After all, so few people will change an entire way of life, based on the arguments.
What do I mean? For many, self-identification is a gateway to relationships, self-esteem, cultural and religious affiliations. Their friends all agree with them politically – “arguments”, for these people, amount to a spirited discussion of tactics and interpretation, not any kind of attempt to put forth the reasoning behind their stands. OF COURSE, all rational people agree on general principles:
- Abortion is ABSOLUTELY necessary (not exactly wanted, but needed for their personal fulfillment).
- Conservatives are stupid. Even if they have degrees, publications, or high IQs, they are stupid.
- Religion is OK, but must be tepid, willing to bend to more “modern” ideas, and not inhibiting any sexual activity that the adherents really want to engage in.
- Your sexual identity is NOT determined by your DNA or exterior body, but by how you “feel”. And, although Liberal women would be OUTRAGED by a biological and identifying man in a women’s locker room, a biological man who identifies as a woman is PERFECTLY OK.
- Your racial identity is determined by whether you have a single Black ancestor – at that point, no matter how White you look, you will always be Black. Those people (Southern Democrats) who originated that “One Drop” rule? TOTALLY racist.
- Money is horrible when someone has worked hard to earn it, but wonderful when they have inherited it from an ancestor who earned it – at least, if they are Liberal. If their ancestors were Conservative, it is still horrible, and government should punish them by taking it away.
- Power concentrated in the hands of elected Boards of Directors is just one more example of the Oppressors in action.
- Power concentrated in the hands of non-elected Boards composed of family members and friends of the organization, as long as they fund Liberal groups, is just peachy.
- Adultery is:
- If committed by Conservatives, grounds for firing, shaming, and forced removal from office/employment/any influence whatsoever.
- If committed by Liberals – oh, those Rascals! How adorbs! Look, a Conservative trying to make Liberals face the same consequences – GET those prudish Conservatives!
- Falls like precious pearls from the lips of Liberals. Don’t you DARE say that they are lying!
- Cannot be found in the vicinity of Conservatives – they ALL lie.
Can you use FACTS to change these preconceptions?
All of the above stem from an emotional attachment to Liberal Values. It is a given of their thinking that all virtue stems from their Liberalism. They are good BECAUSE they are Liberal. Conservatives are bad BECAUSE they are Conservative.
Although emotionalism is often a trait of women, many Liberal men fall into that category. It seems to be a trait encouraged by the Liberal/Leftist Power Structure – they HAVE to base their politics on emotion. If they used their brains, they would be Conservatives.
In some of his books, Heinlein refers to the time period in which society’s foundations totally collapsed, and government was incapable of performing even the most basic protective functions, as the Crazy Times.
We’re at least in the cusp, if not fully at that point now.
I’ve been only sporadically keeping up with the Republican “pit bull fights” – er, “debates”. Not disinterested, just REALLY busy with other things in my life.
So, I really do depend on analysis of their performance from trusted sources on the Internet. What do I consider a trusted source?
- Someone who cites reputable sources, with links, for their argumentative points
- Someone who is upfront about their affiliations, donations, and political leanings/votes
- Someone who does not merely repeat talking points
- Someone who does not demonize or smear the opposing side
This is a relatively small group. They support different candidates, but generally will order that support on a continium – Prefer X, but Y is OK except for issue B, and Z would be terrible, because of….
That sort of reasoning, that is an assist to, but not a replacement for, keeping up generally on the candidates’ progress/statements/background (verifiable).
Some good suggestions here.
Today’s campuses have a LOT in common with the Old South, pre-Civil War:
- ALL women are fragile, delicate flowers
- They cannot TAKE coarse, rough language
- They are put on a pedestal (in today’s terms, they CANNOT be criticized for ANYTHING)
- They can say or do anything, without forfeiting their position
- They can chastise any men, without fear of being contradicted
- They are prone to the vapors if the subject veers into potentially upsetting topics
- Their virtue (sexual and otherwise) may NOT be questioned
- They are not responsible for their actions – it was ALWAYS the fault of the big, bad man
- They are ENTITLED to support from some man, or the government – surely, you don’t expect them to PAY for their upkeep?
Apparently, the government feels that the case is so strong that the tapes aren’t needed. However, I believe that failure to include them – and drive a nail in the coffin of conviction – will lead to yet another obvious case that the Leftists/Progressives will use to lead the charge of “false conviction”.
And, we’ve seen too many of those Hiss/Rosenberg trials that the Left is STILL insisting is due to an overreaching, diabolical government conspiracy to hang perfectly innocent victims. Which they will use to raise funds.
The influx of “undocumented” invaders into more heavily Democratic areas of the country is clearly intended to keep the power in the hands of the party that wants our borders to be nonexistent. This court case addresses this ploy, by asking the Constitutional question:
Should our representation be governed by eligible voters, or by rounding up/importing “persons” into would-be Democratic strongholds?
It’s a good question, and one with Constitutional precedents. The 3/5ths clause was designed to keep Southern slaveowning states from getting an unfair advantage by fully counting their inhabitants, including slaves, for representational purposes. In other words, it was designed to dilute the slaveowners’ political power.
Funnily enough, the polling precincts with the fewest number of eligible voters often out-vote those with a higher percentage of eligibility. True the Vote is one of those many organizations that are fighting voter fraud.
And, in nearby NC. Which, is why the state enacted Voter ID – which did NOT reduce non-White voting; it actually increased.