Should the Democrat Party be "eradicated politically" off of the voter poll?

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

"Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While use of the term started out as non-hostile, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and third party politicians." - Wikipedia: Democrat Party (epithet)

Despite the shortcomings of the Democratic Party, I consider liberal Democrats to be less of a threat to freedom, liberty, and justice for all than MAGA-conservative Christian Republicans. For instance, Democrats are not threatening LGBTQ rights or fighting to control the reproductive choices of women. To be quite honest, some of the most hateful, obnoxious, and bigoted people I've ever met in my life are conservative Christians (MAGA Trump supporters). And I say that as a former conservative Christian myself. I can't recall how many times during the twenty-six years I was one that I had conflict with other conservative Christians over their abhorrent contempt for women, minorities, immigrants (documented or not), and LGBTQ individuals. For twenty-six years (1992–2018), I was a loyal conservative Christian and a registered Republican. I also grew up in a predominantly conservative Christian environment (home and town) before that and have known many conservative Christians over the years through church and in places I've lived. I'm quite familiar with them.

My family is overwhelmingly evangelical conservative Christians who firmly believe that Trump is a Christian and that God sent him to reclaim America. I'm now estranged from both sides of my family because of how they treated me while I was still a Christian and refused to support and vote for Trump. I have aunts, uncles, and cousins who have turned on me and talked about me behind my back. I was intentionally left out and not invited to our annual family reunion in the summer following Trump's election. I found out from a friend of the family that I wasn't invited to the reunion because my presence there would have upset everyone else. Unfortunately, the verbal abuse, the bullying, and the harassment increased substantially after I voted for Biden. I had to block the phone numbers of my relatives and former conservative friends, and I blocked a few of them on Facebook. But one of the worst experiences for me was having to call the police on my cousin because he threatened to physically hurt me after he found out that I voted for Biden. I've had conservative friends whom I've known for years turn their backs on me because I don't support Trump. I had to block their phone numbers and block them on Facebook.

And, lastly, I'm a former member of a Christian forum where the majority of the evangelicals genuinely believed and declared in their posts that Trump is a Christian, that God anointed him to reclaim America, and that God appointed him to purge America of liberals. When I initially voiced my objection to Trump in a response to one of these Christians, I was immediately and persistently disparaged, called derogatory names, and accused of not being a true Christian. I was called evil and godless, and I was constantly called a "demon rat." After I informed another member who was also being harassed for not supporting Trump that I had voted for Biden, the harassment intensified even more. I was accused of being demon-possessed and was told that was what caused me to vote for Biden. I was also spitefully reported by several members, which led to my being permanently banned without a warning. But when I reported the members who harassed me, I was told that I was the troublemaker, and I received a warning, not the members who degraded and harassed me. A staff member who secretly sympathized with me emailed me the day after I was banned to let me know about a thread where these members were gloating about how they got me and the other harassed user perma-banned. It was upsetting to read the scathing remarks about me and the other user.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

 

[The Hammer]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

Anyone who denigrates children is a hack. And a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

No it is not. That is obviously true.

Wikipedia is probably far more reliable than any source that you use.

What on Earth makes you think that Alex Jones is not an absolute lunatic and scam artist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone who denigrates children is a hack. And a conspiracy theorist.

Well, not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but in Jones's case definitely.

 

[YmirGF]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

When you have both @The Hammer and me falling off our chairs with laughter, you might want to reconsider your statement.

 

[YmirGF]

What on Earth makes you think that Alex Jones is not an absolute lunatic and scam artist?

His "work" on turning frogs gay was ground-breaking... or was that wind-breaking.... hmmm. I'll have to check.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you have both @The Hammer and me falling off our chairs with laughter, you might want to reconsider your statement.

Really? Your bias is raising its ugly head. Why on Earth do you think that Wikipedia is not reliable? You appear to be bogged down about 15 years in the past.

Of course you have to have at least some intelligence when using it. For basic science, it is extremely reliable. For news that has been through the mill, again it is very reliable. For current events I would not recommend it. But Alex Jones is old news. Wikipedia's algorithm allows it to get rid of garbage stories as time goes by and only the reliable claims are left. You should check into how it works.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

If you make a claim, such as accusing Wikipedia of not being a legitmate source or disagreeing with its portrayal of Alex Jones, then you need to back it up with reliable, substantial facts that aren't from far-right conservative Christian sources that support him. I won't simpy take your word for it. Prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you make a claim, such as accusing Wikipedia of not being a legitmate source or disagreeing with its portrayal of Alex Jones, then you need to back it up with reliable, substantial facts that aren't from far-right conservative Christian sources that support him. I won't simpy take your word for it. Prove it.

One of the reasons that Wikipedia is reliable is that though "anyone can edit it" There are hoops that one has to jump through first. When one first signs up to join Wikipedia as an editor one's first few posts are moderated. In other words people that come only to troll the sight, which did occur very early on, now have to show that they can contribute before they can edit freely. And even then, if someone jumps through all of those hoops and then trolls an article he can be reported and lose his right to edit.

I once had a debate on another thread with a person that could edit that disagreed with me. To "prove" his point the found an article where he added a valid point. I asked how that showed that Wikipedia is not reliable? His added info was valid. I asked him why he didn't really prove me wrong by posting something blatantly false. His response was classic and made him lose the argument "I don't want to lose my right to edit". In other words people have to earn the right to edit and very few will through away that right for a very fleeting moment (other people will quickly correct false edits that they find) of being able to show to just a few friends that they messed up Wikipedia.

 

[Soandso]

Comon now... How do you propose we eradicate our political opponents?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

such as give 1/3 of your hard earned tax dollars back to the government (not true for most people), control by welfare (what does this even mean?), depopulating our planet through abortion (how do they control populations in German?), submitting yourself to climate agreements and carbon taxes (bet your personal life has changed none and it's needed for the environment)

, staying home (to lessen the , wearing a mask, gene therapy vaccines, and being a doormat for the World Economic Forum.

The first part is just bunk that you cannot actually demonstrate.
The second part, people who complain are selfish, anti-social, and pose dangers to others (especially by spreading an extremely contagious and very deadly virus that has a well established histort if overcrowding hospitals and morgues alike).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Comon now... How do you propose we eradicate our political opponents?

No need to eradicate them
Just make them irrelevant through better policies, argument and actions.
The voters will do the rest.

This is America's mistake Vis China. The USA is trying to freeze them out of the high-tech world with bans, embargoes, restrictions and patent law.
But has failed in the chip war against Huawei who has just brought out the mate 60 series advances phones, containing the Kiran 9000s chips. With 5g and satellite communication ability. Using entirely Chinese technology.including Both hardware and software.including their own Harmony operating system.

If American had wanted to beat Huawei it should have done so with better science and engineering. Trying to ban them was admitting their superiority.

 

[Soandso]

No need to eradicate them
Just make them irrelevant through better policies, argument and actions.
The voters will do the rest.

In the USA? Not likely

This is America's mistake Vis China. The USA is trying to freeze them out of the high-tech world with bans, embargoes, restrictions and patent law.
But has failed in the chip war against Huawei who has just brought out the mate 60 series advances phones, containing the Kiran 9000s chips. With 5g and satellite communication ability. Using entirely Chinese technology.including Both hardware and software.including their own Harmony operating system.

If American had wanted to beat Huawei it should have done so with better science and engineering. Trying to ban them was admitting their superiority.

Failed in the chip war? The only thing we know about the specs of the phone is what the Chinese state has released. Of course China wants to make it seem as though the sanctions haven't been working and that they are as strong as ever. Still, there have been reviews of the phone and people who have gotten their hands on the phone have run benchmarks

Compare Samsung Galaxy S23 vs Huawei Mate 60 Pro: which is better? | NR

We compare Samsung Galaxy S23 with Huawei Mate 60 Pro to find out which phone has a better camera, screen, performance, and battery life.

nanoreview.net

Notice how some of the advantages given to the hwawei have a red asterisk?

"Scores with a red asterisk (*) are approximate and may change in the future as we gather more data."

So they are just posting what they've been told are the specs and haven't had a chance to take the thing apart yet. Now scroll down to the benchmarks and let's see if the specs meet the actual performance

Oh yikes... These benchmarks are similar to phones from years ago. Seems stated performance and actually testing are showing two different things

This reminds me of when the Chinese government said they had their own processor and that they didn't need Intel anymore, when all they did was take Intel processors and laser etched a new face on em

Needless to say, I'm skeptical. Talk is talk, and propaganda is propaganda

 

[F1fan]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information.

Is this a forum that requires better sources? Are we in court?

They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

Right, he is a far right criminal conspiracy theorist. Good catch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. They still call Alex Jones a "Far right conspiracy theorist" which is a blatant lie.

So where you find the gay frogs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So where you find the gay frogs?

Asking for a "friend"?

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

So where you find the gay frogs?

Any water that was contaminated with atrazine that had frogs in it.

 

[Soandso]

Asking for a "friend"?

Imagine the high you'd get from licking those toads

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Imagine the high you'd get from licking those toads

Ew! That is an image that I do not need in my head.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the USA? Not likely



Failed in the chip war? The only thing we know about the specs of the phone is what the Chinese state has released. Of course China wants to make it seem as though the sanctions haven't been working and that they are as strong as ever. Still, there have been reviews of the phone and people who have gotten their hands on the phone have run benchmarks

Compare Samsung Galaxy S23 vs Huawei Mate 60 Pro: which is better? | NR

We compare Samsung Galaxy S23 with Huawei Mate 60 Pro to find out which phone has a better camera, screen, performance, and battery life.

nanoreview.net

Notice how some of the advantages given to the hwawei have a red asterisk?

"Scores with a red asterisk (*) are approximate and may change in the future as we gather more data."

So they are just posting what they've been told are the specs and haven't had a chance to take the thing apart yet. Now scroll down to the benchmarks and let's see if the specs meet the actual performance

View attachment 81874

Oh yikes... These benchmarks are similar to phones from years ago. Seems stated performance and actually testing are showing two different things

This reminds me of when the Chinese government said they had their own processor and that they didn't need Intel anymore, when all they did was take Intel processors and laser etched a new face on em

Needless to say, I'm skeptical. Talk is talk, and propaganda is propaganda

China has said nothing at all, Huawei did not even have a launch, they just started selling them.
They have said nothing about them at all not even given a specification. There has been lots of comment on social media , but no official comment or propaganda.

Most of the bench mark tests that have been tried either do not work at all, or give strange results as the tests have not yet been optimised for the phones hardware or operating system.
However the chips have been dissected by a number of leading labs and found not to have used EUV nor any American tech. Nor are any American components used in the phones at all.
It seems that there are pre orders for 50 million phones. (web Talk)
Those that have tried them seem to love them, most testers have said they have been unable to bench mark them. But all of them have said that they function like high end 7nm hand sets.

However they are not going to sell to the western market in the near future. So it does not matter what the Americans think.

Which in the UK is a pity since my p20 pro is getting somewhat old now.
It will be good to escape the tyranny and intrusion of the Google snare.