of bumpkins who think Trump is their savior?

You're awfully critical of those of us who would hold our nose and vote for Trump, when you are unable to proffer a viable alternative. Some people don't believe 4 more years of wokeism is better for the country. I am surprised you do.

---

I also believe wokeism is probably a bigger danger in the long run, in the same way that communism was a bigger danger than fascism. The left's victims numbered in the 100 millions and those of right perhaps only in the tens of millions. The distinction becomes somewhat academic when you're living under the boot. The European fascist regimes of the last century, which we now see were so terrible, arose to a large extent from fear of the left. It was not an unreasonable fear, either. A strong leader is very appealing when mobs are running rampant, burning down churches, etc. But there is a high price. The most important choice is not between the tyranny of the right or the left, but between tyranny and the rule of law. It's more important than what happens in any one election. It may not always have a champion, but we must insist on it. That's the viable alternative.

---

Practically speaking, what are you suggesting then? Let's say Trump gets the nomination. Is it sit out the election and allow wokeism to rule the day? You see 4 more years of Trump as a bigger danger than Democrat rule?

---

Yes, I'll sit out if he's nominated. There are many fronts on which to fight wokeism. I supported Trump in 2016, despite my misgivings, because there were huge implications for SCOTUS that year. That was the key battle at the time. Trump followed through and put us in a good position to defend ourselves for many years to come. Republicans need to focus on being a party that can actually govern and implement better solutions than the Dems (see health care, for example). There's a spiritual front as well. Marxism appeals to people who struggle with lack of meaning in their lives. So does right-wing extremism for that matter. As Christians I think we need to take a step back and look at what we've become associated with. I'm not just talking about mean tweets. Politics is rough, but this is more than that. The open reveling in lies, paranoia, and even violence is counter-productive to our witness. A lot of people seem to think it's an effective weapon against the craziness of the left, but it isn't. Acting crazy just makes one look crazy.

---

On what other fronts are you fighting wokeism, if not at the ballot box?

I don't disagree with much of your post. I simply don't believe we fight wokeism by allowing the woke to get elected, and to enact their woke ideas, whether through legislation or executive order. 8 years of woke rule will only further erode the mores you and I hold dear. Imagine what kind of legislation would have passed but for a moderate like Manchin. What will the new normal be in 2028? Undoubtedly, even further to the left than where we are currently. Most likely also closer to nuclear war, given the current trajectory. Is that worse than Trump, as bad as you and I agree that he is?

I hear what you are saying, but I just don't know.

---

Hopefully Sam will buy one of the major entertainment networks and start weeding out the shows and movies promoting wokeism.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

What's the answer for those who believe wokeism is a bigger danger to the country than a bunch of bumpkins who think Trump is their savior?

You're awfully critical of those of us who would hold our nose and vote for Trump, when you are unable to proffer a viable alternative. Some people don't believe 4 more years of wokeism is better for the country. I am surprised you do.

---

I also believe wokeism is probably a bigger danger in the long run, in the same way that communism was a bigger danger than fascism. The left's victims numbered in the 100 millions and those of right perhaps only in the tens of millions. The distinction becomes somewhat academic when you're living under the boot. The European fascist regimes of the last century, which we now see were so terrible, arose to a large extent from fear of the left. It was not an unreasonable fear, either. A strong leader is very appealing when mobs are running rampant, burning down churches, etc. But there is a high price. The most important choice is not between the tyranny of the right or the left, but between tyranny and the rule of law. It's more important than what happens in any one election. It may not always have a champion, but we must insist on it. That's the viable alternative.

---

Practically speaking, what are you suggesting then? Let's say Trump gets the nomination. Is it sit out the election and allow wokeism to rule the day? You see 4 more years of Trump as a bigger danger than Democrat rule?

---

Yes, I'll sit out if he's nominated. There are many fronts on which to fight wokeism. I supported Trump in 2016, despite my misgivings, because there were huge implications for SCOTUS that year. That was the key battle at the time. Trump followed through and put us in a good position to defend ourselves for many years to come. Republicans need to focus on being a party that can actually govern and implement better solutions than the Dems (see health care, for example). There's a spiritual front as well. Marxism appeals to people who struggle with lack of meaning in their lives. So does right-wing extremism for that matter. As Christians I think we need to take a step back and look at what we've become associated with. I'm not just talking about mean tweets. Politics is rough, but this is more than that. The open reveling in lies, paranoia, and even violence is counter-productive to our witness. A lot of people seem to think it's an effective weapon against the craziness of the left, but it isn't. Acting crazy just makes one look crazy.

---

On what other fronts are you fighting wokeism, if not at the ballot box?

I don't disagree with much of your post. I simply don't believe we fight wokeism by allowing the woke to get elected, and to enact their woke ideas, whether through legislation or executive order. 8 years of woke rule will only further erode the mores you and I hold dear. Imagine what kind of legislation would have passed but for a moderate like Manchin. What will the new normal be in 2028? Undoubtedly, even further to the left than where we are currently. Most likely also closer to nuclear war, given the current trajectory. Is that worse than Trump, as bad as you and I agree that he is?

I hear what you are saying, but I just don't know.

---

We can vote for other conservatives. The Senate is an example of how Trump hurts us even there. He didn't help in Georgia last time around. His picks aren't looking great this year. So we get stuck with someone like Manchin, or worse.

It's a two-party system. Dems are going to get laws passed sometimes. Biden is a relatively moderate politician. If his legislation is as unconstitutional as we fear it might be, it's still subject to review in the courts. Look the some of the victories we've had lately. The Heller and Dobbs cases, for example. Those were the product of decades of patient work. There were setbacks along the way, but that's part of the process. That's how you get lasting change.

---

Relatively moderate as compared to Sanders maybe, but the legislation he's proposed is as far left as any president in the history of our country. As I stated above, thank God we have Manchin in the Senate to prevent some of the more looney legislation. Just imagine if he wasn't there.

The reason we got Heller and Dobbs is because of Trump. Let's remember that. If it weren't for his conservative S.C. nominations, neither of those two cases would have been decided in our favor.

Again, I don't disagree with you in principle. I just don't agree we throw in the towel merely because the candidate we don't want is the nominee.

Mothra said:

---

The reason we got Heller and Dobbs is because of Trump. Let's remember that. If it weren't for his conservative S.C. nominations, neither of those two cases would have been decided in our favor.

---

Wasn't Heller decided decided in 2008. That would have been W, not Trump.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

What's the answer for those who believe wokeism is a bigger danger to the country than a bunch of bumpkins who think Trump is their savior?

You're awfully critical of those of us who would hold our nose and vote for Trump, when you are unable to proffer a viable alternative. Some people don't believe 4 more years of wokeism is better for the country. I am surprised you do.

---

I also believe wokeism is probably a bigger danger in the long run, in the same way that communism was a bigger danger than fascism. The left's victims numbered in the 100 millions and those of right perhaps only in the tens of millions. The distinction becomes somewhat academic when you're living under the boot. The European fascist regimes of the last century, which we now see were so terrible, arose to a large extent from fear of the left. It was not an unreasonable fear, either. A strong leader is very appealing when mobs are running rampant, burning down churches, etc. But there is a high price. The most important choice is not between the tyranny of the right or the left, but between tyranny and the rule of law. It's more important than what happens in any one election. It may not always have a champion, but we must insist on it. That's the viable alternative.

---

Practically speaking, what are you suggesting then? Let's say Trump gets the nomination. Is it sit out the election and allow wokeism to rule the day? You see 4 more years of Trump as a bigger danger than Democrat rule?

---

Yes, I'll sit out if he's nominated. There are many fronts on which to fight wokeism. I supported Trump in 2016, despite my misgivings, because there were huge implications for SCOTUS that year. That was the key battle at the time. Trump followed through and put us in a good position to defend ourselves for many years to come. Republicans need to focus on being a party that can actually govern and implement better solutions than the Dems (see health care, for example). There's a spiritual front as well. Marxism appeals to people who struggle with lack of meaning in their lives. So does right-wing extremism for that matter. As Christians I think we need to take a step back and look at what we've become associated with. I'm not just talking about mean tweets. Politics is rough, but this is more than that. The open reveling in lies, paranoia, and even violence is counter-productive to our witness. A lot of people seem to think it's an effective weapon against the craziness of the left, but it isn't. Acting crazy just makes one look crazy.

---

On what other fronts are you fighting wokeism, if not at the ballot box?

I don't disagree with much of your post. I simply don't believe we fight wokeism by allowing the woke to get elected, and to enact their woke ideas, whether through legislation or executive order. 8 years of woke rule will only further erode the mores you and I hold dear. Imagine what kind of legislation would have passed but for a moderate like Manchin. What will the new normal be in 2028? Undoubtedly, even further to the left than where we are currently. Most likely also closer to nuclear war, given the current trajectory. Is that worse than Trump, as bad as you and I agree that he is?

I hear what you are saying, but I just don't know.

---

We can vote for other conservatives. The Senate is an example of how Trump hurts us even there. He didn't help in Georgia last time around. His picks aren't looking great this year. So we get stuck with someone like Manchin, or worse.

It's a two-party system. Dems are going to get laws passed sometimes. Biden is a relatively moderate politician. If his legislation is as unconstitutional as we fear it might be, it's still subject to review in the courts. Look the some of the victories we've had lately. The Heller and Dobbs cases, for example. Those were the product of decades of patient work. There were setbacks along the way, but that's part of the process. That's how you get lasting change.

---

Relatively moderate as compared to Sanders maybe, but the legislation he's proposed is as far left as any president in the history of our country. As I stated above, thank God we have Manchin in the Senate to prevent some of the more looney legislation. Just imagine if he wasn't there.

The reason we got Heller and Dobbs is because of Trump. Let's remember that. If it weren't for his conservative S.C. nominations, neither of those two cases would have been decided in our favor.

Again, I don't disagree with you in principle. I just don't agree we throw in the towel merely because the candidate we don't want is the nominee.

---

Heller was decided in 2008 with Scalia writing for the majority. I do give Trump credit for Dobbs, but if someone like Cruz had been in Trump's place the result would likely have been the same. Anyway, I think there are different priorities in different elections. My priority now is not to throw in the towel on democracy for the sake of short-term policy victories.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

There are many Republicans, like me, who did not support Trump's divisive rhetoric. Dems call it out only when they other side does it.

I fail to see how Trump "divided" the nation. When Hillary lost, the Democrats reaction was the divisive factor. Biden promised to unify and he has not,

Having said that, please tell me how Trump divided the nation....and how has Biden unified.

---

Biden hasn't done much of anything. He is basically a living stereotype. If you think liberals are weak, pandering, and ineffectual, he exemplifies those qualities to an almost cartoonish degree.

Trump lost the election in 2020. He demanded to be reinstated as president last week. That says all you need to know about how divisive he's been, but if you need more, just look at everything he's said and done in the last two years. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote that wasn't designed to provoke outrage. He's still selling the same lies that have led to violence in the past. He's got a majority of Republicans convinced the system only works if he and his chosen candidates win. And so on.

---

But he's not President...and the Dems ARE STILL focused on him and blaming him for everything. I'd say his reaction is what I'd expect after two wasteful impeachment hearings. Trump is and has always been focused on himself....but so are the Dems. THEY keep bringing him up.

---

If the only time he's not divisive is when we pretend he doesn't exist, that's pretty much an admission that he's divisive. And he brought the second impeachment on himself. He's also the front-runner for 2024, so it's not like he's sitting quietly on the sidelines.

---

This is not aimed at you as I think you have a reasonable opinion.

However, allow me to offer another. Trump is not the divisive creature he is made out to be. It is people like me and the millions that fight for his policies . . . the deplorables and now, the semi-fascist. The fact we exist and vote drives liberals nuts. As such, it will not matter who is the leader of the party is. Remember, Romney was a racist, sexist as well. As was McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, etc.

The next Republican will also be "divisive." At least in Trump we had a representative that fought back.

We just had a president call 75 million people fascist but Trump is "divisive?" Hilary called 30 million people deplorable, but Trump is "divisive?"

It is the R, not Trump.

---

Exactly. DeSantis soon will be a SEMI-FACIST ULTRA-MAGATRON!

Not sure many politicians in history have made as many divisive statements as Biden such as "Romney wants to put ya'll back in chains" ... "new Jim Crow" ... "everyone who disagrees with my policies is a semi-fascist, ultramagatron, etc.

---

We done, sirs! It matters not who is our candidate. It only matters that we exist and refuse to comply.

The left are showing themselves as the intolerant bigots they are.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

What's the answer for those who believe wokeism is a bigger danger to the country than a bunch of bumpkins who think Trump is their savior?

You're awfully critical of those of us who would hold our nose and vote for Trump, when you are unable to proffer a viable alternative. Some people don't believe 4 more years of wokeism is better for the country. I am surprised you do.

---

I also believe wokeism is probably a bigger danger in the long run, in the same way that communism was a bigger danger than fascism. The left's victims numbered in the 100 millions and those of right perhaps only in the tens of millions. The distinction becomes somewhat academic when you're living under the boot. The European fascist regimes of the last century, which we now see were so terrible, arose to a large extent from fear of the left. It was not an unreasonable fear, either. A strong leader is very appealing when mobs are running rampant, burning down churches, etc. But there is a high price. The most important choice is not between the tyranny of the right or the left, but between tyranny and the rule of law. It's more important than what happens in any one election. It may not always have a champion, but we must insist on it. That's the viable alternative.

---

Practically speaking, what are you suggesting then? Let's say Trump gets the nomination. Is it sit out the election and allow wokeism to rule the day? You see 4 more years of Trump as a bigger danger than Democrat rule?

---

Yes, I'll sit out if he's nominated. There are many fronts on which to fight wokeism. I supported Trump in 2016, despite my misgivings, because there were huge implications for SCOTUS that year. That was the key battle at the time. Trump followed through and put us in a good position to defend ourselves for many years to come. Republicans need to focus on being a party that can actually govern and implement better solutions than the Dems (see health care, for example). There's a spiritual front as well. Marxism appeals to people who struggle with lack of meaning in their lives. So does right-wing extremism for that matter. As Christians I think we need to take a step back and look at what we've become associated with. I'm not just talking about mean tweets. Politics is rough, but this is more than that. The open reveling in lies, paranoia, and even violence is counter-productive to our witness. A lot of people seem to think it's an effective weapon against the craziness of the left, but it isn't. Acting crazy just makes one look crazy.

---

On what other fronts are you fighting wokeism, if not at the ballot box?

I don't disagree with much of your post. I simply don't believe we fight wokeism by allowing the woke to get elected, and to enact their woke ideas, whether through legislation or executive order. 8 years of woke rule will only further erode the mores you and I hold dear. Imagine what kind of legislation would have passed but for a moderate like Manchin. What will the new normal be in 2028? Undoubtedly, even further to the left than where we are currently. Most likely also closer to nuclear war, given the current trajectory. Is that worse than Trump, as bad as you and I agree that he is?

I hear what you are saying, but I just don't know.

---

We can vote for other conservatives. The Senate is an example of how Trump hurts us even there. He didn't help in Georgia last time around. His picks aren't looking great this year. So we get stuck with someone like Manchin, or worse.

It's a two-party system. Dems are going to get laws passed sometimes. Biden is a relatively moderate politician. If his legislation is as unconstitutional as we fear it might be, it's still subject to review in the courts. Look the some of the victories we've had lately. The Heller and Dobbs cases, for example. Those were the product of decades of patient work. There were setbacks along the way, but that's part of the process. That's how you get lasting change.

---

Relatively moderate as compared to Sanders maybe, but the legislation he's proposed is as far left as any president in the history of our country. As I stated above, thank God we have Manchin in the Senate to prevent some of the more looney legislation. Just imagine if he wasn't there.

The reason we got Heller and Dobbs is because of Trump. Let's remember that. If it weren't for his conservative S.C. nominations, neither of those two cases would have been decided in our favor.

Again, I don't disagree with you in principle. I just don't agree we throw in the towel merely because the candidate we don't want is the nominee.

---

Heller was decided in 2008 with Scalia writing for the majority. I do give Trump credit for Dobbs, but if someone like Cruz had been in Trump's place the result would likely have been the same. Anyway, I think there are different priorities in different elections. My priority now is not to throw in the towel on democracy for the sake of short-term policy victories.

---

Yup, my bad. Was thinking of Bruen.

I think you're being hyperbolic in your last sentence, but we can agree to disagree. I think an unbridled Biden is much more dangerous to democracy than Trump.

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Good essay. I can understand why some would think its too long.

---

Didn't read it for several reasons .

Would you mind explaining why it is a good essay ?

( honest question )

---

I enjoyed it because it did a good job explaining why he didnt vote for Biden or Trump. He pointed out the error of both sides.

He says he is tired of being called a liberal because he no longer supports what the Trump led Republican party has become. Party men here shills here call me a democrat though I have never voted for one and have voted for more republican presidents than many here.

He ends with a very interesting Orwell quote. It wont be popular here because 95% are Trump pushers. I thought it treated both sides accurately.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Good essay. I can understand why some would think its too long.

---

Didn't read it for several reasons .

Would you mind explaining why it is a good essay ?

( honest question )

---

I enjoyed it because it did a good job explaining why he didnt vote for Biden or Trump. He pointed out the error of both sides.

He says he is tired of being called a liberal because he no longer supports what the Trump led Republican party has become. Party men here shills here call me a democrat though I have never voted for one and have voted for more republican presidents than many here.

He ends with a very interesting Orwell quote. It wont be popular here because 95% are Trump pushers. I thought it treated both sides accurately.

---

I agree he offers a critique of different sides. But here is my general rub - the sort of lack of intellectual honesty mixed with revisionist history.

He acknowledges at the beginning he could not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. But his critique of Trump centers around nothing but typical 2020 election stupidity hysteria talking points. Never once does he get specific. For starters:
- What specifically is so-called Trumpism?
- Why didn't he vote for Trump? Apparently because as noted Trump is a Democrat with multiple marriages
- What specific policies of the Trump administration did he disagree with?

And of course adopting the anti-intellectual slander "semi-fascism" plays into the hands of the disinformation regime deceived by Orwell more broadly. Same with "divisive." It does not mean "disagrees with me." The only reason Trump was "divisive" is because Democrats thought Clinton had a natural right to be president, and he disrupted their coronation.

Few can every explain specifically what policy positions of the Trump Administration were bad - they just constantly attack a regime-created straw man who the regime continues to tell us stole the 2016 election.

He said he saw back in 2016 Trump was a sociopath.

Mothra said:

---

A lot of what he said is accurate IMO. Where I think he gets it significantly wrong is in his belief that MAGA is a bigger threat than wokeism. Those stifling speech, canceling people for thought, rioting and pillaging under the guise of "peaceful protest," mandating and forcing medical decisions on Americans and shutting down private business - those are truly fascists, and the reason that many conservatives who loathe Trump understand that as bad as he is, he is the lesser of the evils.

---

The right is guilty of canceling people for thought or expression just as much as the left.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

There are many Republicans, like me, who did not support Trump's divisive rhetoric. Dems call it out only when they other side does it.

I fail to see how Trump "divided" the nation. When Hillary lost, the Democrats reaction was the divisive factor. Biden promised to unify and he has not,

Having said that, please tell me how Trump divided the nation....and how has Biden unified.

---

Biden hasn't done much of anything. He is basically a living stereotype. If you think liberals are weak, pandering, and ineffectual, he exemplifies those qualities to an almost cartoonish degree.

Trump lost the election in 2020. He demanded to be reinstated as president last week. That says all you need to know about how divisive he's been, but if you need more, just look at everything he's said and done in the last two years. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote that wasn't designed to provoke outrage. He's still selling the same lies that have led to violence in the past. He's got a majority of Republicans convinced the system only works if he and his chosen candidates win. And so on.

---

Exactly.

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The ones murdered by Black Supremacists during the year of Black Supremacist riots? ? They won't have much to say but their families might, not that the media would dare interview them. All cops are *******s according to the Left, remember? Or the maybe the police merely injured by the Black Supremacists? Let me know when the congressional hearings start for the members of congress that instigated the violence and bailed out the rioters, one of whom went on to use that freedom to murder someone. Until that happens, you can save the fake outrage over Republicans returning the hatred we receive every single day.

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

There are many Republicans, like me, who did not support Trump's divisive rhetoric. Dems call it out only when they other side does it.

I fail to see how Trump "divided" the nation. When Hillary lost, the Democrats reaction was the divisive factor. Biden promised to unify and he has not,

Having said that, please tell me how Trump divided the nation....and how has Biden unified.

---

Biden hasn't done much of anything. He is basically a living stereotype. If you think liberals are weak, pandering, and ineffectual, he exemplifies those qualities to an almost cartoonish degree.

Trump lost the election in 2020. He demanded to be reinstated as president last week. That says all you need to know about how divisive he's been, but if you need more, just look at everything he's said and done in the last two years. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote that wasn't designed to provoke outrage. He's still selling the same lies that have led to violence in the past. He's got a majority of Republicans convinced the system only works if he and his chosen candidates win. And so on.

---

But he's not President...and the Dems ARE STILL focused on him and blaming him for everything. I'd say his reaction is what I'd expect after two wasteful impeachment hearings. Trump is and has always been focused on himself....but so are the Dems. THEY keep bringing him up.

---

If the only time he's not divisive is when we pretend he doesn't exist, that's pretty much an admission that he's divisive. And he brought the second impeachment on himself. He's also the front-runner for 2024, so it's not like he's sitting quietly on the sidelines.

---

There was always going to be a second impeachment wasn't there? I mean right after the election Democrats were saying that they were going to impeach him....they just needed to create reasons.

Can you imagine if Jared Kushner had acted like Hunter Biden? We'd have another overweight, unattractive women's march.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Good essay. I can understand why some would think its too long.

---

Didn't read it for several reasons .

Would you mind explaining why it is a good essay ?

( honest question )

---

I enjoyed it because it did a good job explaining why he didnt vote for Biden or Trump. He pointed out the error of both sides.

He says he is tired of being called a liberal because he no longer supports what the Trump led Republican party has become. Party men here shills here call me a democrat though I have never voted for one and have voted for more republican presidents than many here.

He ends with a very interesting Orwell quote. It wont be popular here because 95% are Trump pushers. I thought it treated both sides accurately.

---

Thank you for the summary.

After glancing at the posts that followed ….it's pretty obvious we are becoming a nation of polar opposites.

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

---

Armed with what?

whiterock said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

---

Armed with what?

---

silver-tipped Constitutions and full metal jacket American flags?

---

Are those the same flag poles we're sending to Ukraine to fight against Russia? Flag poles and buffalo helmets ... Putin and Russia will not stand a chance!

Is it me or do these guys (liberals on here) seem to be getting worse and worse? I feel like long ago you could have a conversation at least. But I must admit I was not active and would only skim from time to time while on the football and basketball boards. Now they are just delusional hypocrites not worth talking to.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

---

Armed with what?

---

These are just the guns.

Some of the startling revelations of the recent blockbuster Jan. 6 House committee hearing came in snippets of police radio traffic captured during President Donald Trump's rally on the Ellipse and from Trump's purported response to being told there were armed protesters just outside a secured area.

The chatter included reports of a man with an AR-15 in a tree on Constitution Avenue who was accompanied by two men with pistols on their hips. Another officer radioed, "I've got three men walking down the street in fatigues carrying AR-15s, copy, at 14th and Independence."

The recordings aired during the June 28 hearing in which former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Trump reportedly "was angry that we weren't letting people through the [metal detectors] with weapons."
The full picture of how many among the crowd were armed before the riot occurred is unclear, but court records, trial testimony and accounts from police officers and rioters have supplied growing evidence that multiple people brought firearms to Washington for Jan. 6, 2021. Six men were arrested that day for having guns in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol, and a seventh who arrived after the riot ended was arrested the following day. Despite some instances in which alerts about people with guns turned out to be false alarms, accounts from police officers and rioters indicate that many firearms were spotted on Jan. 6 but were not seized as law enforcement focused more on defending the Capitol than on arresting gun-law violators.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/

Some rioters had frozen water bottles they threw at police, some had flag poles used to assault cops, at least threw fire extinguisher, some had pepper spray they used on police.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

---

Armed with what?

---

These are just the guns.

Some of the startling revelations of the recent blockbuster Jan. 6 House committee hearing came in snippets of police radio traffic captured during President Donald Trump's rally on the Ellipse and from Trump's purported response to being told there were armed protesters just outside a secured area.

The chatter included reports of a man with an AR-15 in a tree on Constitution Avenue who was accompanied by two men with pistols on their hips. Another officer radioed, "I've got three men walking down the street in fatigues carrying AR-15s, copy, at 14th and Independence."

The recordings aired during the June 28 hearing in which former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Trump reportedly "was angry that we weren't letting people through the [metal detectors] with weapons."
The full picture of how many among the crowd were armed before the riot occurred is unclear, but court records, trial testimony and accounts from police officers and rioters have supplied growing evidence that multiple people brought firearms to Washington for Jan. 6, 2021. Six men were arrested that day for having guns in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol, and a seventh who arrived after the riot ended was arrested the following day. Despite some instances in which alerts about people with guns turned out to be false alarms, accounts from police officers and rioters indicate that many firearms were spotted on Jan. 6 but were not seized as law enforcement focused more on defending the Capitol than on arresting gun-law violators.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/

Some rioters had frozen water bottles they threw at police, some had flag poles used to assault cops, at least threw fire extinguisher, some had pepper spray they used on police.

---

Interesting. So none of the protesters that entered the Capital were armed? You have repeatedly said it was an armed insurrection. Yet not a single person was charged despite millions spent on capturing these "insurrectionists."

No shame in folding.

---

Some rioters had frozen water bottles they threw at police, some had flag poles used to assault cops, at least threw fire extinguisher, some had pepper spray they used on police.

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientis said:

---

George Orwell nicely outlined the hazards of choosing your side, and sticking with it no matter how misguided your side becomes. In his 1945 essay, "Notes on Nationalism," he wrote:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them....

---

That's the reaction to Biden's speech in a nutshell. The only thing Republicans hate about divisive rhetoric is the fact that it's coming from a Democrat.

---

Well, when the mainstream media constantly promotes democrats and their agendas the republicans get to see such hate broadcast their way daily. A year of democrat riots and the media supports it. A few hours of rowdy unarmed elderly protestors at the capital and we are still having congressional hearings. We see the double standard, even if you pretend not to.

---

The injured police officers would challenge your assertion.

---

The officers aren't disputing the assertion that the media promotes Democrats and their agenda.

Obviously many of the rioters were not elderly and were armed.

---

Armed with what?

---

These are just the guns.

Some of the startling revelations of the recent blockbuster Jan. 6 House committee hearing came in snippets of police radio traffic captured during President Donald Trump's rally on the Ellipse and from Trump's purported response to being told there were armed protesters just outside a secured area.

The chatter included reports of a man with an AR-15 in a tree on Constitution Avenue who was accompanied by two men with pistols on their hips. Another officer radioed, "I've got three men walking down the street in fatigues carrying AR-15s, copy, at 14th and Independence."

The recordings aired during the June 28 hearing in which former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Trump reportedly "was angry that we weren't letting people through the [metal detectors] with weapons."
The full picture of how many among the crowd were armed before the riot occurred is unclear, but court records, trial testimony and accounts from police officers and rioters have supplied growing evidence that multiple people brought firearms to Washington for Jan. 6, 2021. Six men were arrested that day for having guns in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol, and a seventh who arrived after the riot ended was arrested the following day. Despite some instances in which alerts about people with guns turned out to be false alarms, accounts from police officers and rioters indicate that many firearms were spotted on Jan. 6 but were not seized as law enforcement focused more on defending the Capitol than on arresting gun-law violators.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/

Some rioters had frozen water bottles they threw at police, some had flag poles used to assault cops, at least threw fire extinguisher, some had pepper spray they used on police.

---

Interesting. So none of the protesters that entered the Capital were armed? You have repeatedly said it was an armed insurrection. Yet not a single person was charged despite millions spent on capturing these "insurrectionists."

No shame in folding.

---

Some rioters had frozen water bottles they threw at police, some had flag poles used to assault cops, at least threw fire extinguisher, some had pepper spray they used on police.

---

Against guns? Were any of the protesters shot, even without warning?