Brovo said this which implied it:
"It makes me want to hug a ferret and hope it will get better. Because it looks like y'all are going to have a few truly shit years. Whether it's by the censorship spewing progressive extreme or by the thinly veiled ubermenge racists among the Conservatives. The loud mad shouty fuckers have a chokehold on your politics on both sides. It's not good."
Note, I carefully omitted "Republican." In the same way that locally here in Canada, I'd typically say "socialist" and not "NDP." A party may typically have more of X type of voter, but not everyone who falls within that political mindset or who holds those political beliefs will necessarily vote for that party. I don't vote NDP in spite of being mid to far left: They often fail to reflect any of my views in a realistic manner, which forces me to vote for the more realistic parties.
Basically, that means that you can have members of the KKK voting Republican, but that does not mean that the Republican party suddenly stands for the KKK, or reflects policies to the extremes which the KKK would want. You can also have members of the KKK voting Democrat, doesn't mean that the general Democratic consensus nowadays is KKK friendly.
Freedom of Association is powerful, and I tend to respect it highly as part of my personal values. Republicans can be whoever they want to be and believe whatever it is they want to believe in. So can Democrats. If one Republican is a racist, that does not by association make other Republicans racist.
It's why people like Trump do everything they can to poison large groups of people by association. ISIS exists? All Muslims must be stopped from entering the country! Some Mexicans deal drugs? We must build a wall and stop all the Mexicans! The moment you disenfranchise a person's value by associating them with something vile (ex: Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, Muslims are all terrorists, et cetera) is the moment you can prevent your followers from being influenced by them. Divide and Conquer. A tactic so old, that Julius Caesar used it against the various factions within and surrounding the Gauls to obtain total victory for the Roman Empire.
Right now, the loud trumpeting horns of idiocy plague both political parties in different but generally equally shitty ways. A lot of voters are deadlocking to a party out of some sort of fucked up, fever dream loyalty instead of evaluating their principles and seeing if their local candidate from parties X and Y reflect those values. There are loud shouty mad fuckers within the Republican party that say horrible things (namely Trump), but by no stretch of the imagination does that represent what all or even the majority of Republican voters and party members think. The media gives attention to the loud shouty mad fuckers, however, instead of more sensible if somewhat boring people. It gives a bad impression to an entire group of people (in this case, Republicans) because of the actions of some minority of deranged assholes who happen to be voting Republican right now.
If it means anything, if I were American, I would probably be voting for a Republican candidate who would promise to cut the government spending down. I don't care how at this point: It's so utterly grotesque and out of control that cuts just need to start happening
period, the current size cannot be sustained the way it is. And I'm saying this as someone who is, by all means, traditionally mid-left, who would normally implore the government to do more to prevent corporate oligarchies from rigging markets and fucking the consumer sideways.
Hell, my father is himself a Conservative. He's voted right wing for several years running. He's no racist, and he's no horrible person for it. Hell, he's a great guy, though obviously I'd imagine my opinion might be a tad biased given the circumstances. If I hated all Conservatives, I'd first have to hate him, and I can't imagine doing that anytime soon, so... No need to assume that I hate your GOP. I don't. I just think it's in a shitty spot right now.
Traditionalism has its advantages, it's been proven that children from single-parent households do worse compared children from a two parent household.
They are more susceptible to committing crimes, using drugs, dropping out of high school, and
teenage pregnancy.
Yet at the same time, you have Republican candidates and Republican voters who would prevent gay couples from adopting children, leave alone getting married. Traditionalism also has its flaws.
Society and children for that matter would
benefit significantly if the divorce rate was not so high and the nuclear family was encouraged.
The nuclear family is already encouraged. It's economically advantageous and there are tax benefits for married couples that nobody else gets. The issue isn't encouraging it. It's already being encouraged. Like, a lot.
... What? That link actually says they don't. It outright calls it "intellectual detritus" and it blows giant chunks into that theory, and rightfully so. It's not even logical to compare the standards of renaissance Europe to today.
It's simply not true to say nuclear families are not special there is sociological evidence that nuclear families are more child center and adaptable compared to other family system. Here is a quick quote from this
source which has the evidence I mentioned:
They're not though. You could just as easily achieve a nuclear family situation with gay couples, or really any pair of adults that desire to raise a child together. The issue is that the overall buying power of the average adult has sunk. It's dropped. People
can't afford better for their children, and their children are growing up in a generation with the highest records of overall job losses and highest amounts of student loans, atop some of the most utterly idiotic prices for housing that the market has ever seen. Even adjusted for inflation, it's nearly
three times more expensive to buy a house now than it was in the 1970's. Comparing the 50's nuclear family to today is disingenuous and severely underplays the role the economy's health has on the mental well being of people.
Hell, the reason people don't die of diseases like smallpox today isn't because the average person suddenly has more wealth, it's simply because access to medicine has become much cheaper and more effective than it's ever been in history. Ironically, inventions like penicillin
for the common good of all instead of personal greed did far more than the improvement of individual wealth ever did.
Not to mention the protesters using violence which is completely wrong no matter the case.
The point violence occurred is the point at which all talk of rights became meaningless.
