Biden Out of Race

[UscGhost]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just remember…

The left is the most intolerant group in this country.

They don’t like civil discourse or debate or being open minded.

The left simply cannot understand what being a friend is like or what forgiveness looks like.

View attachment 409852

“Notably high proportions of self-identified political liberals told us they’d be willing to sever ties with a friend (Figure 1) or family member (Figure 2) if they thought their political views were “inappropriate.” Specifically, 45% of GenZ liberals and 39% of Millennial liberals told use they’d be willing to sever ties with friends, and over a third of both groups told use they’d be willing to sever ties with family.

By contrast, 10% or less of GenX and of Boomer moderates told us they’d sever close ties with friends or family over politics.”

Who Is Severing Ties With Friends and Family Over Politics?

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans would cut ties with family or friends over politics—especially young, liberal, childless adults. Is it self-care, radicalism, or social media spillover? New research uncovers who’s severing bonds and why it’s reshaping relationships.

research.skeptic.com

Yea, not a lot of liberals are tolerant of intolerant people.

 

[rowsdower88]

Just remember…

The left is the most intolerant group in this country.

They don’t like civil discourse or debate or being open minded.

The left simply cannot understand what being a friend is like or what forgiveness looks like.

View attachment 409852

“Notably high proportions of self-identified political liberals told us they’d be willing to sever ties with a friend (Figure 1) or family member (Figure 2) if they thought their political views were “inappropriate.” Specifically, 45% of GenZ liberals and 39% of Millennial liberals told use they’d be willing to sever ties with friends, and over a third of both groups told use they’d be willing to sever ties with family.

By contrast, 10% or less of GenX and of Boomer moderates told us they’d sever close ties with friends or family over politics.”

Who Is Severing Ties With Friends and Family Over Politics?

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans would cut ties with family or friends over politics—especially young, liberal, childless adults. Is it self-care, radicalism, or social media spillover? New research uncovers who’s severing bonds and why it’s reshaping relationships.

research.skeptic.com

Depends on what the "politics" are.

I wouldn't sever a friendship if a friend told me he supported reducing taxes.

I would sever a friendship if my friend told me he believed in the Great Replacement Theory.

My sister is somewhere on the MAGA/Conservative spectrum. We're still about as close as we've ever been.

Is that intolerance? How many of the people answering this survey would respond similarly?

 

[LowWafer8]

It's just odd that they made a memorial service into a political rally, and I'm surprised hat you think having the president come and speak like that is normal.

Maybe you're just desensitized to it at this point.

Why would it be odd when it was a political assassination? That was the point - to show that what Kirk lived and died for was his faith and values.

 

[circleK]

I'm worried you're under the impression I don't think the Trump administration is callous, dumb, and very willing to mislead America on scientific research.

I was concerned this announcement was going to be unveiling a new anti-vax policy by RFK and MAHA under the guise of the CDC research.

No, I didn’t mean to misconstrue your point. You’re just the only one who brought it up. I just think this is on the same level as if they’d have announced an anti-vax policy, and I’m appalled that there is not more backlash and discussion about that ridiculous autism proclamation since this is a physician forum.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Thats exactly why its effective! Its vague enough where the speaker avoids direct blame. But its easily corrupted by radicals on both sides and serves as motivation for violence from them.

For example, Kirk was a proponent of the nonsense Great replacement theory. Did he invent it? No. Did he tell any specific person to commit a specific act of violence related to it? No. But he certainly talked about it and promoted it. So when the Buffalo shooter cited it in his manifesto as a reason for the grocery store shooting of... immigrants...the link is there. Is it 100% his fault? Of course not. But the event is linked to all who created and promoted that theory

Same with jan 6. The jan 6 planners were followers/inspired by the stolen election and election fraud theories. All heavily promoted by Trump and his allies. So the link is there

Another example, would be Trump saying that Haitians were eating people dogs. Placing a target on Haitians specifically, and immigrants generally. Did he advocate for a specific violent act? No. But certainly some wacko could have been inspired by those words.

Now lets look at the definition of stochastic violence

Stochastic violence, more commonly known as stochastic terrorism, refers to the public demonization of a person or group through mass communication, which provokes statistically probable but individually unpredictable acts of violence. The name comes from the statistical term "stochastic," which describes a random variable that can be analyzed statistically but not individually predicted.

Public demonization of a person or group through mass communication? Haitians eating dogs and great replacement theory. Check

Provokes probable but unpredictable violence? Buffalo shooting. Check. Haitians? Over 30 bomb threats called into Springfield schools after his comments...many with anti Haitian messages. Check

Now lets look at some of the characteristics of stochastic violence


Rhetoric from an influential figure: The process begins with a public figure using hostile language that vilifies and dehumanizes a specific person or group. The language is often indirect and uses "plausible deniability" to avoid explicit calls for violence.

Check

Amplification by media: Mass media and social media platforms spread and intensify this rhetoric, fostering a climate of fear and anger among the figure's followers.

Check

Motivated audience: Some individuals or "lone actors" who are susceptible to radicalization interpret the rhetoric as a green light for violence. Experts argue this is not a coincidence but a statistically predictable outcome of the rhetorical strategy.

Check

Avoidance of responsibility: After the violence occurs, the instigator can condemn the act or claim it was random, thereby maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding blame.

Check

So as you can see, the speech patters from Trump and Kirk fit exactly within the definition of stochastic violence. Does it mean its only their fault or all their fault? Of course not. Does it mean they should be victims of violence themselves? Absolutely not. And of course they can say whatever they want

But to deny that their speech is part of the problem, is simply wrong. I didn't invent the term.

And i am sure you could find examples within some far left movements that also fit the bill. Its not unique to the far left or far right...but the far right is far more successful with it

The vagueness works for my argument too. So when labeling something, where does one draw the line between stochastic terrorism and controversial rhetoric or even just language you disagree with? Surely, it has to be more than an i’ll know it when I see it argument, right? It’s an easily bastardized concept and is the left is doing with Kirk, and weaponizing against the right.

But where my real hang up is with your argument now is stochastic terrorism as an explanation for retaliatory violence. The traditional definition implies doing violence on one’s behalf i.e., meddlesome priest analogy. In this regard, we are really talking about something else.

For an individual or a group to retaliate implies they received some harm from the rhetoric. The rhetoric gives a false justification for violence. They rationalize doing actual violence in the face of only perceived violence. This is problematic because it’s a slippery slope that blurs the line between cause and effect and is again subject to over-generalizing.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Depends on what the "politics" are.

I wouldn't sever a friendship if a friend told me he supported reducing taxes.

I would sever a friendship if my friend told me he believed in the Great Replacement Theory.

My sister is somewhere on the MAGA/Conservative spectrum. We're still about as close as we've ever been.

Is that intolerance? How many of the people answering this survey would respond similarly?

Kind of, actually.

Would you work with someone who believed in the Great Replacement theory? If so, why work with someone but sever a friendship?

 

[rowsdower88]

Kind of, actually.

Would you work with someone who believed in the Great Replacement theory? If so, why work with someone but sever a friendship?

Are you serious?

The obligations of work are different from those of friendship.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Yea, not a lot of liberals are tolerant of intolerant people.

The funny thing is that the main thing liberals won’t tolerate is voting for the opposing party. They’re quick to expand a person’s vote to represent their entire personality and moral character.

The particular belief is never what’s at issue, in my personal experience and experience of people I know, it’s simply disagreements on voting for one or the other.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Are you serious?

The obligations of work are different from those of friendship.

They’re taking care of your patients in many cases. Shouldn’t their obvious bigotry be enough for you to lambast them or dissociate from them if they’re expected to take care of immigrants or other minorities?

 

[rowsdower88]

Why would it be odd when it was a political assassination? That was the point - to show that what Kirk lived and died for was his faith and values.

This is a healthy way to look at it.

At my wake, I want my wife to arrive to a walk out song like Trish Stratus circa 2002.

Celebrate how I lived.

 

[rowsdower88]

They’re taking care of your patients in many cases. Shouldn’t their obvious bigotry be enough for you to lambast them or dissociate from them if they’re expected to take care of immigrants or other minorities?

I don't talk politics at work if I can avoid it.

I know one of my coworkers likes Drudge Report because she leaves it open when I take over cases. I know another is pretty liberal because he assumed I was because of my age and we chatted about Trump a couple times.

Also... obvious bigotry? How often do you hear obvious bigotry like Great Replacement Theory brought up at work?

If I was concerned any of my patients were in danger I would bring it to others attention.

 

[DocMcCoy]

This is a healthy way to look at it.

At my wake, I want my wife to arrive to a walk out song like Trish Stratus circa 2002.

Celebrate how I lived.

View attachment 409856

Nice! But the attitude era wouldn’t fly in today’s political environment. Not inclusive enough. Misogynystic. Would have been cancelled.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

I don't talk politics at work if I can avoid it.

I know one of my coworkers likes Drudge Report because she leaves it open when I take over cases. I know another is pretty liberal because he assumed I was because of my age and we chatted about Trump a couple times.

Also... obvious bigotry? How often do you hear obvious bigotry like Great Replacement Theory brought up at work?

If I was concerned any of my patients were in danger I would bring it to others attention.

So people’s beliefs only count if they’re voicing them? Trying to clarify your excommunication framework.

You said you’d sever a friendship if they told you they believed something. Why is telling you their beliefs relevant to whether you’d be their friend or not? Shouldn’t it be whether or not they have the belief?

 

[rowsdower88]

So people’s beliefs only count if they’re voicing them? Trying to clarify your excommunication framework.

You said you’d sever a friendship if they told you they believed something. Why is telling you their beliefs relevant to whether you’d be their friend or not? Shouldn’t it be whether or not they have the belief?

Give me an example of what you're concerned about because I don't really get where you're going with this.

How do you know someone's beliefs if they don't tell you?

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Give me an example of what you're concerned about because I don't really get where you're going with this.

How do you know someone's beliefs if they don't tell you?

I’m trying to get inside the thought process of what I view as a politically engaged liberal person. I can’t think of very many things that would have me end a friendship that are driven into people’s heads mostly by conspiracy or propaganda, so to hear it from people who would casually do this is interesting to me.

You can surmise a lot of what people believe by listening to what they say, watching what they do, or how they choose their friends. Or straight up ask them.

Like if it’s a sine qua non for you, and I’d assume there are many of those in the political beliefs arena, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask people when you’re not quite sure?

 

[rowsdower88]

I’m trying to get inside the thought process of what I view as a politically engaged liberal person. I can’t think of very many things that would have me end a friendship that are driven into people’s heads mostly by conspiracy or propaganda, so to hear it from people who would casually do this is interesting to me.

You can surmise a lot of what people believe by listening to what they say, watching what they do, or how they choose their friends. Or straight up ask them.

Like if it’s a sine qua non for you, and I’d assume there are many of those in the political beliefs arena, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask people when you’re not quite sure?

Sometimes it's better to live in doubt.

I try not to talk politics most of the time, with coworkers or friends. This is true for most people.

I gave you an example of a political belief that I would end a friendship over. I could caveat it better I suppose.

Maybe if the friend was just unsure about Great Replacement Theory, or thought it sounded plausible but wanted more information? Sure, I could potentially work with that. But if they're full on Democrats and Jews are trying to genocide white America, I feel like I'm under no obligation to continue associating with that person. We could maybe further caveat whether or not I believe such a person could be convinced of their wrongness with time and whether or not I would want to go through the effort of trying to do that or if that on its own would strain the friendship.

I have a good number of friends. So maybe if I was less secure in my relationships, I would feel differently about this.

Holocaust denial is a political belief right? If your friend was confident 6 million Jews weren't actually killed between 1933 and 1945, would you work hard to maintain that friendship?

How many friendships end because one person moved? Because one person got too busy? Because someone took up a new hobby and made different friends?

I feel like people are way too concerned about studies like this.

 

[Southpaw]

Not much discussion on the Homan 50k bribe? As expected the White House denied it while also claiming deep state. Video exists apparently of Homan taking the CAVA bag with 50k in it so I’d love to see the video.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Sometimes it's better to live in doubt.

I try not to talk politics most of the time, with coworkers or friends. This is true for most people.

I gave you an example of a political belief that I would end a friendship over. I could caveat it better I suppose.

Maybe if the friend was just unsure about Great Replacement Theory, or thought it sounded plausible but wanted more information? Sure, I could potentially work with that. But if they're full on Democrats and Jews are trying to genocide white America, I feel like I'm under no obligation to continue associating with that person. We could maybe further caveat whether or not I believe such a person could be convinced of their wrongness with time and whether or not I would want to go through the effort of trying to do that or if that on its own would strain the friendship.

I have a good number of friends. So maybe if I was less secure in my relationships, I would feel differently about this.

Holocaust denial is a political belief right? If your friend was confident 6 million Jews weren't actually killed between 1933 and 1945, would you work hard to maintain that friendship?

How many friendships end because one person moved? Because one person got too busy? Because someone took up a new hobby and made different friends?

I feel like people are way too concerned about studies like this.

I don’t really consider holocaust denial a political belief myself. There are many whacked out conspiracy theories out there that are only peripherally political. We’ve discussed variations on the Great Replacement theory as well, and there’s probably varying degrees of insanity around it as with any belief like that.

I can name many friendships and family ties that liberal people have ended in my immediate sphere of people I know. I think most others can too. There are corrosive beliefs in conservative people, mostly religious in nature, that lead to loss of family especially, but I tend to think those aren’t political and are more cultural.

I think a nuanced understanding of friends and family is important, but I tend to focus on how it drives actions rather than the opinion itself. I wouldn’t end a friendship over political beliefs, but if someone constantly berated me as a racist or a fascist for voting for Trump once, or even entertaining some of his ideas, then I could see things getting rocky.

What I see from the TikTok crowd is they take politics as literal personal attacks on themselves, especially relating to abortion restrictions or regulation on gender medicine. I can’t wrap my head around their thought process very well, because it’s such a maladaptive behavior from the therapy for everyone crowd that it confuses me to even consider it.

 

[rowsdower88]

I wouldn’t end a friendship over political beliefs

I don’t really consider holocaust denial a political belief myself.

Did the studies that have been cited specify whether or not Holocaust denial, Great Replacement Theory, and other BS are 'legitimate' political beliefs or not?

That seems like a material question to how seriously I would take any of those results.

If you want to say certain beliefs aren't "legitimate political beliefs" and so it's ok to not be friends with people who believe those things then I feel like we have a disagreement over what's legitimate and what isn't and not over whether or not its ok to end a friendship over politics.

A tough one for me would be: "Would you be friends with someone who believes Trump won the 2020 election?"

All of the usual caveats there. But having that belief says a lot about you IMO, and that was like half the Republican party at one point.

 

[arkgal]

This is certainly interesting... Might explain a thing or 2 about Elon...

Elon Musk’s Father, Errol Musk, Accused of Child Sexual Abuse

Errol Musk has been accused of sexually abusing five of his children and stepchildren since 1993, a Times investigation found. Family members have appealed to Elon Musk for help.

www.nytimes.com

 

[biglurker]

Depends on what the "politics" are.

I wouldn't sever a friendship if a friend told me he supported reducing taxes.

I would sever a friendship if my friend told me he believed in the Great Replacement Theory.

My sister is somewhere on the MAGA/Conservative spectrum. We're still about as close as we've ever been.

Is that intolerance? How many of the people answering this survey would respond similarly?

Would you sever ties with a friend who agreed with the common sense said by Trump today?

"What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique. But to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders—and to limit the sheer numbers of migrants entering their countries.
Proud nations must be allowed to protect their communities and prevent their societies from being overwhelmed by people they have never seen before.

Where migrants have violated laws, lodged false asylum claims, or claimed refugee status for illegitimate reasons, they should in many cases be SENT HOME.

And while we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling, the truly compassionate answer is to solve the problems in THEIR countries, not to create new problems in OUR countries.

According to the Council of Europe, in 2024, almost 50% of inmates in German prisons were foreign nationals or migrants. In Austria, the number was 53%. In Greece, the number was 54%. In Switzerland, it’s 72%.

When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum-seekers who repaid kindness with crime, it is time to END the failed experiment of Open Borders."

 

[chessknt]

Would you sever ties with a friend who agreed with the common sense said by Trump today?

"What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique. But to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders—and to limit the sheer numbers of migrants entering their countries.
Proud nations must be allowed to protect their communities and prevent their societies from being overwhelmed by people they have never seen before.

Where migrants have violated laws, lodged false asylum claims, or claimed refugee status for illegitimate reasons, they should in many cases be SENT HOME.

And while we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling, the truly compassionate answer is to solve the problems in THEIR countries, not to create new problems in OUR countries.

According to the Council of Europe, in 2024, almost 50% of inmates in German prisons were foreign nationals or migrants. In Austria, the number was 53%. In Greece, the number was 54%. In Switzerland, it’s 72%.

When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum-seekers who repaid kindness with crime, it is time to END the failed experiment of Open Borders."

See the issue is that it isnt common sense at all--it is loaded with inflammatory language that you apparently don't even see anymore because it aligns with your politics. You get the privilege of laughing at people you don't agree with because your team has unilateral total control of the entire federal government and are ruthlessly using it to achieve policies you agree with. The democrats haven't had control of the SCOTUS in generations and probably never will again. Democrats live in a world where their beliefs and values are systematically being destroyed by the federal government in a matter of months with no apparent end or limit in sight.

So yes feel free to label your enemies as the party of intolerance as your team continues to crush their windpipe if that helps you feel better.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/22/health/trump-autism-announcement-cause-tylenol

Anybody just a little bit relieved they said acetaminophen use during pregnancy is causing autism and not vaccines?

Is it (somewhat) true? I heard there was 2:1 studies supporting the claim. Is it causation or correlation? Please sum it up for me. Hopefully I’m done with kids but I know I’m going to get asked this. I just don’t have the energy to research it myself

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Thats exactly why its effective! Its vague enough where the speaker avoids direct blame. But its easily corrupted by radicals on both sides and serves as motivation for violence from them.

For example, Kirk was a proponent of the nonsense Great replacement theory. Did he invent it? No. Did he tell any specific person to commit a specific act of violence related to it? No. But he certainly talked about it and promoted it. So when the Buffalo shooter cited it in his manifesto as a reason for the grocery store shooting of... immigrants...the link is there. Is it 100% his fault? Of course not. But the event is linked to all who created and promoted that theory

Same with jan 6. The jan 6 planners were followers/inspired by the stolen election and election fraud theories. All heavily promoted by Trump and his allies. So the link is there

Another example, would be Trump saying that Haitians were eating people dogs. Placing a target on Haitians specifically, and immigrants generally. Did he advocate for a specific violent act? No. But certainly some wacko could have been inspired by those words.

Now lets look at the definition of stochastic violence

Stochastic violence, more commonly known as stochastic terrorism, refers to the public demonization of a person or group through mass communication, which provokes statistically probable but individually unpredictable acts of violence. The name comes from the statistical term "stochastic," which describes a random variable that can be analyzed statistically but not individually predicted.

Public demonization of a person or group through mass communication? Haitians eating dogs and great replacement theory. Check

Provokes probable but unpredictable violence? Buffalo shooting. Check. Haitians? Over 30 bomb threats called into Springfield schools after his comments...many with anti Haitian messages. Check

Now lets look at some of the characteristics of stochastic violence


Rhetoric from an influential figure: The process begins with a public figure using hostile language that vilifies and dehumanizes a specific person or group. The language is often indirect and uses "plausible deniability" to avoid explicit calls for violence.

Check

Amplification by media: Mass media and social media platforms spread and intensify this rhetoric, fostering a climate of fear and anger among the figure's followers.

Check

Motivated audience: Some individuals or "lone actors" who are susceptible to radicalization interpret the rhetoric as a green light for violence. Experts argue this is not a coincidence but a statistically predictable outcome of the rhetorical strategy.

Check

Avoidance of responsibility: After the violence occurs, the instigator can condemn the act or claim it was random, thereby maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding blame.

Check

So as you can see, the speech patters from Trump and Kirk fit exactly within the definition of stochastic violence. Does it mean its only their fault or all their fault? Of course not. Does it mean they should be victims of violence themselves? Absolutely not. And of course they can say whatever they want

But to deny that their speech is part of the problem, is simply wrong. I didn't invent the term.

And i am sure you could find examples within some far left movements that also fit the bill. Its not unique to the far left or far right...but the far right is far more successful with it

Methinks if ghandi registered as a republican, that you would come to the same conclusion for him

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Just remember…

The left is the most intolerant group in this country.

They don’t like civil discourse or debate or being open minded.

The left simply cannot understand what being a friend is like or what forgiveness looks like.

View attachment 409852

“Notably high proportions of self-identified political liberals told us they’d be willing to sever ties with a friend (Figure 1) or family member (Figure 2) if they thought their political views were “inappropriate.” Specifically, 45% of GenZ liberals and 39% of Millennial liberals told use they’d be willing to sever ties with friends, and over a third of both groups told use they’d be willing to sever ties with family.

By contrast, 10% or less of GenX and of Boomer moderates told us they’d sever close ties with friends or family over politics.”

Who Is Severing Ties With Friends and Family Over Politics?

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans would cut ties with family or friends over politics—especially young, liberal, childless adults. Is it self-care, radicalism, or social media spillover? New research uncovers who’s severing bonds and why it’s reshaping relationships.

research.skeptic.com

To be fair they believe they are doing the right thing and being virtuous by severing those ties and suffering loss in their life. This change on the left has made them hemorrhage supporters.

On the right, we like to see similar reaction in response to real loss. Not to cause loss. Erika was a great example.

But yeah, the fact the left can’t see that the survey and trend is an issue is…err… an issue.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Yea, not a lot of liberals are tolerant of intolerant people.

But a lot are intolerant of tolerant people

 

[rowsdower88]

Would you sever ties with a friend who agreed with the common sense said by Trump today?

"What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique. But to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders—and to limit the sheer numbers of migrants entering their countries.
Proud nations must be allowed to protect their communities and prevent their societies from being overwhelmed by people they have never seen before.

Where migrants have violated laws, lodged false asylum claims, or claimed refugee status for illegitimate reasons, they should in many cases be SENT HOME.

And while we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling, the truly compassionate answer is to solve the problems in THEIR countries, not to create new problems in OUR countries.

According to the Council of Europe, in 2024, almost 50% of inmates in German prisons were foreign nationals or migrants. In Austria, the number was 53%. In Greece, the number was 54%. In Switzerland, it’s 72%.

When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum-seekers who repaid kindness with crime, it is time to END the failed experiment of Open Borders."

I would first ask this "friend" what examples he could give me of Trump demonstrating this "big heart for places and people that are struggling".

When he gutted USAID he harmed "places and people that are struggling". UCLA estimates 14 million additional deaths as a result of these cuts by 2030. (this was back in July, I think some PEPFAR funding has been allowed to resume since then?)

USAID cuts may lead to more than 14 million deaths globally, including 4.5 million children under 5 by 2030, researchers say

The figures reflect the projected consequences of halting funding.

newsroom.ucla.edu

 

[rowsdower88]

Is it (somewhat) true? I heard there was 2:1 studies supporting the claim. Is it causation or correlation? Please sum it up for me. Hopefully I’m done with kids but I know I’m going to get asked this. I just don’t have the energy to research it myself

I don't know. My post didn't really question it, there's another forum post addressing the topic in more detail.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Sept 15- kimmel spoke about Kirk

On September 17, 2025, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened regulatory action against ABC and its affiliates during an appearance on a conservative podcast.

Later that same day..ABC suspends him. I wonder why they didn't do it before the FCC threat...

Sept 19/21 Republican Senators Cruz and Rand Paul spoke out against the FCC. Said it was inappropriate for the FCC to make threats

Two days later
Sept 22
At the Concordia Summit in New York on Monday morning, Carr denied he had threatened to pull licenses of ABC stations if they did not fire Kimmel. He said that “did not happen in any way, shape or form.”. FCC backs down the day after GOP speak out against them

Sept 23. ABC reinstates him

Seems pretty clear that the FCC threat was the issue. If ABC didn't like Kimmel (and they didn't care about the FCC) then they would have suspended him on the 15th or 16th and would not have reinstated him.

Has Trump suddenly had a change of heart and supports Kimmel? Clearly no.

Now what can the FCC threaten? Well, if as you said, the FCC had a legal ability to suspend ABC license..then that didnt magically change in the last week. Did Trump suddenly change his mind and he likes Kimmel? No. So the FCC, in your world, could still suspend their license.

ABC would always be able to win a free speech case against the government. Its a slam dunk. So they were never worried about it. FCC knows as well, and wouldn't even try. So why worry about the FCC and then suddenly not worry about them? Because now ABC has support from the GOP and the public. And if the FCC stops their merger, then ABC can point to this and say "The FCC decided against us as retaliation and not based on the merits.

Read ABC's full statement on reinstating Jimmy Kimmel

“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday,” said a statement from the network.

www.pbs.org

ABC directly refutes your version. You would castigate anyone who made up so much bs with no evidence.

 

[rowsdower88]

To be fair they believe they are doing the right thing and being virtuous by severing those ties and suffering loss in their life. This change on the left has made them hemorrhage supporters.

On the right, we like to see similar reaction in response to real loss. Not to cause loss. Erika was a great example.

But yeah, the fact the left can’t see that the survey and trend is an issue is…err… an issue.

It's kind of funny these "severing ties" surveys are coming out now.

20 years ago, what would have been the biggest issue to "sever ties" with someone be? It would be a parents severing ties with their LGBTQ child (or children severing from their parent's bigotry I suppose).

This attitude still exists today even, although it has significantly declined thankfully. My good friend has an LGBTQ sibling and his parents want basically nothing to do with him.

Anyways, people stop being friends for tons of reasons. People drift apart. People get different jobs. People move. People get married and spend less time with their friends... The idea that we should be chastising liberals for a marginally higher rate of "political disagreement severing" is stupid. We don't even know what "politics" these liberals are severing ties over (or at least I'm not seeing it specified here).

 

[PainInTheAnes]

It's kind of funny these "severing ties" surveys are coming out now.

20 years ago, what would have been the biggest issue to "sever ties" with someone be? It would be a parents severing ties with their LGBTQ child (or children severing from their parent's bigotry I suppose).

This attitude still exists today even, although it has significantly declined thankfully. My good friend has an LGBTQ sibling and his parents want basically nothing to do with him.

Anyways, people stop being friends for tons of reasons. People drift apart. People get different jobs. People move. People get married and spend less time with their friends... The idea that we should be chastising liberals for a marginally higher rate of "political disagreement severing" is stupid. We don't even know what "politics" these liberals are severing ties over (or at least I'm not seeing it specified here).

No one needs to chastise liberals about it, it's more of an observation and a conclusion about how tolerant they are of viewpoints they don't like, and whether those viewpoints are enough to never talk to someone again.

Liberals chastise themselves with behavior like that. Severing friendship and family ties for reasons like politics, which don't affect a person in an appreciable way most of the time, is a recipe for ending up depressed and lonely, and the stats on depression compared to political affiliation show this. It may not be the only cause of the liberal/conservative mental illness gap, but it's certainly a contributor.

I've seen it happen a few times to myself and my friends and their families. It's overwhelmingly negative for the person severing the ties in all cases, and it's overwhelmingly for a stupid reason.

 

[aneftp]

Yea, not a lot of liberals are tolerant of intolerant people.

kinda of comical response from even you. Funny how people don’t tolerate intolerance.

Liberals are suppose to tolerate open ideals. Inclusivity. The more opinions. The better.

I’m sure liberals wouldn’t tolerate an arsonist being invited to a fire safety committee….when they can learn so much from an arsonist view how to become safer.

 

[rowsdower88]

No one needs to chastise liberals about it, it's more of an observation and a conclusion about how tolerant they are of viewpoints they don't like, and whether those viewpoints are enough to never talk to someone again.

This was the post "chastising liberals" I was responding to:

"To be fair they believe they are doing the right thing and being virtuous by severing those ties and suffering loss in their life."

That reads as "chastising" to me.

Liberals chastise themselves with behavior like that. Severing friendship and family ties for reasons like politics, which don't affect a person in an appreciable way most of the time, is a recipe for ending up depressed and lonely, and the stats on depression compared to political affiliation show this. It may not be the only cause of the liberal/conservative mental illness gap, but it's certainly a contributor.

I'm skeptical this is in any way connected to mental illness.

I've seen it happen a few times to myself and my friends and their families. It's overwhelmingly negative for the person severing the ties in all cases, and it's overwhelmingly for a stupid reason.

There's this belief we all have to some extent that we are a boon to those around us. That our beliefs and attitudes should be celebrated and admired. That our absence would be a pain to those around us. I'm skeptical how true this is for most people with most other people. A parent, relative or close friend? Sure. But a lot of people are capable of going on with their lives just fine without us.

Hence my skepticism that this is really a problem or indicative of anything serious at all.

For my friend with his anti-LGBT parents, it's negative for everyone. Their son and his siblings feel like they lost their parents.

 

[UscGhost]

Read ABC's full statement on reinstating Jimmy Kimmel

“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday,” said a statement from the network.

www.pbs.org

ABC directly refutes your version. You would castigate anyone who made up so much bs with no evidence.

Yes, we should always believe every generic public statement released by the PR department. Certainly allows one to avoid having to think critically.

I am sure that it was the thoughtful conversations and hugs that did the trick...and not the billion dollar business deal.

 

[arkgal]

kinda of comical response from even you. Funny how people don’t tolerate intolerance.

Liberals are suppose to tolerate open ideals. Inclusivity. The more opinions. The better.

I’m sure liberals wouldn’t tolerate an arsonist being invited to a fire safety committee….when they can learn so much from an arsonist view how to become safer.

There's a limit to how much intolerance one can tolerate. I can respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't have to respect (tolerate) your beliefs.

Should I tolerate racism? The line must be drawn somewhere. My line is drawn when someone thinks they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. My tolerance ends there.

 

[aneftp]

There's a limit to how much intolerance one can tolerate. I can respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't have to respect (tolerate) your beliefs.

Should I tolerate racism? The line must be drawn somewhere. My line is drawn when someone thinks they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. My tolerance ends there.

The left has made racism even worse. Think about it. As the Harvard Supreme Court case proved that affirmative action is racism. Racism against Asians. So a liberal policy promotes racism against Asians. That’s the irony of some liberal policy’s.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Liberals defense is we need to give certain races a leg up. That’s racism. We aren’t talking about an under represented minority person scoring say 50 points less on sat score than an Asian and let’s use a tie breaker and give the leg up to the underdogs. We are talking a huge 300 points difference between admitted asians and under represented minorities. That’s where the left beliefs go way off. The very ideology they believe in that everyone should be treated equally….until they aren’t treated equally.

So do you tolerate this? That’s racism.

 

[UscGhost]

Experts Warn Alleged Charlie Kirk Shooter's Case Is At Risk Due To 'Problematic' Remarks By Top Officials

Legal experts are raising concerns that comments from FBI director and Utah state officials could jeopardize the Tyler Robinson case.

www.yahoo.com

I guess this is what normally happens when you employ the best and brightest?

May give RFK a run for his money

 

[biglurker]

See the issue is that it isnt common sense at all--it is loaded with inflammatory language that you apparently don't even see anymore because it aligns with your politics. You get the privilege of laughing at people you don't agree with because your team has unilateral total control of the entire federal government and are ruthlessly using it to achieve policies you agree with. The democrats haven't had control of the SCOTUS in generations and probably never will again. Democrats live in a world where their beliefs and values are systematically being destroyed by the federal government in a matter of months with no apparent end or limit in sight.

So yes feel free to label your enemies as the party of intolerance as your team continues to crush their windpipe if that helps you feel better.

It's inflammatory because why?

Also, so you too would cut a friendship off because your friend agrees with what was said?

 

[biglurker]

I would first ask this "friend" what examples he could give me of Trump demonstrating this "big heart for places and people that are struggling".

When he gutted USAID he harmed "places and people that are struggling". UCLA estimates 14 million additional deaths as a result of these cuts by 2030. (this was back in July, I think some PEPFAR funding has been allowed to resume since then?)

USAID cuts may lead to more than 14 million deaths globally, including 4.5 million children under 5 by 2030, researchers say

The figures reflect the projected consequences of halting funding.

newsroom.ucla.edu

You kind of prove my point here. That you feel the need to first "sniff out" anything you can find disagreement from your friend, like a liberal SS gestapo stormtrooper, is very much unsurprising given the data i've shown about the left's intolerance to anyone who is to the right of them.

 

[biglurker]

No one needs to chastise liberals about it, it's more of an observation and a conclusion about how tolerant they are of viewpoints they don't like, and whether those viewpoints are enough to never talk to someone again.

Liberals chastise themselves with behavior like that. Severing friendship and family ties for reasons like politics, which don't affect a person in an appreciable way most of the time, is a recipe for ending up depressed and lonely, and the stats on depression compared to political affiliation show this. It may not be the only cause of the liberal/conservative mental illness gap, but it's certainly a contributor.

I've seen it happen a few times to myself and my friends and their families. It's overwhelmingly negative for the person severing the ties in all cases, and it's overwhelmingly for a stupid reason.

 

[arkgal]

View attachment 409889

It's a survey, not a study. How do they even define 'liberal,' 'moderate,' and 'conservative?' What is the geographical region(s) sampled? What age range? Socioeconomic status? Number surveyed?

I'm a left leaning moderate. I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on other issues. It's not like liberals are a homogenous bunch.

 

[chessknt]

It's inflammatory because why?

Also, so you too would cut a friendship off because your friend agrees with what was said?

Did you cherry pick one thing from his speech or did you see the whole thing?

 

[chessknt]

View attachment 409889

You are late to the party on this one but what conclusions do you draw from this data?

 

[UscGhost]

You kind of prove my point here. That you feel the need to first "sniff out" anything you can find disagreement from your friend, like a liberal SS gestapo stormtrooper, is very much unsurprising given the data i've shown about the left's intolerance to anyone who is to the right of them.

Its not hard to sniff out. Conservatives usually throw their opinions around at everyone. After all, they want to decide who you can marry, what pregnant women must do, what you can call yourself, they want to see your birth certificate before you go to the bathroom, etc

 

[Splenda88]

 

[arkgal]

Contrary to previous studies that found mental health outcomes may be worse for Democrats and Independents compared to Republicans, this study finds that depressive symptoms are virtually indistinguishable across party lines. The data showed 25.2% of Democrats screened positive for depression, compared with 23% of Independents and 20.5% of Republicans. These differences were not statistically significant, meaning that depression does not appear to discriminate by political belief.

While depression itself is non-partisan, access to mental health treatment may be another story altogether. Among those who screened positive for depression, the researchers found that Republicans were significantly less likely than both their Democratic and Independent counterparts to have sought help from a mental health care provider in the past 12 months. The study also showed that, among those with depressive symptoms, 73.9% of Republicans had unmet mental health care needs, versus 58.9% for Democrats and 58% Independents.

New Study Shows Bipartisan Struggles with Depression, Reveals Gaps in Mental Health Care Access | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

A new study published in September in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice sheds light on the mental health crisis gripping millions of Americans, and the findings suggest that depression is a bipartisan issue that affects people across party lines.

publichealth.jhu.edu

 

[arkgal]

Second, we conducted an experiment where we randomly assigned whether people were asked to evaluate their mental health or their overall mood. While conservatives report much higher mental health ratings, asking instead about overall mood eliminated the gap between liberals and conservatives. One explanation is that rather than a genuine mental health divide, conservatives may inflate their mental health ratings when asked, due to stigma surrounding the term. Another possibility is that ideological differences persist for some aspects of mental well-being, but not others.

Do conservatives really have better mental well-being than liberals? - PMC

American conservatives tend to rate their mental health more positively than their liberal counterparts. One explanation for this finding is that conservatives may be more likely to justify existing inequalities in society, leading to a palliative ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[2025DandW]

The left has made racism even worse. Think about it. As the Harvard Supreme Court case proved that affirmative action is racism. Racism against Asians. So a liberal policy promotes racism against Asians. That’s the irony of some liberal policy’s.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Liberals defense is we need to give certain races a leg up. That’s racism. We aren’t talking about an under represented minority person scoring say 50 points less on sat score than an Asian and let’s use a tie breaker and give the leg up to the underdogs. We are talking a huge 300 points difference between admitted asians and under represented minorities. That’s where the left beliefs go way off. The very ideology they believe in that everyone should be treated equally….until they aren’t treated equally.

So do you tolerate this? That’s racism.

There were very few Asians at my university prior to affirmative action. Asians and women benefited from affirmative action.

 

[rowsdower88]

You kind of prove my point here. That you feel the need to first "sniff out" anything you can find disagreement from your friend, like a liberal SS gestapo stormtrooper, is very much unsurprising given the data i've shown about the left's intolerance to anyone who is to the right of them.

Just so I understand this scenario you've devised...

My friend came up to me and showed me this quote and asked me "this is common sense to you, right"?

This is a pretty weird scenario you've imagined for my friend and I. Am I allowed to disagree with my friend? Why would my friend ask me something like this? Is this something you ask your friends?

Am I supposed to be like "yeah, this is something Trump totally cares about". Is that what your friends do?