GOP spent 50 million on anti-LGBTQ attack ads

[fantome profane]

Republicans Are Spending Millions on Election Ads Attacking Trans Kids

50 million dollars. Imagine if that money had been spent helping people. Imagine what good could have been done with 50 million dollars.

But the GOP spent that money promoting hate. They spent that money to bully kids and people who just happen to be different.

And of course that is just the money they can track. This doesn’t include any untraceable contributions, and it doesn’t count any free media, or bigoted tweets.



So never try to tell me that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

Republicans Are Spending Millions on Election Ads Attacking Trans Kids

50 million dollars. Imagine if that money had been spent helping people. Imagine what good could have been done with 50 million dollars.

But the GOP spent that money promoting hate. They spent that money to bully kids and people who just happen to be different.

And of course that is just the money they can track. This doesn’t include any untraceable contributions, and it doesn’t count any free media, or bigoted tweets.



So never try to tell me that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.

Isn't the problem really with the stupid abuse in
the ads, rather than the amount of money spent?
Dems spend much on ads too...money that could
have been "spent helping people".

It's common when criticizing wrongful behavior by
the other tribe, to decry not only what's wrong, but
also ordinary things, eg, spending money. This
dilutes real criticism.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Republicans Are Spending Millions on Election Ads Attacking Trans Kids

50 million dollars. Imagine if that money had been spent helping people. Imagine what good could have been done with 50 million dollars.

But the GOP spent that money promoting hate. They spent that money to bully kids and people who just happen to be different.

And of course that is just the money they can track. This doesn’t include any untraceable contributions, and it doesn’t count any free media, or bigoted tweets.



So never try to tell me that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.

Their disdain for anyone not like them knows no bounds.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Their disdain for anyone not like them knows no bounds.

That's part of what it means to be conservative.

 

[PureX]

It's interesting.

I don't think a lot of modern republicans understand what being unnecessarily mean-spirited even looks like. I think that, to them, it's just normal, expected, behavior. Because the truth is that a lot of republicans these days just don't like other people, much. They don't care about what other people are experiencing or feeling. They live in a very Darwinian world-view where the strong abuse and humiliate the weak, and that is as it has always been, and as it should always be. It's how the dominants assert their dominance and the submissives come to know their place. The idea of a fair and equal society of humans based on mutual respect is actually quite alien to them. Just some liberal idiot's fantasy.

These people see white heterosexual Christians as the rightful dominants in society and as such they should be freely able to project that dominance by insulting and belittling and humiliating their "lessers" as they please, so that those lessers will know who they are and will submit to their fate. The point being that I don't think these people see this kind of mean-spirited insult as being bad, or wrong. I think they simply see this behavior as the justified, expected, normal expression of dominance. They live in a world view where power is as power does. Being rude and crude and 'kicking down' at those who are vulnerable are just normal, accepted expressions of dominance.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's part of what it means to be conservative.

Black and white thinking causes problems. They really should take Jesus's advice on loving their neighbor as themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

That's part of what it means to be conservative.

I understand where this is coming from and it is not without basis, but I also don't agree. That conservatism has become so co-opted by bigotry doesn't mean we need to (and more importantly, should) be defining it based on that. The way I was taught about conservatism growing up, it didn't include bigotry and intolerance in the equation. It was mainly about fiscal conservatism or governing conservatism; the focus wasn't on any social issues at all. Perhaps that's the old-school conservatism and I'm just not with the times, but I for one would like to see conservatism actually be conservatism proper again.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It's interesting.

I don't think a lot of modern republicans understand what being unnecessarily mean-spirited even looks like. I think that, to them, it's just normal, expected, behavior. Because the truth is that a lot of republicans just don't like other people, much. They don't care about what other people are experiencing or feeling. They live in a very Darwinian world-view where the strong abuse and humiliate the weak, and that as is as it has always been, and as it should always be. It's how the dominants assert their dominance and submissives come to know their place. The idea of a fair and equal society of humans based on mutual respect is actually quite alien to them.

These people see white heterosexual Christians as the rightful dominants in society and as such they should be freely able to project that dominance by insulting and belittling and humiliating their "lessers" as they please, so that those lessers will know who they are and will submit to their betters. The point being that I don't think these people see this kind of mean-spirited insult as being bad, or wrong. I think they simple see that behavior as a justified normal expression of dominance. They live in a world view where power is as power does. Being rude and crude and 'kicking down' at those who are vulnerable are just acceptable expressions of dominance.

Hence, they tend to favor rural areas where everyone looks and acts like them. Guns play a big role in keeping "the other" away. A societal hierarchy was anathema to Jesus, but they don't seem to care.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I understand where this is coming from and it is not without basis, but I also don't agree. That conservatism has become so co-opted by bigotry doesn't mean we need to (and more importantly, should) be defining it based on that. The way I was taught about conservatism growing up, it didn't include bigotry and intolerance in the equation. It was mainly about fiscal conservatism or governing conservatism; the focus wasn't on any social issues at all. Perhaps that's the old-school conservatism and I'm just not with the times, but I for one would like to see conservatism actually be conservatism proper again.

Fiscal conservatism at least has some merits. Social conservatism has none.

 

[PureX]

Hence, they tend to favor rural areas where everyone looks and acts like them. Guns play a big role in keeping "the other" away. A societal hierarchy was anathema to Jesus, but they don't seem to care.

Jesus is just one of their totems. Meant to signify their moral dominance.

 

[metis]

That's part of what it means to be conservative.

The irony is that it used not to be as such because conservatism meant allowing people to make their own decisions when it only really directly affects them. And another irony is that so many who supported Trump believed he was conservative when he is anything but one. He's not a fiscal conservative, nor a political conservative, nor a social conservative in most areas.

BTW, see this: Key Evangelical Figures Turn On Trump: 'He Used Us' (msn.com)

 

[Quintessence]

Fiscal conservatism at least has some merits. Social conservatism has none.

Depends on how your view it. On base, social conservatism would simply mean keeping to your current ways rather than changing them, whatever those are. It means adhering to status-quo. What does that status-quo look like? Is that just being imposed on your own people or others who do not share your status-quo?

Even though I don't personally like it, I don't have a problem with, say, transphobia or racism or whatever simply existing within the landscape of human cultural diversity. I'm not interested in getting rid of those (in part because that just isn't a reasonable expectation anyway). I am interested in preserving a live-and-let-live among diverse cultural groups such that they can keep to their ways and generally get along. That isn't easy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Jesus is just one of their totems. Meant to signify their moral dominance.

Yes. I call him their gatekeeper to heaven.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Republicans Are Spending Millions on Election Ads Attacking Trans Kids

50 million dollars. Imagine if that money had been spent helping people. Imagine what good could have been done with 50 million dollars.

But the GOP spent that money promoting hate. They spent that money to bully kids and people who just happen to be different.

And of course that is just the money they can track. This doesn’t include any untraceable contributions, and it doesn’t count any free media, or bigoted tweets.



So never try to tell me that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.

Yep.


Democrats Have Spent Over $124 Million on Election Ads Promoting Abortion - LifeNews.com

That money could certainly could have been used elsewhere helping people.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's part of what it means to be conservative.

Yeah...like liberals are all rainbows & unicorns
regarding tolerating people with different views.

 

[fantome profane]

Yep.


Democrats Have Spent Over $124 Million on Election Ads Promoting Abortion - LifeNews.com

That money could certainly could have been used elsewhere helping people.

Money spent protecting human rights is money well spent. Not that I believe your source.

At this point you can stop pretending you care about freedom. Nobody will believe you now,

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah...like liberals are all rainbows & unicorns
regarding tolerating people with different views.

Let's set aside personal feelings for a moment and focus on legislation, the aspect that actually has the capacity to curtail people's rights. How many liberals have tried to take away conservatives' rights in the US? Have any liberals started extensive campaigns to ban conservative Christians from accessing health care or joining the military, for example?

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's set aside personal feelings for a moment and focus on legislation, the aspect that actually has the capacity to curtail people's rights. How many liberals have tried to take away conservatives' rights in the US? Have any liberals started extensive campaigns to ban conservative Christians from accessing health care or joining the military, for example?

This doesn't address my post that you quoted.
It's about hypocrisy of claiming conservatives
are inherently intolerant of people who are different.
Or are you responding to disagree with this by
use of straw?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I understand where this is coming from and it is not without basis, but I also don't agree. That conservatism has become so co-opted by bigotry doesn't mean we need to (and more importantly, should) be defining it based on that. The way I was taught about conservatism growing up, it didn't include bigotry and intolerance in the equation. It was mainly about fiscal conservatism or governing conservatism; the focus wasn't on any social issues at all. Perhaps that's the old-school conservatism and I'm just not with the times, but I for one would like to see conservatism actually be conservatism proper again.

As a Canadian, and one who usually votes Liberal, I have on several occasions voted Conservative, and I can be comfortable with that because somehow, in Canada, we've managed to keep the "social conservativism" on the back burner. Certainly, there are Conservatives here who would love to bring back abortion and get rid of same-sex marriage, but the party that tried would be out on its ear by the weekend.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Money spent protecting human rights is money well spent. Not that I believe your source.

At this point you can stop pretending you care about freedom. Nobody will believe you now,

I'm not very concerned about what you think of the matter , nor are others I'd wager.

So your post is pretty much a nothingburger, save for what is dwelling around in your own mind.