Bueller? Bueller?

One "extreme" position?

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Most Dem voters, if they could somehow go back in time 15-20 years and talk to themselves, their younger selves would be embarrassed about the crap they believe in today. Most wouldn't believe the nonsense coming from their older selves, likely thinking it a funny joke,because no sane person would believe what libs believe today.

Just who they are now. They will accept bat dung crazy if it comes from the TV overlords. They applaud disgusting stuff.

---

But but but Fox News

Porteroso said:

---

They are simply being fed lies and altered versions of the truth. So are the right wing zealots on this board.

What they are upset about is Elon helping to buy, with hundreds of millions of dollars, the election, and then being handed the keys to the Treasury, shutting down foreign aid to countries who seem to depend on it.

If the tables were turned and this was Soros, you bet Republicans would react the same way, right? Soros simply donates to Democrat politicians and we have posters claiming he is ultimately responsible for the rise in violence in lib cities with lib DAs he donated to. Don't even for a second pretend you are better than the people complaining about Elon.

And there are other things. It's one thing to ban men in women's sports, great. Good. But only recognize 2 genders? What is so bad about someone checking "identifies as non-binary" on a government form? It is simply antagonistic. Repubs might not feel like non-binary genders exist, but it is very real to these people. Why take away their ability to identify themselves on government forms as they wish? Comes down to feelings, doesn't it? Repubs feel better when the world is as simple as male and female.

I could go on but that seems to be the 2 biggest complaints I view as legitimate.

---

Elon bought the election? First Putin now Elon?

Fre3dombear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Most Dem voters, if they could somehow go back in time 15-20 years and talk to themselves, their younger selves would be embarrassed about the crap they believe in today. Most wouldn't believe the nonsense coming from their older selves, likely thinking it a funny joke,because no sane person would believe what libs believe today.

Just who they are now. They will accept bat dung crazy if it comes from the TV overlords. They applaud disgusting stuff.

---

But but but Fox News

---

Good retort. My views are based on logic, moral, and economic values. You just need your orange man drama.

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Assassin said:

---

It never ends. pic.twitter.com/qO1Sz2Zqrb

— Sassafrass84 (@Sassafrass_84) February 9, 2025

---

How demeaning for hardworking black academics in US history.

https://www.humanitiestexas.org/news/articles/wiley-colleges-great-debaters

---

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Musk was a hero of the left doing more to further the electric car industry than anyone in human history. He personally funded space travel and exploration for the good of mankind when the federal government deemed it not worth their time or money. Then he protected free speech through the purchase of twitter by simply opening it up for all. He didn't suppress left wing speech and thought like his predecessors were doing to the right. And that's when the democrats got big mad. They quite like the control they have in the media, academia, Hollywood, and literally every other driver of culture in the west. As they censored right wing thought and speech, they said, "if you don't like it, go build your own social media platform." So Trump launched truth social. And then they had it de-platformed. They didn't like having their snarky retort thrown back in their face. They couldn't let it stand. So Musk used his resources to level the playing field on one single social platform. And the left lost their minds.

If you haven't yet figured it out, Musk is brilliant. A rare mind. Perhaps he didn't buy his influence so much as earn a seat at the table by being really really smart and running a number of hugely successful businesses? I've seen enough waste in DC to know we need a few more business minds at the helm who actually look at P&Ls and understand that running a deficit year after year puts you out of business.

Perhaps the left should spend less time calling people nazis and more time trying to figure out how they managed to drive off someone so brilliant and wealthy who by all accounts was happy to support their side until they went nuts. A little introspection could go a really long way for the left. Fortunately for the right, they're not so good at that these days.

Assassin said:

---

The worst part is that George has transferred about $20 billion of his bloody dollars into his Open Society so his son Alex can continue his quest for One World Order

---

you never answered my question that is since your hate for Soros (bad dude), are you ok with our new Trumpian Secretary of the Treasury who used to run the Soros Fund? Is he secretly plotting the New World Order? you good with him?

I think JR hates that I have him on Ignore more than any reply I could ever get to him.



To paraphrase The Rolling Stones, "Under His Skin"

One "extreme" position? One.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

Of course there'd be outcries. The difference is this - if a Democrat was rooting out corruption of the deep state, you can bet many if not most conservatives would be happy about it, maybe suspicious, but cautiously happy about it.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

They are simply being fed lies and altered versions of the truth. So are the right wing zealots on this board.

What they are upset about is Elon helping to buy, with hundreds of millions of dollars, the election, and then being handed the keys to the Treasury, shutting down foreign aid to countries who seem to depend on it.

If the tables were turned and this was Soros, you bet Republicans would react the same way, right? Soros simply donates to Democrat politicians and we have posters claiming he is ultimately responsible for the rise in violence in lib cities with lib DAs he donated to. Don't even for a second pretend you are better than the people complaining about Elon.

And there are other things. It's one thing to ban men in women's sports, great. Good. But only recognize 2 genders? What is so bad about someone checking "identifies as non-binary" on a government form? It is simply antagonistic. Repubs might not feel like non-binary genders exist, but it is very real to these people. Why take away their ability to identify themselves on government forms as they wish? Comes down to feelings, doesn't it? Repubs feel better when the world is as simple as male and female.

I could go on but that seems to be the 2 biggest complaints I view as legitimate.

---

Elon bought the election? First Putin now Elon?

---

Money wins election. Elon spent about 250m. In my view it didn't matter, but in a lib's view, it is the richest man in the country buying himself a seat at the table. And my point is that a conservative would say the same thing if the roles were flipped.

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better. Soros has destroyed much of Europe and then set his eyes on America. He leaves behind a trail a mile wide of dead babies, children and adults wherever he goes. He is the world's Most Evil Man. Without a doubt.
Who do you think has been POTUS for the past four years?

---

Surely you can see that no matter whether you personally trust in the ethics of a billionaire or not, buying a seat at the head of a government agency is going to raise valid concerns?

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better. Soros has destroyed much of Europe and then set his eyes on America. He leaves behind a trail a mile wide of dead babies, children and adults wherever he goes. He is the world's Most Evil Man. Without a doubt.
Who do you think has been POTUS for the past four years?

---

Surely you can see that no matter whether you personally trust in the ethics of a billionaire or not, buying a seat at the head of a government agency is going to raise valid concerns
?

---

which brings us back to my point about the context of each billionaire. Musk is NOT the same as Soros. Not even if they are both involved in politics.

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

Difference is soros never created a thing and Elon has changed the world

Plus he grew up In the woke racist South Africa and sees what is attempted to be done to his progeny here.

One extreme position?

I'm beginning to think the TDSers may just be having histrionics.

Not a single position of Trump's that is "extreme?"

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better. Soros has destroyed much of Europe and then set his eyes on America. He leaves behind a trail a mile wide of dead babies, children and adults wherever he goes. He is the world's Most Evil Man. Without a doubt.
Who do you think has been POTUS for the past four years?

---

Surely you can see that no matter whether you personally trust in the ethics of a billionaire or not, buying a seat at the head of a government agency is going to raise valid concerns?

---

A new agency that the current system doesn't allow to exist, one that audits. Like never before! There are gonna be tons of evil billionaires ticked off. And that is coming through via their minions. However this time they have to deal with someone that is richer than most all of them put together. Probably the only person in the world that could do it...Rank and file Americans are coming over. A lot...

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better wants to do things I agree with.

---

FIFY

So let's not worry about buying influence as long as we like it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better wants to do things I agree with.

---

FIFY

So let's not worry about buying influence as long as we like it.

---

Gee, it's almost as if what the billionaire does with that influence matters, huh? Exposing corruption; good. Installing pro-criminal DAs; bad.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better wants to do things I agree with.

---

FIFY

So let's not worry about buying influence as long as we like it.

---

Gee, it's almost as if what the billionaire does with that influence matters, huh? Exposing corruption; good. Installing pro-criminal DAs; bad.

---

No one's disputing that.

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

we've been complaining about it for years.

one key difference is, Soros was funding politicians to build a larger government and promote disruptive policies which would enrich his entire NGO ecosystem that brought great harm to ordinary people . (illegal immigration, gender ideologies, progressive prosecutors, to name but a few). That NGO ecosphere would then make political donations to politicians who were protecting the racket. (i.e. it is a classic racketeering operation).

Musk is simply auditing government to find and eliminate fraud, wasteful spending, and unnecessary regulations, which will bring great benefit to not just himself but every American.

Democrats are complaining that we have the audacity to do to them (for common good) what they've been doing to us (using public monies to fund their own partisan machine).
Let them whine.
It is beautiful music.

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Depends, if a democrat was exposing blatant corruption, I wouldn't care, I'd support him. I may not like him, but I wouldn't be upset that he was finding taxpayer waste.

---

Would you though? If your preferred media source and all the other Republicans were going on about security clearance and private information and look at these children being handed the keys to the Treasury... You'd have to really do your own digging to even get to the point where you realized they were actually finding corruption. And then you'd have to accept that people you hate might actually do some good from time to time.

It's just too much to ask of the typical zealot on either side.

---

Do you not think that happened under China Joe?

The difference is the DOGE men are smart and not wearing dresses.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

contrario said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

contrario said:

---

Porteroso wasn't saying they are the same. He's saying they are billionaires from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If Musk was a democrat, you would be hating on him as well.

To word what Porteroso said a different way, if Musk was a big time democrat donor and was given the access he has been given in the Trump administration, all of the republicans on here would be complaining about it.

---

Again, that ignores the very real differences between Musk and Soros. "Rich Guy for other team bad!" Is extremely simplistic and equates the two based on their wealth.

---

I'm just responding to you, but I'm also responding to others that commented on my post. You can slice and dice this as much as you want, but if a billionaire bought his way into a position of influence with a democrat, there would be outcries from republicans.

Yes, Musk was a democrat supporter in the past. He was not openly and very publicly involved with the Obama administration or other administrations making political decisions. But if he was, the republicans would be b#tching about it.

I'm not simply saying they are both billionaires and big time political donors. I'm saying they are both billionaires and they are using their wealth to influence policy. Just because you agree with Musk and Trump politically, that doesn't make this any more "right". If you had an ounce of consistency, you would see this is a big issue for a billionaire to buy his way into political favor and influence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen under the table all the time in politics, but at least there is a table to buffer the amount of influence usually. There is no buffer in this situation since Musk is basically a part of the Trump administration, a position he has purely because he has a lot of money.

---

The biggest difference is Musk wants to make the nation better.

---

FIFY

So let's not worry about buying influence as long as we like it.

---

FIBFY

Unlike your cronies, he wants to make the nation better. He's proving it

ScottS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This question ran of TexasAnti-science and tends to shut down most TDSers ...

What policies of Trump's are remotely "radical" or "extreme."

So far he has:
- Removed racism from hiring
- Removed men from women's sports
- Removed violent criminals from vulnerable communities
- Created a cease fire in Gaza and freed hostages
- Slowed human trafficking
- Slowed fentanyl trafficking
- Ensured our tax dollars are being spend aligned with our values

What exactly is there that a sane person could oppose?

---

TDSers are probably really democrats.

---

And not very rational

Porteroso said:

---

They are simply being fed lies and altered versions of the truth. So are the right wing zealots on this board.

What they are upset about is Elon helping to buy, with hundreds of millions of dollars, the election, and then being handed the keys to the Treasury, shutting down foreign aid to countries who seem to depend on it.

If the tables were turned and this was Soros, you bet Republicans would react the same way, right? Soros simply donates to Democrat politicians and we have posters claiming he is ultimately responsible for the rise in violence in lib cities with lib DAs he donated to. Don't even for a second pretend you are better than the people complaining about Elon.

And there are other things. It's one thing to ban men in women's sports, great. Good. But only recognize 2 genders? What is so bad about someone checking "identifies as non-binary" on a government form? It is simply antagonistic. Repubs might not feel like non-binary genders exist, but it is very real to these people. Why take away their ability to identify themselves on government forms as they wish? Comes down to feelings, doesn't it? Repubs feel better when the world is as simple as male and female.

I could go on but that seems to be the 2 biggest complaints I view as legitimate.

---

Reality is not about feelings. Government forms or actions should never be based upon lies or encourage people to be delusional.

"Reality is not optional."