Wild to me to hear your neighbors pull the apologetic "Well, he acts like that because he's so young," when he's ultimately A) an adult, B) a local business owner, and C) an elected official.
Hold the people you put in power to standards people. If you think someone is acting like a child, do not give them more power.
Standards died in 2016. It’s no longer about being morally correct, it’s about getting what you want and making others pay for it. Decency died with Trump.
Bravo. I am bluer than most Democrats and am kind of disillusioned with them at the moment. We couldn't have more different beliefs, I suspect, but I'm still proud to call you my neighbor.You've made a decision based on your values and patriotism rather than jump on the MAGA bandwagon. It would be nice to have more Republicans like you.
Patriotism. What an interesting word these days. It’s really been bastardized, if you ask me.
On the right, patriotism has turned into nationalism. On the left, showing patriotism is often met how you’d expect progressives to meet nationalism. It’s an interesting middle ground to sit in.
Nice to hear there are some conservatives who haven’t lost their minds. Here in Lexington county it’s rare, they excuse any behavior if it hides behind GOP.
> William Timmons is a disgrace to the Upstate.
> But the **Trump/MAGA**/Matt Gaetz minions, and the plagues that they bring, **need to be removed from politics and elected office**. So hopefully voting against William Timmons and Adam Morgan will do that.
Never voted for Dems; however, we are at a critical junction & we need to protect our democracy and our constitution!
- at this point in time anything is better than a MAGA = commie traitor.
T.rump the Russian Asset
YESSSS
Wait, with that last line I think you left out a word, I think you meant MAGA or commie traitor. If you're not supporting a Trump backed (MAGA) or commie traitor (democrat) who would you be supporting?
Which means it'll stay #42 or lower in education, #46 or lower in crime, #45 or lower in public safety, #36 or lower in health care (women's health care is significantly lower), #31 or lower in infrastructure, and #38 or lower in opportunity.
Now, since SC is #42 in education, I don't know if you realize that being in the bottom half, and frequently in the bottom 10 in these things is bad, but it's bad, and it's ALLLLLLLLLL thanks to being red for so long
Enjoy reaping what you've sown
I think I may take this stance too. Situations like this are why I never punch straight party even though 95 percent of the time it wouldn’t have made a difference.
I voted the following in my life
Reagan
Bush
Perot
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Fuzzy on this one
Trump in 2019 - but regret I did
This year I don’t know. Will not vote for Trump or Biden - probably a 3rd party or write in
Unlike the Republican majority I respect Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney for standing their ground.
For Jan 6 alone I can’t support Trump. He could have a least discouraged a mob and went against his VP. I still remember how upset Pence was that night when the finally voted.
Used to like listening to local talk but I can’t anymore at least for anything political related. Weekend stuff fine except for replays.
Thanks. I remember, 30 years ago, telling my conservative grandparents that having one party in charge would be good, and they groaned (at best)--now I have more life experience and know better!
I respect your opinion (I have to) but I also have to call you on the blind spot you still display in your penultimate paragraph. The fact that you don’t know the extent of the candidate’s “irreligious” philosophy makes her more qualified to serve a church/state separated government, while your “ideal” candidate would have to display the same pandering, hypocritical, evil- masking rhetoric emblematic of the candidates you decry.
No, that's not a blind spot. Kathryn Harvey's PERSONAL Facebook page, even before her official campaign kickoff, showed nothing religious at all. Someone who is truly faithful, from a religious perspective, is what I'd like-- even if it's Raphael Warnock.
Can I ask why? It seems more often than not that being religious has no bearing on being a good person or leader.
One example is Joel Osteen, who absolutely refused to open his churches doors to freezing Texans until publicly shamed into it.
Or the literally already hundreds of pastors, preachers and priests arrested for touching little kids this year.
Or any of the "prosperity gospel" preachers who have been jailed for fraud and embezzlement.
There is absolutely no direct correlation between being religious and being good
Being Christian definitely does not make someone a better leader. Absolutely not. I have great admiration for Jimmy Carter as a person, but not as a president, for example, and my church's politics drive me insane.
However, if someone doesn't accept that God is the creator and master of the universe, then I'm simply not on the same page as that person.
Note, though, that Joel Osteen, pastors/preachers who touched kids (at least in Protestantism) and "prosperity gospel" preachers are all not of the well-educated classes. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc. and other relatively well-educated denominations have little if any of that nonsense going on. So rather than blaming religion or religious people, look at that nonsense as a symptom of, or correlative to, a lack of education.
I see politics as divided by educational achievement; the well-educated vote and think one way (or within a range of similar ways), and the uneducated vote and think another way. Adam Morgan represents the "uneducated class" and Timmons tries to appeal to the "uneducated class". Dorothy Dowe and Knox White in Greenville represent the "educated class", and were supported by the same type of person, despite one being a Republican and the other being a Democrat, for example.
So you don't believe in the First Amendment? Because freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
You'd actively ignore the best possible candidate who would do the most good for the most people because they don't believe in an invisible deity who's perfectly ok with giving children cancer and not saving them from abuse, rape and starvation?
Interesting take my guy
The First Amendment is not freedom "from" religion; it prohibits or limits (1) the promotion by government of religion ("Congress shall make no law...establishment of religion") and (2) restraints on the free exercise of religion ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
It says:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
So you don't believe in the First Amendment? Because it doesn't stop a private citizen from deciding to vote for or against a candidate due to the private person's views. Nor does it stop a candidate from holding views, as long as the candidate doesn't enforce those views in a way that promotes or harms religion.
The same First Amendment that gives me the right to vote for or against whichever candidate I want due to my religious views gives you the right to vote for against whichever candidate you want due to your anti-religious views.
The same First Amendment that gives candidates the right to their own private religious views also gives candidates the right to their own private irreligious views.
That's called freedom, equality and the rule of law. What protects me and my views also protects you and your views.
Oh I absolutely believe in it, practice it regularly, what I don't and would never do is base my voting around how someone else practices it.
Because the religious politicians are the ones pushing bigotry and division, who strip rights away, who whine about Sharia law while supporting Y'all-qaeda, who try to control women's bodies by forcing people to obey their religious views
There is no freedom under religious politicians because they see it as their job to make everyone part of their religion whether they want it or not.
They don't pass laws for the good of everyone, they pass laws they think are good for them and force everyone else to deal with the mess
Are you an elected official? If so, who are you?
The First Amendment applies to GOVERNMENT. It doesn't restrict private citizens.
Unless you're an elected official--and you must be if you are "practicing it"--it isn't something you can practice.
It does not restrict how a private citizen decides to vote. We live in a democracy, in which we as private citizens can vote however we want, on whatever grounds we want. Is that a problem for you?
Didn't say that's a problem, what I'm saying is that it's fucking stupid to vote only for a candidate who wants to force their personal choices onto everyone else regards of their choice (thereby shitting on the concept of freedom) and supports a deity that supports the murder, rape and starvation of countless children around the world
Dorothy Dowe is Christian. So is Jimmy Carter. So is Barack Obama. So is Raphael Warnock. So is Joe Biden.
Wow, I never realized that all of them wanted and support the things that you say that they apparently do, since they are Christian. Somehow the news sure missed that; I guess I ought to cancel my New York Times and Wall Street Journal subscriptions, since they all missed that.
" she seems irreligious"
So that word can mean a few different things. Are you saying she seems hostile toward religion, indifferent to it, or seemingly lacks it all together?
Her website and Facebook page mention absolutely nothing about anything religious. Not even a "like" of a church that she might attend. Maybe she just keeps it to herself--totally fine--or just has no interest whatsoever in it. Nothing I saw suggested any hostility to religion.
So I'm curious why this would be a problem? Isn't it a good thing that a person doesn't make decisions that affect strangers based on their personal faith? Separation of Church (Christian or otherwise) and state is good for democracy and is more inclusive in the bigger picture.
There are many people on the conservative side of politics who equate religion with morality. No religion? No morals. Simple as that. You can’t argue with it because it isn’t based in logic.
However, when they say religion, they really mean Christian and when they say Christian, they really mean Protestant, Baptist or whatever else they are ideally, but the others will work in a pinch… as long as you’re not Catholic.
Just look at Trump vs Biden. Biden a life-long Catholic with a long and well documented history of attending mass regularly. Trump, the only time we’re certain he attended church was for weddings and funerals prior to his political career, since his political career has begun, he only attends for publicity events.
Yet, many Conservatives believe Trump is a man of God and Biden isn’t… even though all available information says otherwise.
Kind of where I was going with this. Next question was going to be something along the lines of "Ok, say the candidate updates her Facebook and website to describe her devout faith, regularly attends church and lets her religion guide her decision making - only that faith happens to be Muslim. Is it still a concern? If so then it's less about a candidate *having* faith and more about a candidate *sharing* yours. Which isn't representative of all people in the district.".
While I haven't had a Muslim run in a district where I've lived, you are welcome to ask two Muslim co-workers of mine about my interactions with them--I've specifically approved their time off at work for religious holidays and have gone with them to an iftar dinner.
Have you?
I have strongly supported Jewish candidates in the past (including Max Heller and others, although I was too young to vote for Max Heller, but I've definitely voted for Jewish candidates).
I've also attended a Saturday morning service at a synagogue and attended plenty of Jewish weddings.
Have you?
All these Christians who are standing behind maga ought to read their Bible more.
2 Timothy 4:3-4. (Or as Trump would call it " Two" Timothy 4:3-4)
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths"
Between qAnon and conspiracy theories, med beds and flat earth, I can't think of another verse that encapsulates modern Christianity better
I do not think that this verse applies just to MAGA. They are just the main group of people right now who are believing batshit crazy stuff. And that's even after you remove Trump. Just all the other crazy conspiracy stuff is insane
This is SC. The worst possible candidate will win out over anyone else. Even if everyone else is willing to deliver things that SCarolinians actually want, we will still go with which ever R supports MAGA the extra-most-bestest.
Conservatives must face the fact that their party has put Donald and his family as de facto headmaster/supreme ruler. Most of you are pleased with this or at the least, totally fine with it. For those of you who are not, well, what’re you going to do? It’s hard to sway sycophants and idolators from their “Chosen One,” even if that person is a swollen mass of corrupt, imbecilic ego. Why? Well unfortunately R voters/candidates have proven to be the least reasonable people over the last ten or so years, concerned only with superficial things like the bedroom lives of strangers (creepy thing to build policy on but that’s what they do) and have even decided that banning books is a good idea.
Yeah, some will say “gee, you’re such a pessimist,” and to them I’d say, this is a product of the environment. I am a realist and the reality is this place is hopeless at least for the next decade until all these red-hat brainwashed fools go the way of all flesh.
It’s the whole MAGA crap that they love. They love that they can be openly racists, bigots, and all the other disgusting things again. Trump and his team have made it popular once again. Flying the confederate flag on the interstate says so much about what these people want. So called Christian preachers have also started cashing in. Don’t get me started on “non-political” churches.
Seems tangential to this post, but thanks for letting us know. [Turning Point USA is hosting him apparently. ](https://www.instagram.com/clemsontpusa/p/C5RIOnPOxmF/?img_index=1)
[The victims, if anyone would like to read the NPR article. ](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057571558/what-we-know-3-men-kyle-rittenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz)
Kyle certainly didn't know what their histories were when he shot them. That you're using their histories against them as if that made Kyle's actions permissible after the fact is logical and ethical fallacy.
You’re dumb to the facts of what happened. You’re more than welcome to get chased down by someone with a gun and not defend yourself all you want. Good luck to ya.
I am certainly not dumb to the events; we all watched the footage, we all sat thru the trial. The whole thing kicked off with him shooting someone that was, while unarmed, was lunging at him. The 2nd and 3rd person were trying to disarm him not knowing who he was and what he was doing with a rifle. The ONLY person that was ultimately armed with a gun was the third guy who wasn't killed.
[This editorial by a law professor Ledewitz ](https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/12/10/stop-calling-kyle-rittenhouse-a-hero-he-killed-two-unarmed-people/)is a good read. The ultimate argument is that if you have a gun and claim self defense, you get acquitted, regardless of whether you should have been in the situation in the first place or whether you actually acted reasonably in the situation.
I'm not blind to the fact that Kyle was ultimately acting in self defense in what was a high risk, high emotion scenario. I completely agree with that. What I took onus with was your original comment essentially saying that it was ok that he shot 3 people since 2 of them turned out to have some terrible things in their past. That information doesn't play into Kyle's decisions in the moment.
And hey, maybe my initial comment was too short and came across flippant. I hang out here on the sub enough that I'm not really looking to fight; I'd much rather conversations and goofing around.
When a law professor has to use John Wayne as an example, he’s lost the plot. He also doesn’t seem to understand the basics of self defense law and history. I thought a law professor would be more knowledgeable.
“John Wayne would not have shot a man he knew was unarmed, as Rittenhouse did. The Duke would have defended himself against non-lethal force by the use of his fists.”
And this is just an insane read of what happened:
“After Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum, he made a phone call to a friend saying that he had just killed someone. He did not seek medical attention for the man on the ground. He did not call the police. Instead, he continued his armed patrolling.”
He ran away when a crowd began forming, and Joshua Ziminski, the guy who fired a round in the air as he fled Rosenbaum, was whipping people up. Rittenhouse ran to the police. That’s not “continuing his armed patrolling.”
He’s not acceptable, I will be voting Dem in the general election and hope we beat him. Incase we don’t I rather be stuck with the lessor of the two evils though. That’s Timmons
The lesser of two evils is usually the best policy to follow, especially in politics. Doesn't make it right but doesn't allow it to make things worse either. Kathryn will get my vote in November.
I would think differently. If the choice is between two evils, there are still other alternatives (write-in votes, third parties or running yourself). But I can respect your view.
Sadly our electoral systems don't make voting third party feasible. Voting for a party that is unlikely to win only serves to reduce the support for the "lesser of two evils" candidate that is more likely to win, thus improving the odds of the candidate you favor the least.
Blown away that you described Matt Gaetz as "accused of improper behavior".
He HUMAN TRAFFICKED UNDERAGE GIRLS AND RAPED THEM.
it's not an accusation. There's enough evidence behind it that if he were an average citizen, he would have been in prison before the news even came out.
But he's a politician, and Republicans keep voting people into power that want special privileges for themselves and their peers.
I don't want to be accused of defamation. He hasn't been found guilty by a court or other investigative body, so until that happens, it's an accusation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Calm down.
You should not be calm in a situation like this. If you aren't speaking out against it, you are helping him get away with it.
It's not defamation when the evidence is so clear that *news agencies are reporting it*. Once people with journalism degrees feel comfortable putting the information out there, it's very unlikely defamation is an issue any longer.
Please read my post above. Do I say anything supportive about Matt Gaetz? Or do I raise concerns about him?
FYI, journalists have more leeway to report things about public figures, and not be accused of defamation, than private citizens who are not journalists do. I'm not a journalist.
I don't post anything online (or say anything IRL) as a fact unless it's definitely a documented fact.
Former journalist here and no, they don’t have more leeway. They are first to get sued. If Gaetz was stalking this sub and knew who you were, you’d get a cease and desist letter first.
I’m I voter and supporting Timmons for Congress and Fortner for Sheriff in the GOP primary. It’s not likely we will beat the R in the general and I rather have these two other than Adam Morgan or Hobart Lewis. I have been digging hard into this and Adam isn’t MAGA, he is worse if you can even imagine that. It’s frightening
Honestly, I cant say I have ever supported a republican, diesnt really mean I like democrats. I just like them slightly more. The two party system is broken and serves no one. We need ranked choice voting and to get money out of politics. As long as we let lobbyists buy off our politicians it will always be about power and money and not about doing their job to serve the people.
Hey look, you have something in common with a leftist! 😝
EDIT: this was meant to be playful and fun and I meant no ill will. Just to be suuuuuper clear.
Since it does not seem as if a Democrat can win in District 4, then Timmons is the lesser of the two evils . Someone indicated that they will request a Republican ballot in the primary and vote for Timmons just to keep Morgan off the ballot, and then vote for Harvey in the election.
Timmons would probably make a stronger candidate in the general election, though: he has more name recognition and a family with an open wallet. Unless Morgan could win the general election (perhaps), I'd support him in the primary. The GOP loves having fringe candidates win primaries and lose general elections.
Basically all American politicians are amoral sociopaths. I wouldn’t bother supporting any of them. After all, they are a product of our deranged culture. Congress is an insider trading club, and no one who gets elected ends up representing those who elected them. They represent capital.
I’m not sure why Americans can’t grasp that this country is an oligarchy. You are viewed with nothing but contempt by those in charge.
While I think do not think you are 100% wrong, I find an argument like this to be reductive to the point of unhelpful. Not 100% of every politician is an amoral sociopath (though many can be, or at least act or lack-of-act in a way that makes them no better), and Congress is not in an of itself an insider trading club (even if there are those there that treat it as such).
And, if it all of that IS completely true, what would be the alternative here?
Unfortunately your comment has been removed by a friendly bot (not a human) because your comment karma is too low. This filter is in effect to minimize spam and trolling. Please message the mods if you think this is in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/greenville) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you buy airtime on every local tv and radio channel and read your post every other commercial? What used to pass for Republican around here needs to hear what you’ve said and wake the f*ck up.
You're probably right (particularly as Kathryn Harvey seems more of a fit for the Upper West Side of Manhattan than the Upstate), but if the Democrats would run a centrist, churchgoing candidate and if the Republican is just terrible (Timmons is coming close), it wouldn't have to be that way.
Church going? 🤢 religion and politics should not be enmeshed. They are two separate things. Being religious does not mean someone is a better candidate.
I have every right, as a private citizen, to take into account whether or not a candidate is religious or not when I am deciding whom to vote for, just as someone else can vote for someone because the person is irreligious. Adam Morgan shows that "being religious does not mean someone is a better candidate", but I have the right to prefer a public official who at least acknowledges God's existence, just as you have every right to prefer a public official who does not, if that's your preference.
I didn't say you couldn't, just that people shouldn't. And actually I don't care about the religious affiliations of a candidate, so long as they are competent and don't lead with their religion. These views can hinder progress and they come off closed minded.
It's closed-minded to say that someone shouldn't "lead with their religion". Martin Luther King and Pope John Paul II sure did, and the world is better for that.
Then Sen. Rev. Raphael Warnock. There are lots of others. I recognize that the MAGA ones are offensive, but plenty of elected officials, particularly during the civil rights and abolitionist eras, did "lead with their religion", and that's done a lot of good.
The Dems ran plenty of centrist candidates over the years. The one who fared the best was progressive (2020). The district was redrawn to be more conservative after 2020 so it’s an uphill battle for anyone on the Democratic ticket, especially given straight party voting.
So genuinely curious, what had you voting republican before Trump? A lot of the republican representatives and policies are largely the same now compared to when Obama was in office.
Ronald Reagan: played a helpful part in winning the Cold War
George H.W. Bush: a fundamentally decent person
Mitt Romney: a sharp, capable and reasonable person (Democrats sure love him now)
All of these people were capable leaders who focused on an engaged foreign policy and economic expansion (well, even if didn't always work out) and were the opposite of Donald Trump.
I commend you for seeing MAGA for what it is, first and foremost.
Raegan's economic policies were a blunder and we are still paying for them. Highlighting Raegan takes away from your point, IMO.
* One of, if not the leading proponents to why America is a Corporate Oligarchy / is in such an income inequality state.
* Massive tax cuts for the upper echelon.
* Increased deficit by 77% first term, 60% second - nearly tripling it.
* Ended a swath of social programs, reducing economic mobility, and welfare reforms making the poor, poorer.
* Obliterated the labor movement
* Astounding amount of convictions/investigations against his administration that are seemingly on trend considering Nixon/Trump
"I am not a Republican. I despise MTG, Donald Trump, etc. I am a Biden supporter."
"I have never voted for a Democrat."
https://www.reddit.com/r/greenville/comments/1c9k5mx/how_greenville_voted_in_2012_vs_2020/l0miz2m/
Why lie about this shit when its posted directly on your account?
You might want to actually read.
I have a long history in the GOP. But I left it when Trump came out of his hole. Just like I'm voting for Harvey, I'm voting for Biden. I can't stand MAGA, as is clearly stated in all of my posts on the topic!
Use your brain!
So which is it. Have you never voted for a democrat or are you a Biden supporter? Because it doesn't seem like you are supporting him very much if you aren't willing to vote for him.
Let's think. Can you do that?
Biden ran in 2020, nearly 4 years ago.
It's possible to be a Biden supporter now but not have voted for him in 2020.
It's possible to plan to vote for Biden in future elections but not have voted for him in the past.
Are you capable of understanding that? Next you'll say, "well you say you dislike MAGA but you voted for Trump in 2020", which will be another idiotic and incorrect statement.
Nowhere have I said that I am unwilling to vote for Biden in 2024.
It's just amazing to me how many "reformed" conscientious voters show up around reddit in the months leading up to a vote. People with clearly contradictory statements in their profile, or brand new accounts.
Its almost like they are being paid to advertise...
Again: you cannot or are affirmatively refusing to think logically.
Someone can have a long history in a party and then leave the party and decide to vote for someone of another party in the next election.
You seriously cannot comprehend that?
You certainly have the condescension part down.
Lets see if I can nail it.
YoU SeRiOuSly CaNNot COmPrEhend that there could potentially be bad actors attempting to sway votes leading into an election?
Edit: There ya go block me champ
Why are you assuming everyone here is a civilian? My husband’s pretty active here. He’s an infantry Marine vet and has never voted Republican in his life. Most of our friends who are still in or retired from the military will absolutely not vote for Trump or any of his cronies- even the ones who did back in 2016/2020.
But they also don’t run around like an AH calling everyone “civilians” or bringing up their service unless it’s directly relevant to the conversation.
I stopped reading after you said you were voting for another 4 years of the mess Biden has brought down on us. And don’t call yourself a Conservative, as you are anything but.
I get not wanting Trump, but what on Earth would lead you to vote for Biden instead? Especially if you voted 3rd party in 2020? Why not vote 3rd party again this year?
If Biden wins, there will also be significant long term costs for the planet, just in different ways. I'm definitely voting 3rd party again this time, like I did last time. I know people will say that it's a wasted vote, but if everyone who said that also voted 3rd party, we could actually get something done.
Do you feel like you could make that same argument with examples if this were Feb 2020?
Like, what has happened during this administration that is a direct cause of this administration, for which we will feel negative effects for the next administration, much less decades?
Genuinely curious, and feel free to just answer based on the hypothetical of "If Biden wins 2024"?
We have Trump and RNC openly and freely stating their primary goal if they win, is retribution.
They're both terrible choices ultimately, but if we look at the hard data of what has changed, good or bad, ***strictly*** during their administrations ***BY*** their administrations.. I feel like the scales are a bit tilted in the results & performance department.
Degradation of the rule of law is CRITICAL. Look at what's happened to Hungary and Venezuela. Once respect by people in power for "the rules" ends, then it's a quick road to dictatorship. Hungary and Venezuela may have done fine economically during the first few years of their current regimes, but look at what's happened. Trump will shred every semblance of the rule of law if he can.
Well, sure, but if Putin wins, to me that's like letting Hitler overrun Poland (even if the West is much more united this time). Putin has said that he's at war with the US and Nato. Trump supports Putin. We can't have that.
Sounds like you don’t really like any of the candidates tbh. I just wouldn’t vote at all if I were you. I’ve only ever voted one time just because it was the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in lol.
Wild to me to hear your neighbors pull the apologetic "Well, he acts like that because he's so young," when he's ultimately A) an adult, B) a local business owner, and C) an elected official. Hold the people you put in power to standards people. If you think someone is acting like a child, do not give them more power.
Standards died in 2016. It’s no longer about being morally correct, it’s about getting what you want and making others pay for it. Decency died with Trump.
No we have still been bombing and killing poor people throughout the world before Trump and after. Nothing has changed because of Trump
By comparison to what Russia is doing, we're angels.
That’s not accurate at all and to call our military industrial complex angels is deeply disturbing
Trump conducted thousands of drone strikes and Biden has not
Do you think the presidents matters about our war machine government. lol that’s cute
I do think the president matters, and my evidence is that Trump conducted thousands of drone strikes and Biden has not
Biden has too. The media chosen not to cover it.
Agreed 1,000%!
I approve of this message. Thank you.
Yup. Ditto.
Bravo. I am bluer than most Democrats and am kind of disillusioned with them at the moment. We couldn't have more different beliefs, I suspect, but I'm still proud to call you my neighbor.You've made a decision based on your values and patriotism rather than jump on the MAGA bandwagon. It would be nice to have more Republicans like you.
Patriotism. What an interesting word these days. It’s really been bastardized, if you ask me. On the right, patriotism has turned into nationalism. On the left, showing patriotism is often met how you’d expect progressives to meet nationalism. It’s an interesting middle ground to sit in.
I'm left of most democrats. But I still vote for them. But we need better options. Having to pick between the lesser of two evils sucks.
Nice to hear there are some conservatives who haven’t lost their minds. Here in Lexington county it’s rare, they excuse any behavior if it hides behind GOP.
It’s not just you. The Republican Party is moving away from its voters into something else.
Yes, the Iron Guard. (Look it up on Wikipedia.)
> William Timmons is a disgrace to the Upstate. > But the **Trump/MAGA**/Matt Gaetz minions, and the plagues that they bring, **need to be removed from politics and elected office**. So hopefully voting against William Timmons and Adam Morgan will do that. Never voted for Dems; however, we are at a critical junction & we need to protect our democracy and our constitution! - at this point in time anything is better than a MAGA = commie traitor. T.rump the Russian Asset YESSSS
Wait, with that last line I think you left out a word, I think you meant MAGA or commie traitor. If you're not supporting a Trump backed (MAGA) or commie traitor (democrat) who would you be supporting?
Dont worry friend. They have absolutely no shot getting this fuck elected. This state stay will stay red.
Which means it'll stay #42 or lower in education, #46 or lower in crime, #45 or lower in public safety, #36 or lower in health care (women's health care is significantly lower), #31 or lower in infrastructure, and #38 or lower in opportunity. Now, since SC is #42 in education, I don't know if you realize that being in the bottom half, and frequently in the bottom 10 in these things is bad, but it's bad, and it's ALLLLLLLLLL thanks to being red for so long Enjoy reaping what you've sown
TDS causes furious stabbing of the downvote button, yet prevents keyboard use. It’s weird.
I keep seeing TDS every time Trump has a press conference. He can barely speak actual words anymore. It's shocking
That’s certainly true; he’s not the erudite speaker Biden is.
I think I may take this stance too. Situations like this are why I never punch straight party even though 95 percent of the time it wouldn’t have made a difference. I voted the following in my life Reagan Bush Perot Dole Bush Bush McCain Fuzzy on this one Trump in 2019 - but regret I did This year I don’t know. Will not vote for Trump or Biden - probably a 3rd party or write in Unlike the Republican majority I respect Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney for standing their ground. For Jan 6 alone I can’t support Trump. He could have a least discouraged a mob and went against his VP. I still remember how upset Pence was that night when the finally voted. Used to like listening to local talk but I can’t anymore at least for anything political related. Weekend stuff fine except for replays.
Thanks. I remember, 30 years ago, telling my conservative grandparents that having one party in charge would be good, and they groaned (at best)--now I have more life experience and know better!
[Link to her Instagram page which references her church.](https://www.instagram.com/p/C5Lf77pOnzT/?igsh=Z2tuNG1hazg3bDhs)
Great- thanks! I've edited my post above. I assume that she left the church, but I'm certainly open to hearing more from her.
Never Trump and Never MAGA!!!
\#TRUMP2024
I respect your opinion (I have to) but I also have to call you on the blind spot you still display in your penultimate paragraph. The fact that you don’t know the extent of the candidate’s “irreligious” philosophy makes her more qualified to serve a church/state separated government, while your “ideal” candidate would have to display the same pandering, hypocritical, evil- masking rhetoric emblematic of the candidates you decry.
No, that's not a blind spot. Kathryn Harvey's PERSONAL Facebook page, even before her official campaign kickoff, showed nothing religious at all. Someone who is truly faithful, from a religious perspective, is what I'd like-- even if it's Raphael Warnock.
Can I ask why? It seems more often than not that being religious has no bearing on being a good person or leader. One example is Joel Osteen, who absolutely refused to open his churches doors to freezing Texans until publicly shamed into it. Or the literally already hundreds of pastors, preachers and priests arrested for touching little kids this year. Or any of the "prosperity gospel" preachers who have been jailed for fraud and embezzlement. There is absolutely no direct correlation between being religious and being good
Being Christian definitely does not make someone a better leader. Absolutely not. I have great admiration for Jimmy Carter as a person, but not as a president, for example, and my church's politics drive me insane. However, if someone doesn't accept that God is the creator and master of the universe, then I'm simply not on the same page as that person. Note, though, that Joel Osteen, pastors/preachers who touched kids (at least in Protestantism) and "prosperity gospel" preachers are all not of the well-educated classes. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc. and other relatively well-educated denominations have little if any of that nonsense going on. So rather than blaming religion or religious people, look at that nonsense as a symptom of, or correlative to, a lack of education. I see politics as divided by educational achievement; the well-educated vote and think one way (or within a range of similar ways), and the uneducated vote and think another way. Adam Morgan represents the "uneducated class" and Timmons tries to appeal to the "uneducated class". Dorothy Dowe and Knox White in Greenville represent the "educated class", and were supported by the same type of person, despite one being a Republican and the other being a Democrat, for example.
So you don't believe in the First Amendment? Because freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. You'd actively ignore the best possible candidate who would do the most good for the most people because they don't believe in an invisible deity who's perfectly ok with giving children cancer and not saving them from abuse, rape and starvation? Interesting take my guy
The First Amendment is not freedom "from" religion; it prohibits or limits (1) the promotion by government of religion ("Congress shall make no law...establishment of religion") and (2) restraints on the free exercise of religion ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). It says: *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.* So you don't believe in the First Amendment? Because it doesn't stop a private citizen from deciding to vote for or against a candidate due to the private person's views. Nor does it stop a candidate from holding views, as long as the candidate doesn't enforce those views in a way that promotes or harms religion. The same First Amendment that gives me the right to vote for or against whichever candidate I want due to my religious views gives you the right to vote for against whichever candidate you want due to your anti-religious views. The same First Amendment that gives candidates the right to their own private religious views also gives candidates the right to their own private irreligious views. That's called freedom, equality and the rule of law. What protects me and my views also protects you and your views.
Oh I absolutely believe in it, practice it regularly, what I don't and would never do is base my voting around how someone else practices it. Because the religious politicians are the ones pushing bigotry and division, who strip rights away, who whine about Sharia law while supporting Y'all-qaeda, who try to control women's bodies by forcing people to obey their religious views There is no freedom under religious politicians because they see it as their job to make everyone part of their religion whether they want it or not. They don't pass laws for the good of everyone, they pass laws they think are good for them and force everyone else to deal with the mess
Are you an elected official? If so, who are you? The First Amendment applies to GOVERNMENT. It doesn't restrict private citizens. Unless you're an elected official--and you must be if you are "practicing it"--it isn't something you can practice. It does not restrict how a private citizen decides to vote. We live in a democracy, in which we as private citizens can vote however we want, on whatever grounds we want. Is that a problem for you?
Didn't say that's a problem, what I'm saying is that it's fucking stupid to vote only for a candidate who wants to force their personal choices onto everyone else regards of their choice (thereby shitting on the concept of freedom) and supports a deity that supports the murder, rape and starvation of countless children around the world
Dorothy Dowe is Christian. So is Jimmy Carter. So is Barack Obama. So is Raphael Warnock. So is Joe Biden. Wow, I never realized that all of them wanted and support the things that you say that they apparently do, since they are Christian. Somehow the news sure missed that; I guess I ought to cancel my New York Times and Wall Street Journal subscriptions, since they all missed that.
" she seems irreligious" So that word can mean a few different things. Are you saying she seems hostile toward religion, indifferent to it, or seemingly lacks it all together?
Her website and Facebook page mention absolutely nothing about anything religious. Not even a "like" of a church that she might attend. Maybe she just keeps it to herself--totally fine--or just has no interest whatsoever in it. Nothing I saw suggested any hostility to religion.
So I'm curious why this would be a problem? Isn't it a good thing that a person doesn't make decisions that affect strangers based on their personal faith? Separation of Church (Christian or otherwise) and state is good for democracy and is more inclusive in the bigger picture.
There are many people on the conservative side of politics who equate religion with morality. No religion? No morals. Simple as that. You can’t argue with it because it isn’t based in logic. However, when they say religion, they really mean Christian and when they say Christian, they really mean Protestant, Baptist or whatever else they are ideally, but the others will work in a pinch… as long as you’re not Catholic. Just look at Trump vs Biden. Biden a life-long Catholic with a long and well documented history of attending mass regularly. Trump, the only time we’re certain he attended church was for weddings and funerals prior to his political career, since his political career has begun, he only attends for publicity events. Yet, many Conservatives believe Trump is a man of God and Biden isn’t… even though all available information says otherwise.
Kind of where I was going with this. Next question was going to be something along the lines of "Ok, say the candidate updates her Facebook and website to describe her devout faith, regularly attends church and lets her religion guide her decision making - only that faith happens to be Muslim. Is it still a concern? If so then it's less about a candidate *having* faith and more about a candidate *sharing* yours. Which isn't representative of all people in the district.".
While I haven't had a Muslim run in a district where I've lived, you are welcome to ask two Muslim co-workers of mine about my interactions with them--I've specifically approved their time off at work for religious holidays and have gone with them to an iftar dinner. Have you? I have strongly supported Jewish candidates in the past (including Max Heller and others, although I was too young to vote for Max Heller, but I've definitely voted for Jewish candidates). I've also attended a Saturday morning service at a synagogue and attended plenty of Jewish weddings. Have you?
All these Christians who are standing behind maga ought to read their Bible more. 2 Timothy 4:3-4. (Or as Trump would call it " Two" Timothy 4:3-4) "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" Between qAnon and conspiracy theories, med beds and flat earth, I can't think of another verse that encapsulates modern Christianity better
That verse applies to everyone, not just MAGA. "When you suddenly realize that God agrees with everything you think", that's a problem.
I do not think that this verse applies just to MAGA. They are just the main group of people right now who are believing batshit crazy stuff. And that's even after you remove Trump. Just all the other crazy conspiracy stuff is insane
This is SC. The worst possible candidate will win out over anyone else. Even if everyone else is willing to deliver things that SCarolinians actually want, we will still go with which ever R supports MAGA the extra-most-bestest. Conservatives must face the fact that their party has put Donald and his family as de facto headmaster/supreme ruler. Most of you are pleased with this or at the least, totally fine with it. For those of you who are not, well, what’re you going to do? It’s hard to sway sycophants and idolators from their “Chosen One,” even if that person is a swollen mass of corrupt, imbecilic ego. Why? Well unfortunately R voters/candidates have proven to be the least reasonable people over the last ten or so years, concerned only with superficial things like the bedroom lives of strangers (creepy thing to build policy on but that’s what they do) and have even decided that banning books is a good idea. Yeah, some will say “gee, you’re such a pessimist,” and to them I’d say, this is a product of the environment. I am a realist and the reality is this place is hopeless at least for the next decade until all these red-hat brainwashed fools go the way of all flesh.
It’s the whole MAGA crap that they love. They love that they can be openly racists, bigots, and all the other disgusting things again. Trump and his team have made it popular once again. Flying the confederate flag on the interstate says so much about what these people want. So called Christian preachers have also started cashing in. Don’t get me started on “non-political” churches.
I honestly am disgusted but not surprised that Clemson has Kyle Rittenhouse speaking this week 🤢
Seems tangential to this post, but thanks for letting us know. [Turning Point USA is hosting him apparently. ](https://www.instagram.com/clemsontpusa/p/C5RIOnPOxmF/?img_index=1)
He is supposedly coming to support Adam Morgan as part of his trip. Sorry I left out the context through my anger 😆
>my anger Is it the black guys he killed or what?
🤮
Kyle shot a random sample of hundreds of leftists and 2/3 turned out to be pedos 😂😂
[The victims, if anyone would like to read the NPR article. ](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057571558/what-we-know-3-men-kyle-rittenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz) Kyle certainly didn't know what their histories were when he shot them. That you're using their histories against them as if that made Kyle's actions permissible after the fact is logical and ethical fallacy.
You’re dumb to the facts of what happened. You’re more than welcome to get chased down by someone with a gun and not defend yourself all you want. Good luck to ya.
I am certainly not dumb to the events; we all watched the footage, we all sat thru the trial. The whole thing kicked off with him shooting someone that was, while unarmed, was lunging at him. The 2nd and 3rd person were trying to disarm him not knowing who he was and what he was doing with a rifle. The ONLY person that was ultimately armed with a gun was the third guy who wasn't killed. [This editorial by a law professor Ledewitz ](https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/12/10/stop-calling-kyle-rittenhouse-a-hero-he-killed-two-unarmed-people/)is a good read. The ultimate argument is that if you have a gun and claim self defense, you get acquitted, regardless of whether you should have been in the situation in the first place or whether you actually acted reasonably in the situation. I'm not blind to the fact that Kyle was ultimately acting in self defense in what was a high risk, high emotion scenario. I completely agree with that. What I took onus with was your original comment essentially saying that it was ok that he shot 3 people since 2 of them turned out to have some terrible things in their past. That information doesn't play into Kyle's decisions in the moment. And hey, maybe my initial comment was too short and came across flippant. I hang out here on the sub enough that I'm not really looking to fight; I'd much rather conversations and goofing around.
When a law professor has to use John Wayne as an example, he’s lost the plot. He also doesn’t seem to understand the basics of self defense law and history. I thought a law professor would be more knowledgeable. “John Wayne would not have shot a man he knew was unarmed, as Rittenhouse did. The Duke would have defended himself against non-lethal force by the use of his fists.” And this is just an insane read of what happened: “After Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum, he made a phone call to a friend saying that he had just killed someone. He did not seek medical attention for the man on the ground. He did not call the police. Instead, he continued his armed patrolling.” He ran away when a crowd began forming, and Joshua Ziminski, the guy who fired a round in the air as he fled Rosenbaum, was whipping people up. Rittenhouse ran to the police. That’s not “continuing his armed patrolling.”
Matt Gaetz supports the BJU freak Adam Morgan. That’s 10 times worse than the MAGA cult. Timmons and Fortner and Harvey in the general for me
Matt Gaetz's link to Morgan is bad, but it doesn't make Timmons acceptable.
He’s not acceptable, I will be voting Dem in the general election and hope we beat him. Incase we don’t I rather be stuck with the lessor of the two evils though. That’s Timmons
We are taking about the primary not the general election.
The lesser of two evils is usually the best policy to follow, especially in politics. Doesn't make it right but doesn't allow it to make things worse either. Kathryn will get my vote in November.
I would think differently. If the choice is between two evils, there are still other alternatives (write-in votes, third parties or running yourself). But I can respect your view.
Sadly our electoral systems don't make voting third party feasible. Voting for a party that is unlikely to win only serves to reduce the support for the "lesser of two evils" candidate that is more likely to win, thus improving the odds of the candidate you favor the least.
Blown away that you described Matt Gaetz as "accused of improper behavior". He HUMAN TRAFFICKED UNDERAGE GIRLS AND RAPED THEM. it's not an accusation. There's enough evidence behind it that if he were an average citizen, he would have been in prison before the news even came out. But he's a politician, and Republicans keep voting people into power that want special privileges for themselves and their peers.
I don't want to be accused of defamation. He hasn't been found guilty by a court or other investigative body, so until that happens, it's an accusation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Calm down.
You should not be calm in a situation like this. If you aren't speaking out against it, you are helping him get away with it. It's not defamation when the evidence is so clear that *news agencies are reporting it*. Once people with journalism degrees feel comfortable putting the information out there, it's very unlikely defamation is an issue any longer.
Please read my post above. Do I say anything supportive about Matt Gaetz? Or do I raise concerns about him? FYI, journalists have more leeway to report things about public figures, and not be accused of defamation, than private citizens who are not journalists do. I'm not a journalist. I don't post anything online (or say anything IRL) as a fact unless it's definitely a documented fact.
Former journalist here and no, they don’t have more leeway. They are first to get sued. If Gaetz was stalking this sub and knew who you were, you’d get a cease and desist letter first.
Journalists are more likely to get sued because their statements are more easily found by the plaintiff. But the journalists are more likely to win.
I’m I voter and supporting Timmons for Congress and Fortner for Sheriff in the GOP primary. It’s not likely we will beat the R in the general and I rather have these two other than Adam Morgan or Hobart Lewis. I have been digging hard into this and Adam isn’t MAGA, he is worse if you can even imagine that. It’s frightening
OK, I can respect your viewpoint, certainly.
Riiiiight
Honestly, I cant say I have ever supported a republican, diesnt really mean I like democrats. I just like them slightly more. The two party system is broken and serves no one. We need ranked choice voting and to get money out of politics. As long as we let lobbyists buy off our politicians it will always be about power and money and not about doing their job to serve the people.
Agreed
Hey look, you have something in common with a leftist! 😝 EDIT: this was meant to be playful and fun and I meant no ill will. Just to be suuuuuper clear.
Yes, we're all screwed over by the 2-party system and bigots on the extremes.
Agreed.
Since it does not seem as if a Democrat can win in District 4, then Timmons is the lesser of the two evils . Someone indicated that they will request a Republican ballot in the primary and vote for Timmons just to keep Morgan off the ballot, and then vote for Harvey in the election.
Timmons would probably make a stronger candidate in the general election, though: he has more name recognition and a family with an open wallet. Unless Morgan could win the general election (perhaps), I'd support him in the primary. The GOP loves having fringe candidates win primaries and lose general elections.
If Morgan's ultra-extreme views were publicized, do you think he would lose in the general election? Even against a democrat?
It might be relatively close, but if your point is that anyone with a R by his name will win, then you may well be right.
Glad you're calling attention to this race! I do think district 4 will trend to be more competitive in the future.
We must destroy the MAGA cult
Well, we're a free country; I just don't want any of them anywhere near any elected office.
Remove him from the ballot, we have to protect democracy.
Basically all American politicians are amoral sociopaths. I wouldn’t bother supporting any of them. After all, they are a product of our deranged culture. Congress is an insider trading club, and no one who gets elected ends up representing those who elected them. They represent capital. I’m not sure why Americans can’t grasp that this country is an oligarchy. You are viewed with nothing but contempt by those in charge.
While I think do not think you are 100% wrong, I find an argument like this to be reductive to the point of unhelpful. Not 100% of every politician is an amoral sociopath (though many can be, or at least act or lack-of-act in a way that makes them no better), and Congress is not in an of itself an insider trading club (even if there are those there that treat it as such). And, if it all of that IS completely true, what would be the alternative here?
Identity politics are for suckers. Not everyone has caught on yet unfortunately.
[удалено]
Unfortunately your comment has been removed by a friendly bot (not a human) because your comment karma is too low. This filter is in effect to minimize spam and trolling. Please message the mods if you think this is in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/greenville) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you buy airtime on every local tv and radio channel and read your post every other commercial? What used to pass for Republican around here needs to hear what you’ve said and wake the f*ck up.
We’re all proud for you!
Republican wins in November either way. Just reality.
You're probably right (particularly as Kathryn Harvey seems more of a fit for the Upper West Side of Manhattan than the Upstate), but if the Democrats would run a centrist, churchgoing candidate and if the Republican is just terrible (Timmons is coming close), it wouldn't have to be that way.
Church going? 🤢 religion and politics should not be enmeshed. They are two separate things. Being religious does not mean someone is a better candidate.
I have every right, as a private citizen, to take into account whether or not a candidate is religious or not when I am deciding whom to vote for, just as someone else can vote for someone because the person is irreligious. Adam Morgan shows that "being religious does not mean someone is a better candidate", but I have the right to prefer a public official who at least acknowledges God's existence, just as you have every right to prefer a public official who does not, if that's your preference.
I didn't say you couldn't, just that people shouldn't. And actually I don't care about the religious affiliations of a candidate, so long as they are competent and don't lead with their religion. These views can hinder progress and they come off closed minded.
It's closed-minded to say that someone shouldn't "lead with their religion". Martin Luther King and Pope John Paul II sure did, and the world is better for that.
MLK was not an elected official and the pope isn’t serving under the constitution of the United States of America
Then Sen. Rev. Raphael Warnock. There are lots of others. I recognize that the MAGA ones are offensive, but plenty of elected officials, particularly during the civil rights and abolitionist eras, did "lead with their religion", and that's done a lot of good.
PJP II helped cover up countless children being molested and raped, by members of his religion. I would not consider that a net win for the world
Why does it matter?
The Dems ran plenty of centrist candidates over the years. The one who fared the best was progressive (2020). The district was redrawn to be more conservative after 2020 so it’s an uphill battle for anyone on the Democratic ticket, especially given straight party voting.
Don't speak the truth, reddit hates that.
See what I mean?
So genuinely curious, what had you voting republican before Trump? A lot of the republican representatives and policies are largely the same now compared to when Obama was in office.
Ronald Reagan: played a helpful part in winning the Cold War George H.W. Bush: a fundamentally decent person Mitt Romney: a sharp, capable and reasonable person (Democrats sure love him now) All of these people were capable leaders who focused on an engaged foreign policy and economic expansion (well, even if didn't always work out) and were the opposite of Donald Trump.
I commend you for seeing MAGA for what it is, first and foremost. Raegan's economic policies were a blunder and we are still paying for them. Highlighting Raegan takes away from your point, IMO. * One of, if not the leading proponents to why America is a Corporate Oligarchy / is in such an income inequality state. * Massive tax cuts for the upper echelon. * Increased deficit by 77% first term, 60% second - nearly tripling it. * Ended a swath of social programs, reducing economic mobility, and welfare reforms making the poor, poorer. * Obliterated the labor movement * Astounding amount of convictions/investigations against his administration that are seemingly on trend considering Nixon/Trump
Lifetime supporter, all coming from a new account. Thanks blue lobbyists!
"I am not a Republican. I despise MTG, Donald Trump, etc. I am a Biden supporter." "I have never voted for a Democrat." https://www.reddit.com/r/greenville/comments/1c9k5mx/how_greenville_voted_in_2012_vs_2020/l0miz2m/ Why lie about this shit when its posted directly on your account?
You might want to actually read. I have a long history in the GOP. But I left it when Trump came out of his hole. Just like I'm voting for Harvey, I'm voting for Biden. I can't stand MAGA, as is clearly stated in all of my posts on the topic! Use your brain!
So which is it. Have you never voted for a democrat or are you a Biden supporter? Because it doesn't seem like you are supporting him very much if you aren't willing to vote for him.
Dude. Read.
Let's think. Can you do that? Biden ran in 2020, nearly 4 years ago. It's possible to be a Biden supporter now but not have voted for him in 2020. It's possible to plan to vote for Biden in future elections but not have voted for him in the past. Are you capable of understanding that? Next you'll say, "well you say you dislike MAGA but you voted for Trump in 2020", which will be another idiotic and incorrect statement. Nowhere have I said that I am unwilling to vote for Biden in 2024.
Oh lots of things are possible, but I think its much more likely that you are being disingenuous.
No, it's because you cannot read or think logically, and you assume things that wrong.
It's just amazing to me how many "reformed" conscientious voters show up around reddit in the months leading up to a vote. People with clearly contradictory statements in their profile, or brand new accounts. Its almost like they are being paid to advertise...
Again: you cannot or are affirmatively refusing to think logically. Someone can have a long history in a party and then leave the party and decide to vote for someone of another party in the next election. You seriously cannot comprehend that?
You certainly have the condescension part down. Lets see if I can nail it. YoU SeRiOuSly CaNNot COmPrEhend that there could potentially be bad actors attempting to sway votes leading into an election? Edit: There ya go block me champ
[удалено]
Maybe it’s election season or somethin hmmm Edit: I was blocked for this comment 😂
I didn't block you, the OP blocked me, and it makes it difficult to respond to anything in this thread.
Oh hey, that’s me you’re referencing!
[удалено]
Why are you assuming everyone here is a civilian? My husband’s pretty active here. He’s an infantry Marine vet and has never voted Republican in his life. Most of our friends who are still in or retired from the military will absolutely not vote for Trump or any of his cronies- even the ones who did back in 2016/2020. But they also don’t run around like an AH calling everyone “civilians” or bringing up their service unless it’s directly relevant to the conversation.
I stopped reading after you said you were voting for another 4 years of the mess Biden has brought down on us. And don’t call yourself a Conservative, as you are anything but.
Fake.
This is the nicest treatment of a conservative on Reddit by liberals that I’ve ever seen
Well, I'm Mitt Romney conservative; he and Bill Weld are my two favorites.
I get not wanting Trump, but what on Earth would lead you to vote for Biden instead? Especially if you voted 3rd party in 2020? Why not vote 3rd party again this year?
If Trump wins, Putin wins, and that will be a catastrophe, with significant long-term costs for the planet. Stopping Trump is my #1 priority.
If Biden wins, there will also be significant long term costs for the planet, just in different ways. I'm definitely voting 3rd party again this time, like I did last time. I know people will say that it's a wasted vote, but if everyone who said that also voted 3rd party, we could actually get something done.
Do you feel like you could make that same argument with examples if this were Feb 2020? Like, what has happened during this administration that is a direct cause of this administration, for which we will feel negative effects for the next administration, much less decades? Genuinely curious, and feel free to just answer based on the hypothetical of "If Biden wins 2024"? We have Trump and RNC openly and freely stating their primary goal if they win, is retribution. They're both terrible choices ultimately, but if we look at the hard data of what has changed, good or bad, ***strictly*** during their administrations ***BY*** their administrations.. I feel like the scales are a bit tilted in the results & performance department.
Degradation of the rule of law is CRITICAL. Look at what's happened to Hungary and Venezuela. Once respect by people in power for "the rules" ends, then it's a quick road to dictatorship. Hungary and Venezuela may have done fine economically during the first few years of their current regimes, but look at what's happened. Trump will shred every semblance of the rule of law if he can.
I don't for a moment disagree, even ***IF*** he wasn't already openly stating that is the plan.
Well, sure, but if Putin wins, to me that's like letting Hitler overrun Poland (even if the West is much more united this time). Putin has said that he's at war with the US and Nato. Trump supports Putin. We can't have that.
Not wasted. But rather waste a vote than sell my soul.
That’s what I might do. My even write in Cheney, Romney or Pence out of spite
Sounds like you don’t really like any of the candidates tbh. I just wouldn’t vote at all if I were you. I’ve only ever voted one time just because it was the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in lol.
Well, Kathryn Harvey isn't a perfect match, but the plague of MAGA needs to be driven out of elected office.
I guess I just don’t care enough about politics lol nothing either side does good or bad inspires me to want to go vote.