Poll: Are your political opponents evil?

[Pogo]

Just out of curiosity, does everyone here think that their political opponents are evil?

The end of civility in politics began when painted another as evil.

No, I don't see any of my "opponents" as evil for what they believe in.

I wanna change my answer. Because that ^^ avatar is pure evil.


Wazzup TK

To what avatar are you referring?

Wazzup Pogo

The one that looks like the unfortunate chap who was standing in the wrong place when the Nash Rambler went off the bridge.

 

[JoeB131]

S
What do you offer, the top 0.00001% controlling all the wealth once the government takes all the wealth to redistribute as they see fit?

?

We promise not to take the .00001% out back and shoot them. That's what we offer them.

 

[JoeB131]

And how bad is Trump exactly?

What war has he started? How is everyone doing economically? Who has he harmed because of is alleged racism/sexism/etc?

Guy, you don't get credit for things you inherited.

And um, yeah, the kids he's thrown into concentration camps have been harmed.

Or are you just pissed that he is the first in the GOP to actually fight back against Leftists who shout down people at universities and control Facebook and Twitter and God only knows what else to snuff out conservative thought?

No, I'm pissed because he's a sexist, racist crazy person who had degraded the institutions of the country.

The thing is, Most Republicans know Trump is crazy and bad for your movement.

Christians have had to rationalize paying hush money to porn stars.

Libertarians have had to rationalize throwing kids into concentration camps.

Security Republicans have had to rationalize letting the Russians interfer in our elections.

So what does it really mean to be "conservative" at this point, other than defending whatever awful thing Trump does tomorrow.

 

[Votto]

And how bad is Trump exactly?

What war has he started? How is everyone doing economically? Who has he harmed because of is alleged racism/sexism/etc?

Guy, you don't get credit for things you inherited.

And um, yeah, the kids he's thrown into concentration camps have been harmed.

Or are you just pissed that he is the first in the GOP to actually fight back against Leftists who shout down people at universities and control Facebook and Twitter and God only knows what else to snuff out conservative thought?

No, I'm pissed because he's a sexist, racist crazy person who had degraded the institutions of the country.

The thing is, Most Republicans know Trump is crazy and bad for your movement.

Christians have had to rationalize paying hush money to porn stars.

Libertarians have had to rationalize throwing kids into concentration camps.

Security Republicans have had to rationalize letting the Russians interfer in our elections.

So what does it really mean to be "conservative" at this point, other than defending whatever awful thing Trump does tomorrow.

Concentration camps? Really? These are illegal aliens that need to be detained. In fact, the pictures the press used to paint Trump as a monster, locking up children in cages, were taken during Obama's term. I suppose you were OK with that back then. And some of these children need to be separated after learning that in one particular case the child was being sexually molested.

No, all Trump has to do to be a better President in over a century is not start a war and improve the economy.

Staying away from whores would be a bonus.

 

[Votto]

S
What do you offer, the top 0.00001% controlling all the wealth once the government takes all the wealth to redistribute as they see fit?

?

We promise not to take the .00001% out back and shoot them. That's what we offer them.

If you had your way, the top 0,00001% will be our political leaders who decide how to redistribute their wealth, if at all. And if they had their way, they will be the only ones with guns or money.

This is what you fight for every day.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

 

[Votto]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Hitler included?

Funny stuff. Everyone uses that term when discussing him.

 

[Mac1958]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

"We" are the only silly species.

 

[JoeB131]

Concentration camps? Really? These are illegal aliens that need to be detained. In fact, the pictures the press used to paint Trump as a monster, locking up children in cages, were taken during Obama's term. I suppose you were OK with that back then. And some of these children need to be separated after learning that in one particular case the child was being sexually molested.

Those were unaccompanied teens locked up breifly until they could be returned or placed.

Trump is locking up small children whose parents are available as a punitive measure.

No, there was no reason to lock these kids up or separate them from their parents.

No, all Trump has to do to be a better President in over a century is not start a war and improve the economy.

Well, when he does those things, let me know. Because he inherited a good economy and Obama had already gotten us out of the wars.

I'm sure when he loses in Afghanistan, you'll make excuses for that, too. Hope the helicopter pads are ready in Kabul.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Hitler included?

Funny stuff. Everyone uses that term when discussing him.

Especially Hitler, since the term is especially misused concerning him and his minions. It is too easy to dismiss as 'evil' what is all too human and, so, something that can be dealt with in human ways. 'Evil' is something beyond our control, like 'Satan' and 'God'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters if we all define "evil" exactly the same. I think the point of the question is whether or not you insist on framing your political opponents as ultimately bad - whatever you consider that to be - rather than simply viewing them as wrong, or misguided, or ignorant.

 

[Mac1958]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters if we all define "evil" exactly the same. I think the point of the question is whether or not you insist on framing your political opponents as ultimately bad - whatever you consider that to be - rather than simply viewing them as wrong, or misguided, or ignorant.

I wonder, though. Some of the things I hear and read sure seem like real hatred, and I don't mean that as hyperbole.

Admittedly, I never know what to believe, but it gets pretty dark.
.

 

[Votto]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Hitler included?

Funny stuff. Everyone uses that term when discussing him.

Especially Hitler, since the term is especially misused concerning him and his minions. It is too easy to dismiss as 'evil' what is all too human and, so, something that can be dealt with in human ways. 'Evil' is something beyond our control, like 'Satan' and 'God'.

So this is beyond our control, eh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters if we all define "evil" exactly the same. I think the point of the question is whether or not you insist on framing your political opponents as ultimately bad - whatever you consider that to be - rather than simply viewing them as wrong, or misguided, or ignorant.

I wonder, though. Some of the things I hear and read sure seem like real hatred, and I don't mean that as hyperbole.

Admittedly, I never know what to believe, but it gets pretty dark.
.

Y'know, I was talking to my 9-year-old about this over the weekend. On our trips to and from church or wherever we're going, he likes to talk about Christianity and philosophical things (no, I'm not kidding. My kid loves having the chance to ask me about stuff like that). Anyway, we were talking about sin and asking God to forgive you. And I was telling him that, as a kid, that usually takes the form of "I said something rude to my brother" or "I didn't do my chores like Mom told me to." But as we get older, it becomes more a matter of talking about patterns of behavior, flaws in our character that we need to correct.

Anyway, to make a long story short - too late! - I was pointing out to him that one of my big problems that I'm constantly facing is dealing with my anger, and it's something that a lot of people have trouble with these days. Everyone's so busy not just being angry about every damned thing, but ENJOYING their anger, and declaring loudly that they have a RIGHT to be angry. And I told him that maybe that's true, maybe they do have a right to be angry, but what really counts is whether or not it IS right to be angry. In the long run, anger doesn't really hurt the person we're angry with all that much - assuming we don't let it push us into violence - but it does hurt us. It damages our hearts and minds, makes us less able to be happy, and isolates us from others . . . not just the person we're angry with and who we eventually allow ourselves to hate, but everyone else who doesn't want to deal with our constant anger.

 

[Mac1958]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters if we all define "evil" exactly the same. I think the point of the question is whether or not you insist on framing your political opponents as ultimately bad - whatever you consider that to be - rather than simply viewing them as wrong, or misguided, or ignorant.

I wonder, though. Some of the things I hear and read sure seem like real hatred, and I don't mean that as hyperbole.

Admittedly, I never know what to believe, but it gets pretty dark.
.

Y'know, I was talking to my 9-year-old about this over the weekend. On our trips to and from church or wherever we're going, he likes to talk about Christianity and philosophical things (no, I'm not kidding. My kid loves having the chance to ask me about stuff like that). Anyway, we were talking about sin and asking God to forgive you. And I was telling him that, as a kid, that usually takes the form of "I said something rude to my brother" or "I didn't do my chores like Mom told me to." But as we get older, it becomes more a matter of talking about patterns of behavior, flaws in our character that we need to correct.

Anyway, to make a long story short - too late! - I was pointing out to him that one of my big problems that I'm constantly facing is dealing with my anger, and it's something that a lot of people have trouble with these days. Everyone's so busy not just being angry about every damned thing, but ENJOYING their anger, and declaring loudly that they have a RIGHT to be angry. And I told him that maybe that's true, maybe they do have a right to be angry, but what really counts is whether or not it IS right to be angry. In the long run, anger doesn't really hurt the person we're angry with all that much - assuming we don't let it push us into violence - but it does hurt us. It damages our hearts and minds, makes us less able to be happy, and isolates us from others . . . not just the person we're angry with and who we eventually allow ourselves to hate, but everyone else who doesn't want to deal with our constant anger.

Wow, thank you. And there's some disturbing stuff there.

I have this weird fascination with the psychology of partisanship and its associated behaviors and motivations. And one thing I'm beginning to see a bit more written about is a tie between partisanship and depression (the actual diagnosis), and that really ties into your idea about anger. I wonder if there is a direct link between the two, where we use politics to vent our inner depression and anger.

This rage I'm seeing more and more of, something inside has to be pushing it out.
.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Evil" is a theological term that should have nothing to do with politics. Those who use it in the wrong context destroy the meaning and pollute dialog.

Holy crap, talk about timing. I literally clicked on the thread to ask "has anyone actually defined evil yet?



We are one silly species.
.

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters if we all define "evil" exactly the same. I think the point of the question is whether or not you insist on framing your political opponents as ultimately bad - whatever you consider that to be - rather than simply viewing them as wrong, or misguided, or ignorant.

I wonder, though. Some of the things I hear and read sure seem like real hatred, and I don't mean that as hyperbole.

Admittedly, I never know what to believe, but it gets pretty dark.
.

Y'know, I was talking to my 9-year-old about this over the weekend. On our trips to and from church or wherever we're going, he likes to talk about Christianity and philosophical things (no, I'm not kidding. My kid loves having the chance to ask me about stuff like that). Anyway, we were talking about sin and asking God to forgive you. And I was telling him that, as a kid, that usually takes the form of "I said something rude to my brother" or "I didn't do my chores like Mom told me to." But as we get older, it becomes more a matter of talking about patterns of behavior, flaws in our character that we need to correct.

Anyway, to make a long story short - too late! - I was pointing out to him that one of my big problems that I'm constantly facing is dealing with my anger, and it's something that a lot of people have trouble with these days. Everyone's so busy not just being angry about every damned thing, but ENJOYING their anger, and declaring loudly that they have a RIGHT to be angry. And I told him that maybe that's true, maybe they do have a right to be angry, but what really counts is whether or not it IS right to be angry. In the long run, anger doesn't really hurt the person we're angry with all that much - assuming we don't let it push us into violence - but it does hurt us. It damages our hearts and minds, makes us less able to be happy, and isolates us from others . . . not just the person we're angry with and who we eventually allow ourselves to hate, but everyone else who doesn't want to deal with our constant anger.

Wow, thank you. And there's some disturbing stuff there.

I have this weird fascination with the psychology of partisanship and its associated behaviors and motivations. And one thing I'm beginning to see a bit more written about is a tie between partisanship and depression (the actual diagnosis), and that really ties into your idea about anger. I wonder if there is a direct link between the two, where we use politics to vent our inner depression and anger.

This rage I'm seeing more and more of, something inside has to be pushing it out.
.

I think anger, and pretty much all other negative character aspects like that, are a vicious cycle. The more we indulge them, the worse they become and the more we indulge them. Using anger as an example, you get angry about something, and let your temper fly instead of controlling it. It becomes that much easier to become angry and lose your temper over something else. Pretty soon, EVERYTHING is making you angry, including things that never would have before, and the things you would have been angry about before become things you're FURIOUS over. And the more you indulge the fury, the more things seem to merit it, and the things you once would have just been angry about become sources of hatred. And because, let's face it, you're a miserable person whom no one wants to be around at this point, you're probably not feeling very good about yourself deep down, which then becomes something else you're lashing out at the world for.

 

[JoeB131]

This rage I'm seeing more and more of, something inside has to be pushing it out.

Dealing with morons like you?

 

[JoeB131]

I think anger, and pretty much all other negative character aspects like that, are a vicious cycle. The more we indulge them, the worse they become and the more we indulge them.

Did you all get a knock on the head and forget how crazy you people were when the Black Guy was in the White House?