Like most Covid related issues, only in crazy GOP world is this a partisan issue.

Which Democratic Senators do all the time. You think Sanders listens to Schumer? Hell, what did you think the Sanders Markey attempt was if it wasn't trying to do what they want regardless of McConnell's wishes? This lefty gallop to dunk on the Dems by saying the GOP knows how to play the PR game by using the example of Hawley doing the equivalent of throwing a tantrum is just mind boggling.

A lot of Dems like to wistful hope the Democrats in Congress can act as Machiavellian as the Republicans in Congress and take power for its own sake, but I don’t think they’d actually like what that actually means. Take what’s going on now. The GOP playbook, if they were the Dems, is to do what the Dems are doing now. Keep hammering that McConnell is blocking the $2000. When McConnell introduces a poison pill bill, barely acknowledge it. Continue saying pass the House bill. McConnell is blocking. He’s introduced a distraction bill, so he wouldn’t pass the $2000 that the President is advocating. Make noise about holding up the NDAA, but DO NOT do so (you immediately lose both GA races if you do). And most importantly, you DO NOT want the $2000 to pass. You want the Congressional session to expire with loud it’s McConnell’s fault so that you can use it for the 2 Georgia Senate races.

And then when you take the Senate you wait until Biden becomes President, pass a $2000 stimulus bill and let Biden take credit and dunk on Trump for it (saying he couldn’t close the deal), even though people are more hurt by waiting.

That’s how to act like the Republicans and win the PR war and hopefully win the Senate - it’s not exactly the result a lot of Dems would want (in that you don’t care about the $2000, you just care about it as a political tool). And if you don’t win the 2 GA races, don’t bother with the $2000 stimulus but keep blaming McConnell.

They could hold up the NDAA and force everyone to spend New Years in DC.

Which I believe is Bernies plan.

They can't make the 2000 dollar checks happen, but they can vote for the package and make the GOP vote it down or kill it in conference. Internet companies should understand that the Dems won't always protect them from the GOP.

He knew it was their leverage. I would say Democrats are too stupid to figure that out but in reality they just don't give a shit about $2000 checks and care more about defense contractors getting paid.

You don't need to hold up the NDAA, you can just refuse to override the veto till there is a vote on $2k. Overriding the veto let Trump off the hook anyway.

It is informative to watch the discussion happening with my conservative relatives & their friends on Facebook.

They are talking about the $600 checks. And they are complaining about not getting $2000 checks. But the blame for not getting the money is on “them.“ Meaning Congress/politicians. And, in fact, the discussion has become that “they“ won’t give us the money, but “they“ will end up taking it back and more in taxes.

I am not sure what the answer is. But I think that Democratic politicians overestimate the extent to which people pay attention to the specifics of who is doing what in DC.

Dola:

The biggest Blindspot of people obsessed with politics is forgetting how few people are obsessed with politics.

On that I fully agree with albionmoonlight. Most people in general just don't care, but on the other hand you don't need most people. You only need to enough for a electoral majority.

I don't know an answer beyond a more informed populace, which means they have to care more than they do (it's not about education per se here, it's more about people wanting to stay up on what happens in the political sphere). I've said my piece on that whole can of worms many times.

The decision not to get $2000 checks in the Senate was bipartisan. Despite public proclamations, the VP-elect and Senate Minority Leader both fought against it.

Thr people want it and their representatives in the House voted for it. This includes the current President and future President. Unfortunately our House of Lords wields more power.

Seems like in the recent years we've introduced a whole new swath of people that are highly engaged with 'politics' in general yet cant to be bothered to figure out the details.

I said a short while ago to a friend, a huge problem with Trump, and by proxy his followers, think that things SHOULD be a certain way, so in their mind when they aren't he has been wronged. Nevermind how things are supposed to be.

The defense veto may be more if a negative in the Senate race in Georgia than blocking the extra money. A large part of Georgia's economy is tied around the many large military bases here. Dems need to find a way to be fighting for both.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Absolutely. There'll are a lot of people that have been sucked into politics over the past 4 years that don't understand how things work. My wife has tried multiple times to explain how calling states work to her friend yet she still believes Washington doesn't count republican votes because the state was called a few minutes after polls closed. Since she lives in a heavy Trump town she genuinely thought Trump and Culp were going to win and since they didn't the system must be corrupt.

To be fair, I personally became much more engaged with politics over the last 4 years, to the detriment of my mental & emotional health, strictly because the Trump trainwreck was entertaining & I found it harder and harder to ignore every day.



I hope a return to some kind of normalcy in governance will at least give me relief from my own political rubbernecking, even if a significant piece of the right want to continue to give Trump all of their attention.

reading trumpers complain about rich politicians is pretty funny

McConnell did everything he did for republicans to stop democrats from getting anything done the last 12 years, all of a sudden they think he's a bad guy when he's simply being consistent within party lines.

I dont remember if i read it here or not but someone mentioned republicans/trumpers want handouts as much as liberals but they want (R) or TRUMP stamped next to it.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/statu...161120769?s=19

That's awesome! Lol

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Yep. Democrats in the Senate need to be careful here. They are doing the PR game well so far but being tagged with deep sixing the NDAA (even though Trump vetoed it...) will hand Georgia to Perdue and Loeffler.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

President Trump is the one who vetoed the bill. Loeffler and Perdue would be forced to side with the President or to override his veto. I would much rather see them put on the spot.


How would Democrats be blamed for something Trump vetoed? This is not about PR, it's about making sure their contractor buddies get paid. I can't believe people keep defending Democrats for losing over and over again.

Good PR is getting $2000 to everyone.

How would the Democrats be blamed for something Trump vetoed? Have you ever met any Republicans? GD and I are both in GA and know how it'll play out.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Those people were never going to vote for a Democrat.

Georgia went for Biden... A not insignificant amount of those voters were Biden Perdue voters. (Heck I know of some Warnock-Perdue voters)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

So make Perdue and Loeffler vote on it. They can betray Trump or stick with him.

Yes, not blocking a vote on the NDAA would make Loeffler and Perdue have to take a stand and vote for or against it. Thanks for agreeing

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

They don't need to vote. Enough Dems will vote for the override.

Smart move is have Democrats not vote and force the Republicans to override it on their own (they don't have the votes to do it).

81-13 on the override vote. Loeffler and Perdue didn't even have to vote. Just another wonderful move by the Democrats.

With Trump a no-show, Mar-a-Lago guests left to party maskless with Rudy Giuliani and Vanilla Ice

Vanilla Ice? He really couldn't get anyone better than Vanilla Ice? It's like he was pranking his guests.

Our stimulus hit, and interestingly enough we did get $600 for our son. He turned 17 after our last filing, so I wonder if they were basing that on his age then. Also for the record, I had to put my account in for the last one (paid the last two years). So they are using that information this time.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ours too, but we only got money for 3 of the 5 of us. Same as before.

Darn, just checked and nothing yet.

Mine is pending right now with a date of the 4th.

Mine just came in today. I'll get a minor vehicle repair done sooner than I would have otherwhise. That's about the only stimulus effect it'll have.

We passed ours straight to the church.

I'm heading to AC with mine to put 100 on Red, and if that fails I'll put 200 on Red, and if that fails I'll put 300 on Red and if that fails I guess roulette isn't for me.

Let’s all enjoy those $600 though

World's richest people added $1.8T to their combined wealth in 2020 | TheHill

This.

Don't worry, it will trickle down eventually.

This is fine:

Louie Gohmert on Newsmax: "But if bottom line is, the court is saying, 'We're not going to touch this. You have no remedy' -- basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you gotta go the streets and be as violent as Antifa and BLM." pic.twitter.com/cZIdGTiQls

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2021

So when does it become sedition?

When the Dems do it, of course, silly!

SI

Gohmert is on my list of Top 5 worse people in Congress, and sometimes like when he says stuff like this he's #1. He should not be allowed to sit in the new Congress, removed as Chairman/members of any Committees he's in until he swears on a Bible that he will swear to abide by the results of the election and stop making it seem like the 80+ million people who voted for Biden are the evil ones/anarchists here.

Lets be honest, with this and the 11 Senators now on board led by Cruz, this is plain and simple a career move. Cruz has his sights on 2024, which is a totally unrealistic goal, but I am sure he thinks if Trump pulled it off, why I can't I ride his coattails and do the same?

None of these fuckers have any place in government after this stunt.

Fundraising off of idiots and 2024 is what this is all about.

From a misplaced discussion in another thread:


I don't know what makes you think this. I do agree with everybody deciding who to associate with and who not to. What I don't agree with is the idea of categorizing political views into those that acceptable and not by society as a whole, as you, PilotMan, and at least to a degree sterlingice have advocated.

Nowhere did I say that anyone *has* to associate with anyone. What I did say is that they *shouldn't* make that decision based on someone's political views. What one has a right to do and what they should do are completely different issues, as are one's personal associations and civil discourse in society as a whole. Those considerations needed to be kept distinct.

I would put it this way on the personal level: if somebody tells me they voted for Trump, or Biden, that tells me jack diddly squat about their character. Someone who voted for the 'right' candidate can be a jerk, and someone who voted for the 'wrong' candidate can be a fine human being who is a blessing to those who know them.

When the conversation morphed into discussion about the larger society and what's needed for democracy as a whole, that's where I asked the 'who gets to decide' question. It wasn't at all aimed at personal associations at that point.

Every individual person gets to decide who they want to associate and what those lines are. That's how those lines get drawn. It's those individual decisions that add up to what society tolerates as a whole. No one person decides for the entire society, so that's a pointless and disingenuous question.

Edit: I talked about my own personal views about my willingness to associate with these people, and your response was that it was important that we didn't cut them off, that we should find a middle ground, and that we should be "willing and able to engage with others for any reason". Then you said it was dangerous to democracy otherwise. So I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating for if not for individuals to change their actions with respect to who they're willing to associate with. But I'm positive you're not going to convince me to have Trump buddies.

Everybody has line where they're just not willing to normalize a viewpoint. Everybody's can be reasonably different. Trumpers who support his efforts to overthrow the election are well over that line for me. I can't stop others from validating and normalizing that view and treating those who have it as real human beings worthy of any respect. But I can do my part to draw that line in my own life. That doesn't mean that much on an individual level. But I can't act like this is a normal thing like a political discussion about gun control or tax rates. The idea that that's all this is - regular politics, we all have valid perspectives, lets all hold hands and find common ground - bothers me, and that's why I draw that line. Because it's not that.

Well said. I can disagree with people on many things politically and get along well, but the insane conspiracy theories go to far. It doesn't matter the facts, they are going to continue to believe the craziness. I have no interest in continuing slamming my head into a wall trying to reason with the unreasonable. Luckily, almost all the Trump supporters I know haven't fallen into that rabbit-hole.

Normalization isn't the issue here though. I haven't advocated for that at any point. It doesn't normalize, validate, affirm, or otherwhise endorse any viewpoint to be willing to associate with and speak to someone who believes it.

I think it does. I'm not sitting in my house, or at a party, and hearing out someone's Trump worship and why he's right to try to overthrow the election as some kind of valid opinion I need to engage. And I don't want people like that in my life. Sorry. If an old Nazi prison guard moved into my neighborhood, I wouldn't chum around with him either. They're both over that line for me. If I run into someone who feels differently than me about gun control, or taxes, or immigration, or the economy, then we can still drink beers all day. Not over the line for me. If a family member's over the line, so be it, they can choose that life, but I won't be a part of it.

Edit: The fact that it's even a debate whether overthrowing an election and imposing a dictatorship is just another political opinion that we should all try to see all perspectives of terrifies me even more, and makes me even more sure it's something that I have to keep on that side of the line. It's startling to me how this has become mainstream. I never believed this country would go that way.

I have no such line myself, and find the concept of one so much as existing to be wrong. .02

Rumor is that the leader of the Proud Boys was arrested as he entered DC today. It would be just misdemeanor damage of property from the last protest unless he was stupid enough to be armed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Would you associate with a Klan member?

Of course.

"There's good people on both sides." That's the normalization of this stuff we're going through.

You don't believe there are good people on both sides?

I assume you mean this in the context of those supporting Trump now trying to cheat a win but do you also apply that to the 47% of voters that supported Trump in the election?

I don't believe that anybody supports Trump and his actions today, or any members of the Klan, are good people. I guess they could be redeemable. But I don't have the time or the skill to be that person that leads them down that path. If they come around and acknowledge that they were evil fucktards, then I'd be willing to associate with them. But I'm not interested in friends or dealing with any family that think the election should be overturned and that Trump should be installed as a dictator, no. All bad people.

I know others' views on this are more complicated because the have racist Trump supporter parents or whatever. I'm lucky that I don't. It's not a drastic lifestyle change for me to choose not to be around them. It's a few extended relatives I probably wouldn't talk to anyway, and people on the periphery of my life here that I also probably wouldn't be friends with anyway (I wonder about my brother, but if he has any extreme views, he keeps them to himself, so I don't have to confront that situation with him). I don't have a facebook wall full of Trump friends and family saying crazy shit. Maybe if those things are in your life more regularly they're less horrifying. Which is kind of my entire point. We should be horrified.

If you're supporting the fascist, you're probably not a good person.

lol.

"hey man, wanna grab a beer and watch the game?"

"sorry, I can't tonight. I am picking up my hood from the dry cleaner then going to go lynch the black family over an Anderson Ave. Maybe next week"

The Nazi's are just misunderstood.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Okay, we'll agree to disagree on Trump supporters being "good/bad" people. There are obviously a small subset that I would classify as bad but majority of them are okay to good IMO.

Yes, I have in-laws that support Trump and I certainly don't consider them "bad" but more short sighted, ignorant, brainwashed etc. Short of a pedo, serial killer and like, I would associate with anyone willing to have a peaceful dialog. In fact, I would seek to better understand why that person believes the way they do. This does not mean I would go out of my way to socialize.

But yeah, if the first 5 minutes is non-sensical stuff or repeat of the non-productive stuff, I'll part ways gracefully.

Not really surprising.

I do have a hard time with Trump supporters as a whole. I haven't been confronted with that reality in a friendship or family matter that matters. But I'm comfortable drawing that no-go line for me specifically at supporting his efforts to overthrow the election. If they voted for him in 2016 because they hated Hillary and are now embarrassed about him, then it's a different thing. We're probably not going to be chummy and talk politics, but, I can deal with them a little more.

"Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" - Matthew 9:11

I'm not posting this to start a religious debate, this isn't the thread for that. The point is, this is hardly a new or revolutionary idea.

Is Trump the Christ figure now..?

You are a deluded person...

That's quite a leap.

Huh? I wasn't in any way implying Trump is Christ. Surely anybody remotely familiar with my posting history knows I don't even support Trump at all.

That's an even bigger leap in this forum :)

Good thing you moved the conversation from the non-political Wuhan thread. It would have been a real mess!

I think Brian was actually comparing himself to Jesus there, not Trump.

Jesus might love the Trump racist, but I'd bet even he wouldn't go bowling with him, or insist that his perspective was valid. He kind of approached it from a different level.

+1

Sidenote, in the context of all this, I am SO happy that my mother is currently posting on facebook about how much she loved watching Jimmy Carter, Rock and Roll President. And for protecting me from my racist grandfather, and not believing that all such views are valid and should be listened to. I'll have to thank her next time I talk to her. It's easier for me to talk tough about cutting Trumpers off when my parents and friends are so awesome and I don't have to really deal with it anyway.

I'm pretty sure we've mused about how, in 50 years, finding a MAGA hat at Grandpa's will be like finding a Klan hood.

(At least in most timelines. In the darkest ones, well, it's more of a badge than a scarlet letter)

SI

The Proud Boys leader was arrested with two high capacity magazines on him. He also faces multiple damage of property charges and possible hate crime charges as well. Oops.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Thanks actually pretty funny.

I wonder what my grandkids will think of my novelty Andrew Yang for President t-shirt.

And right before his rally in DC too. Shame.

Not comparing myself to Jesus at all - I surely hope I'm never guilty of that blasphemy.

I am comparing the Trump racist, as you put it, to the tax collectors and sinners mentioned. And I think we can be very confident that Jesus would have had no problem bowling with them, since eating with such people in that culture was a much more affirming act than going bowling with someone is in ours. Not only did Jesus do that, but he recruited one of them to be among the twelve disciples. He made a habit of hanging out with such people.

A) He usually asked them to stop sinning (and they either did/attempted to do or realized they couldn't stop and didn't hang out with him)
B) Trumpers (well at least the well off ones) are probably more like the Pharisees who Jesus liked to chastise in their faces.

Maybe the Trump voter comparison is too easy. What about the NAMBLA member?

I am sure there are fine people in NAMBLA.....please recognize that as sarcasm.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't think this was directed at me but since I've participated in the discussion ...

FWIW there is a line I draw on who I talk to. A person that supports Trump's views (e.g. the 47%) isn't that line, it's a higher bar for me.

Here is the issue though. They TRULY in their heart of hearts feel like the election was stolen. My dad is 90 and supports Trump. He has been totally brainwashed by The Mark Levine show. My mother in law is the same way. They are 2 of the nicest people you have ever met, would literally do anything for you. My dad owned a pharmacy in town. Was the first to hire black people, carry black hair products, etc...doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Funny side note, he won an award a couple years ago. I went to the dinner with him and it turns out was an award from a foundation for black scholarships and he was given a humanitarian award. We stood out but had a great time.

Anyway. The think the dems stole the election, so in their minds everything trump does is justified because he was wronged. All he is doing i fixing things and fighting for what was taken from him. They think a Biden win is the death of democracy because it was stolen. they believe the "evidence" because they trust their source. I think a main reason so many older people support him is because they get their "news" from places like fox and in their days you could trust the news. They also lack the technological know how to fact check. My mother in law has told me she feels sorry for us and someday we will realize how wrong we have been. There really isn't anywhere to go with that. It is a lot more complex than "Trump supporters are bad people"

There were many Nazis who in their heart believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills in the world. There are pedophiles who believe in their heart that sex with a child is natural and acceptable. Family annihilators believe their children are better off being dead than living in a world without them.

Whether it's ignorance or being brainwashed, it's not an acceptable excuse for adults.

I was listening to a podcast talking about the way this cult like faith in conspiracy have just taken over a large portion of the Right. He said that it is nearly impossible to "deprogram" people once they have fully embraced these views. It is just so sad.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Heck, I was just hearing about the former Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, a virulent segregationist who was described as being very kind and friendly to ordinary people, including random black people he'd meet. No one really believes that individual cordiality and kindness makes Governor Axe Handle not a bad person.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I think separating people into 'good' and 'bad' is a pointless exercise.

Very well said.

Not if you believe in Purgatory (but you will have to add good, bad and grey).

Seriously, you have to add (or maybe repeat) the context here. I can't think of any reason why those classifications are pointless. I get there is grey but there is good and bad also.

Hitler was nice to his dogs. (And that's a very big value for me!) But I personally don't want either to be a part of my own life. Same with Trumpers and racists who got to that point from delusion or ignorance. I can't know know their soul or what happened to them. I'm sure my grandfather's racism was explainable in some way. But I don't have to have them in my life. I have my hands full caring about regular good people I respect.

Edit: And, if people who hold these views just have something wrong with them, why should we treat the views as valid and worth listening to?

You have to define what good and bad mean for it to have any utility. The example ISiddiqui used is useful, as is the classic tale of the Farmer and his Horse.

If that governor had just been an everyday citizen and a segregationist, therefore not able to enforce any of those beliefs, would that make him a good person? Does him being outspoken about them make him a worse person for trying to advocate bad ideas, or a good person for being a public servant and being straightforward about who he authentically is in the world? What if he had better beliefs politically but was a jerk to everyone he met? Does that make him better or worse? Is it better to advocate an honest but destructive belief, or to say you believe something you really don't think to satisfy others?

There are a bazillion philosophical questions like these, and they are much more difficult to untangle than much more straightforward ones we can't come to an understanding of on this board. And that's without getting into all the more fundamental worldview issues such as what your source of morality is, something that a number of the worldviews represented here can never see eye to eye on.

Even with your purgatory example, I don't believe in that but I do believe in heaven and hell - but I don't think 'goodness' or 'badness' is the determining factor, but grace since if it was up to our goodness we'd all end up in the same place. I know much of the board will find that absurd. So yeah.

I think in this context we are calling fascism and racism bad. People can have debates on whether those things are bad but that is where myself and I'm guessing others stand.

Bingo and to draw it full circle back to "would you knowingly associate with a white supremacist?"

To answer the question as "yes" when you full well know the belief structure of the individual is a form of social acceptance. You are willing to give them the benefits they get from society despite their abhorrent beliefs. You feel that you can judge them beyond that belief, and that they are still worthy in terms of social credit.

That behavior empowers, reinforces, and does not punish or correct those beliefs that do not fit into what society has decided is acceptable. An individual that is wholly corrected by society, either through isolation, or even outright opposition is more likely to be ostracized from the group (peer pressure is a bitch). You're not taking a voice away from the individual. He is free to continue to believe and act how he wants within the framework of the law, but here, as the group decides that his worth is not worth the damage he causes then he is forced to survive on his own, outside the group. Continuing to treat him as if it's ok that he's part of the group is quite literally a form of support. That is exactly how societies and social psychology works.

{I know that's a bit wordy, but it's late and today was a long day, and I'm tired.}

Forget about Trump in this discussion. It's a distraction because a racist person probably believes what he/she believes in before Trump. Or is this only specific to Trump supporters that are racist? (If it is, I would like to understand the rationale).

Forget about "white" supremacist. Does it matter what color a racist person is? (If it does to you, l would like to understand the rationale). Let's just say any racist person.

So if you had a parent(s) that you was racist (probably majority of us), you would not have discussions or socialize with them? Discussions like talking about why they believe what they believe.

Or would you socialize but not discuss their racist beliefs e.g. like having a simple lunch?

I am trying to understand what "knowingly associate" means here.

If you get a chance, take listen to today's The Daily. They have an excellent example of how a seemingly reasonable person can be conditioned into believe the Trump fraud.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This was in response to a longer conversation where Brian was asked if he would associate with a White Supremacist (proper noun, skinhead, proud boys, gonna lynch some n***** kind of person or group). trump doesn't factor into the conversation. It's about someone you know, who is openly a white supremacist. That is different from your garden variety grandfather who has some racism (yes, my grandfather who I loved, retired to Stone Mountain GA, and admitted to having some racist tendencies, and even as a teen I confronted him about it then). Unless we live somewhere else, that has been decided by the majority of our society as a bad thing. Not an all sides thing, a bad thing. They are listed as the main threat to domestic terrorism in the country. Not talking about other groups, but I'm sure there are. But they are not represented in nearly the same way. So my point was that passive acceptance, vis a vis, being friends, hanging out, "knowingly associate", even if you disagree with their choices, is reinforcing their beliefs and giving them social credit in society. There is no social punishment for them to change their ways, and they are reinforced that it's ok to be that person. That's what I'm talking about. If you're the sort of person who is ok with that, I'd recommend a bit deeper personal reflection. Because laws are for the legal system, but social mores and laws have their own set and define how we interact and what is ok and what is not. It's much more to do with how the brain works and how that each of us fits into society than just should they go to jail or not or should that be legal or not.

It is part of the larger discussion of how can you have a two-party democratic system when one party doesn't agree to the terms of that system? Do they have a voice? Sure, but if you both can't agree that the basis for your political system is what it is, then what do you have? So to, if you have people whose belief systems don't fit in with the social structure that everyone is trying to achieve, how can they be valid within the system? They can't. Which is why elevating those groups, either passively or actively is dangerous.

This whole far right resurgence has been a result of growing social acceptance of it. A whole bunch of people who didn't realize that it was still widely accepted by a large portion of this country were given permission not only to let their voices be heard, but to act out violently about it.

This needs to be stuffed back in the bottle and eradicated. By any means necessary. A little social shunning should be the least of their fucking concern.

YES, this.

There are things about every one of us that are emphatically not ok. Associating with people is not passive acceptance of their beliefs, and it doesn't give their beliefs 'social credit' or any other such thing. It acknowledges them as flawed human beings, which we all are, and does not endorse any of those particular flaws but rather their basic dignity and humanity. That's it, and that's all.

I understand the perspective that we need to shut all this stuff down, but that simply weakens society. A strong society isn't one that blocks out perspectives it finds too repugnant. It is one that exposes itself to all perspectives and withstands the ones that are harmful, very similar to how you have to subject metal to a certain amount of intense heat to weed out the impurities and make it strong. Without that treatment, it remains brittle. If we are at the point where we don't believe we are capable of doing that, than the point is made; it's time to move to a different form of society because we aren't capable of being a functioning democracy.

US described it very well in their movie. They've been able to come out and by holding hands have found support and empowerment for their most base feelings and opinions. They won't go back away quickly I assure you.

It's easier to fall into these traps of hate if there's no real consequences to doing so. Enabling them just strengthens their illness.

My parents would have to choose a relationship with me or with their hate community if it came to that. I wouldn't pretend that's OK.

If they kept it to themselves, I wouldn't know about it, so that would work too. But if I know about it, it's because they're trying to poison me, my siblings, their kids, ect.

Agree with Molson, let them express their rubbish, but hold them accountable.

Looking forward to the conspiracy theories when the votes for Loeffler/Purdue aren't a 1:1 ratio and how they differ from their vote tallies in November.

I agree to a point, but when the principal beliefs or perspectives are way beyond legality, which the likes of the Klan and Proud Boys are IMO, i think associating with them does tacitly show a degree of acceptance of that belief.

If someone is a member of a group like that, you know what they are: you don’t join the Klan because they have a good baseball program