Which side do you think is more hate filled?

[Skeptic Bob]

If we are talking about conservative candidates then the conservatives are definitely more hate-filled. If we are talking about the constituency I think it is pretty even.

 

[roguenuke]

Just like I said. The left doesn't want Kim Davis forcing her beliefs on them but they sure don't mind forcing their beliefs on her when there was a simple solution available to all (the one currently in place). Hypocrisy at it's finest.

She agreed to impartiality when she took the job. What part of being impartial do you not understand? She was completely free to refuse the job or step down when she realized her religious beliefs were going to conflict with actually doing her job and instead she thinks she's a special little snowflake because of her beliefs who deserves special treatment to treat others unfairly in her government job.

Don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer any of my other questions. You obviously feel her objections are special, likely because you agree with them, and don't agree with giving those who would deny other couples based on their religious beliefs special accommodations.

 

[Moderate Right]

She agreed to impartiality when she took the job. What part of being impartial do you not understand? She was completely free to refuse the job or step down when she realized her religious beliefs were going to conflict with actually doing her job and instead she thinks she's a special little snowflake because of her beliefs who deserves special treatment to treat others unfairly in her government job.

Don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer any of my other questions. You obviously feel her objections are special, likely because you agree with them, and don't agree with giving those who would deny other couples based on their religious beliefs special accommodations.

When she took the job there was no chance that gays would ever be allowed to marry in Kentucky. You're just proving my point about hypocrisy because you would rather rub her nose in your values rather than offer the simple solution of taking her name off the document.

 

[cabse5]

I voted other. All the most hate-filled people have been distilled into the Trump camp.

Ah. Passive aggressive hatred on display from Cardinal.

 

[cabse5]

If we are talking about conservative candidates then the conservatives are definitely more hate-filled. If we are talking about the constituency I think it is pretty even.

Then there are some posters who need a better prescription for their glasses.

 

[roguenuke]

When she took the job there was no chance that gays would ever be allowed to marry in Kentucky. You're just proving my point about hypocrisy because you would rather rub her nose in your values rather than offer the simple solution of taking her name off the document.

There was a huge chance of it since the case was in the SCOTUS already and 40 other courts had ruled that those laws violated they US Constitution. Only an idiot would believe there was no chance of that happening.

But again you refuse to answer the question.

 

[countryboy]

communists because we hate them both

Right, that's why the CPUSA supports democrats. :roll:

 

[d0gbreath]

I hate both sides pretty evenly. I don't want any hateful agenda shoved down my throat. Especially mine.

 

[Sweden]

Right now, conservatives.

That being said, populist outrages are very common among the Left side of the spectrum and will show up frequently. Problems associated with the Black Lives Matter movement's protest methods (I'm not discussing their recommendations, some of which are absolutely with merit) are needing to be addressed. Blocking traffic, causing riots, destroying property, interrupting public and private gatherings is utterly inappropriate. Furthermore, the problems among the young academic Left (and the student body) are such that they ought to be very concerning to anyone who values intellectual rigor and respectful discourse.

Right now the Left, beyond doubt. It is the left who attempt to shut down debate, to prevent views being expressed with which they disagree. It is the left who systematically seek to destroy freedom of speech. Listen to Mark Stein.

Live in Melbourne! :: SteynOnline

 

[Moderate Right]

There was a huge chance of it since the case was in the SCOTUS already and 40 other courts had ruled that those laws violated they US Constitution. Only an idiot would believe there was no chance of that happening.

But again you refuse to answer the question.

She was in office for years and years and years and so was her mother before her. Sorry, don't remember there even was a question. What was it?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Since Obama's been in office. It's not even close. Cons by a country mile, and then some. The hate is what's driving the cons and GOP now. Trump proves that.

Before Obama? It was pretty even.

 

[Cyrylek]

Depends on what we mean by "conservative", "liberal", "hate" and "filled". In my experience, self-proclaimed conservatives tended to be better behaved, but who knows what's going on in their brains. "Liberals", on the other hand, were very often shrill in their intolerance of differing views or even tastes. But then again, "my experience" is mostly derived from life in MA and WA - in both places, "conservatives" are usually libertarian-ish moderates, while "liberals" are richly represented by both radical Left and by the union macho types (the latter now switching to Trump in droves).

 

[roguenuke]

She was in office for years and years and years and so was her mother before her. Sorry, don't remember there even was a question. What was it?

Better check your info.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

She just went into office. Her mother had held the office for decades before that but she just got elected in 2015.

 

[Cyrylek]

Since Obama's been in office. It's not even close. Cons by a country mile, and then some. The hate is what's driving the cons and GOP now. Trump proves that.

Before Obama? It was pretty even.

Trump proves that....how exactly? - by virtue of conservatives hating Trump passionately?

And with Obama, my observations are approximately opposite: Most anyone criticizing him for any reason was immediately accused of racism. Is it not a virulent form of hatred emanating from the left in this case - to assume automatically that any opponent is driven by basest of motives?

 

[Cardinal]

Ah. Passive aggressive hatred on display from Cardinal.

The lion's share of the bigotry is on display in the Trump camp these days. Although these xenophobes were previously in the GOP, they've been siphoned off and led to the candidate who's the least apologetic about his bigotry (real or invented, who the hell knows anymore).

 

[Ntharotep]

Well then you need to familiarize yourself with basic logic. The motivations of a person who is presenting an argument, are entirely irrelevant to the validity of the argument. Attempts to impinge the motives of one's opponents are a way to avoid substantive discussion.

Emotional responses and hate speech can devalue an argument far more than looking at why a person is making an argument. Again. Not even considering a person's motives, especially a politician's, is what has given us a corrupt system of Government. Its pretty simple logic here as well. You don't care about motive and you open yourself up to be duped.
As an example:
Candidate A claims Candidate B has cost their state 100s of thousands of unnecessary spending on projects. This is technically true but is being brought up to deflect away from Candidate A's intention to cost the entire country trillions of dollars which is posed as a question.
Is it more important that Candidate A is technically accurate in this statement or is their intention they are deflecting from and haven't given any information on more important?

Which party is voting for trump? I don't care if you personally are voting for him, but it speaks volumes.

I don't think the GOP is actually happy with Trump. Its the Looney voters who he has mesmerized with his small sleight of hand tricks.

 

[Paleocon]

Emotional responses and hate speech can devalue an argument far more than looking at why a person is making an argument. Again. Not even considering a person's motives, especially a politician's, is what has given us a corrupt system of Government. Its pretty simple logic here as well. You don't care about motive and you open yourself up to be duped.
As an example:
Candidate A claims Candidate B has cost their state 100s of thousands of unnecessary spending on projects. This is technically true but is being brought up to deflect away from Candidate A's intention to cost the entire country trillions of dollars which is posed as a question.
Is it more important that Candidate A is technically accurate in this statement or is their intention they are deflecting from and haven't given any information on more important?


I don't think the GOP is actually happy with Trump. Its the Looney voters who he has mesmerized with his small sleight of hand tricks.

You are conflating between people and arguments. Again, the motives or manner of presentation do not affect the validity of an argument. That's called "ad hominem". Seriously, try to familiarize yourself with logic.

 

[Northern Light]

Liberals or conservatives? Or evenly matched? Please explain.

Posting this thread due to something I read in another thread. Am curious.

Despite your best intentions, I think the question is a false dichotomy. Humans in general hold a lot of prejudice.

 

[Moderate Right]

Better check your info.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

She just went into office. Her mother had held the office for decades before that but she just got elected in 2015.

OK. Advantage roguenuke. I guess I was slightly confused since she had worked in the office for a number of years with her mother. I didn't realize that she just assumed office fairly recently. Of course I would still argue that it was not on her mind in the slightest when assuming office that she would wind up in this spot. I really don't want to debate this much since the issue is over and the thing as a whole is not worth the effort of some Republicans wanting to turn back the clock. There are real problems this country faces now and in the future and gay rights or marriage has been already decided and they should just lick their wounds and get on with more important issues.

 

[roguenuke]

OK. Advantage roguenuke. I guess I was slightly confused since she had worked in the office for a number of years with her mother. I didn't realize that she just assumed office fairly recently. Of course I would still argue that it was not on her mind in the slightest when assuming office that she would wind up in this spot. I really don't want to debate this much since the issue is over and the thing as a whole is not worth the effort of some Republicans wanting to turn back the clock. There are real problems this country faces now and in the future and gay rights or marriage has been already decided and they should just lick their wounds and get on with more important issues.

I can agree with most of this although I think she was in massive denial or felt an entitlement to a religious exemption (considering others had to step in to reduce her annual salary because of the obvious nepotism her mother was showing her, and she and her mother still kept their jobs I'd say she felt she had a lot of power).

 

[cabse5]

The lion's share of the bigotry is on display in the Trump camp these days. Although these xenophobes were previously in the GOP, they've been siphoned off and led to the candidate who's the least apologetic about his bigotry (real or invented, who the hell knows anymore).

Overt hatred.

 

[Cardinal]

Overt hatred.

Yes, that is what Trump supporters have exhibited toward those of the "wrong" ethnicity and religion. They've been making quite an impression lately.

 

[cabse5]

Yes, that is what Trump supporters have exhibited toward those of the "wrong" ethnicity and religion. They've been making quite an impression lately.

You mean fulfilling illegal immigration law and an attempted prevention of further terrorist attacks in the US? That racism? BTW, policies against Muslims aren't racist and policies against law breakers irrespective of their race isn't racism.. It's just a hot button word you like to use to stop discussions You? Maybe entirely not hatred but certainly Nazi-like. You are a fascist.

 

[Cardinal]

You mean fulfilling illegal immigration law and an attempted prevention of further terrorist attacks in the US?

No, by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers and focusing all the country's fears onto a specific religion, going so far as to say that a database on Muslims should be created and that they should be deported and denied entry. Trump's supporters have even argued in favor of detainment camps. Nobody else on the political spectrum in the United States today can match that kind of hatred and fear. They're so terrified of "others" that they would shred the Constitution for the promise of a little bit of security.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm not going to say whether Trump is right or wrong but I will say that Europe has very lenient restrictions on immigrants and refugees and they have terror cells all over the place.