[Discussion] What did we vote for? What is my responsibility in all of this?

Pages

As the dust settles, you may be wondering how much is each individual voter's responsibility. Voting usually involves some level of compromise. Let's calmly and respectfully discuss what it means to have voted for your candidate.

Also adding Dimmer's scope:

"This thread is intended to provide a focused space for the discussion about the moral and ethical choices (and consequences) of our votes which is currently overrunning other threads."

Everyone: keep it classy. Tensions are still running high, so please review what you've written before pressing "post."

Dimmerswitch wrote:

There has been some discussion in the Presidential Election thread about the moral calculus involved in choosing which candidates to vote for.

Since that thread is now closed, the discussion is spilling over in inappropriate ways to other threads.

This thread is for folks to discuss (and debate) the consequences of our votes. My expectation is that this will be primarily focused on the current US Presidential election, but I think other elections and voting issues are fair game.

Nothing to see here.

Feel free to mod/edit/delete this as you see fit:

Not only do I feel like a new D&D abortion thread would have actually been better suited to the actual concerns of MattDaddy's argument, but I'll be blunt -- I don't see this thread going anywhere good because the thread itself is already framed in such a way to give people a deniability that, in my opinion, isn't productive at all.

Cross posting from Dimmer's thread.

Good thread, thanks Dimmer/Dee.

If we just assume that people with different opinions are stupid or bigoted we don't make any progress in understanding their viewpoints.

We've heard a lot about the potential harm to the LGBT community and why they are rightfully upset about this outcome. I'd like to hear from MattDaddy (If he's brave enough for another round) as to why Pro-life is such an important driver for his decision making.

Robear wrote:

Did you mean "individual" rather than "invidious", in the Scope?

Yes. As always, I blame iPad autocorrect.

OzymandiasAV wrote:

Feel free to mod/edit/delete this as you see fit:

Not only do I feel like a new D&D abortion thread would have actually been better suited to the actual concerns of MattDaddy's argument, but I'll be blunt -- I don't see this thread going anywhere good because the thread itself is already framed in such a way to give people a deniability that, in my opinion, isn't productive at all.

I see your point, but I'm not certain trans rights belong in an abortion thread. Please elaborate on the deniability portion.

sometimesdee wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:

Feel free to mod/edit/delete this as you see fit:

Not only do I feel like a new D&D abortion thread would have actually been better suited to the actual concerns of MattDaddy's argument, but I'll be blunt -- I don't see this thread going anywhere good because the thread itself is already framed in such a way to give people a deniability that, in my opinion, isn't productive at all.

I see your point, but I'm not certain trans rights belong in an abortion thread. Please elaborate on the deniability portion.

I get the desire to try and talk about the intersecting concerns in play, but let me put it this way: do we really want (need?) to have a discussion about whether you, as a voter in a representative democracy, are responsible for the actions taken by who you chose?

I'd mentioned the bodily autonomy argument previously, which I think renders moot the argument about when a zygote / embryo / fetus deserves the legal protections afforded fully-fledged humans. To save myself some typing:

What I think is so great about the bodily-autonomy argument is that it renders the question of when a fetus should be considered fully-human entirely moot. Even if I concede that a fetus is a human at the moment of conception - for the record, I definitely do not believe that the best-available science supports anything close to this position - but even if I concede this point, we already have plenty of other cases where people could conceivably be forced to support the lives of other, indisputably-human individuals. As a society we don't, even in cases where there would be little-to-no risk to the donor, because on the principle of bodily autonomy.

If we respect this principle in those cases, then the pro-life folks have a fair bit of heavy lifting to make the case that pregnancy (which is quite a bit more risky than blood or marrow donation) should be exempt from the principle of bodily autonomy we honor everywhere else.

Shorter: As a society, we already allow people control over their bodies, even in cases where they could save the life of another human being with minmal-to-no significant risk (blood transfusion or bone marrow, for instance). If we allow people this choice in cases where the life of another inarguably-human is at stake, we must allow women the choice of whether to carry a fetus to term.

If you're a single-issue voter and hold the belief that unborn humans deserve more protection than actual, indisputable humans? Okay.

I mean, I think it's immoral and in contravention of the social standards we apply elsewhere, but okay.

When people point out the foreseeable and demonstrable consequences of voting based on that single issue to many of our most vulnerable fellow citizens, trying to pivot to a discussion about feelings is kind of disingenuous.

I'm sorry when I hurt another human's feelings.

But our fellow humans are not only being stripped of legal protections, but are being placed in direct danger as a result of this election.

Framed differently: if you are a single-issue voter, then you'd better make damn sure you understand and are okay with the consequences of deciding your vote based on that issue.

Imagine you're in a room, and Fred stands up and says "Vote for me and I'll give everyone fifty bucks and I'll punch everyone named John right in the face."

You can probably assume most people will divide into one of three categories:

1) Those who want to see John punched in the face, so vote for Fred.

2) Those who don't particularly want to see guys named John punched in the face, but want $50 enough that they vote for Fred anyways.

3) And those who are like "f*ck no, I can't get behind someone who will punch people named John in the face!"

(I think we can easily rule out "people who don't want $50" as insignificant)

To the people who vote for Fred, the distinction between #1 and #2 is pretty big. The people who fall in catagory #2 probably don't even talk about guys named John at all - it isn't a thought or conversation at all. And when Fred gets in and goes around punching guys named John in the face, #2 will say "Yeah, but we don't hate John! We're not John-haters!" and really believe it.

But for guys named John, the difference between #1 and #2 is miniscule. They're all John-haters in John's mind, because even if #2 doesn't actively want to see John punched in the face, they didn't care enough to give anything up to stop it when Fred openly declared he'd punch John in the face.

I think the Johns are in the right here.

Not everyone who voted for Trump voted for him because he is a racist, but everyone who voted for Trump clearly wasn't turned off enough by his racist speech, platform, and supporters to *not* vote for him.

tl;dr: Saying "I only supported Mussolini because I wanted to see the trains run on time!" doesn't change the fact you supported Mussolini.

I respect the pro-life position but at some point we have to as a society moved past it as the sole point of deciding progress or lack of progress. We can no longer afford as a human species to hold the life of a fetus as somehow higher than the survival of our species.

There are so many more important issues and real challenges ahead of us if we are going to survive the next 100 years. Hiding behind that single issue to elect leaders that will pass laws to remove the civil rights of living human beings simply because of their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin has to take a higher role in our value system.

We can no longer afford to ignore challenges like Climate Change, Economic Change, Health Care among others.

I'm sorry if you deeply believe that your god allows you to feel morally ok punishing the lives of others. The rest of us humans just want to live our lives in peace with a measure of security about the future. You are now part of the problem and not the solution.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Framed differently: if you are a single-issue voter, then you'd better make damn sure you understand and are okay with the consequences of deciding your vote based on that issue.

If this is something that people feel needs a debate -- which is a sentiment that leaves me at a loss for words, honestly -- then I feel like this is a more accurate description of what's being disputed. "The Responsibilities of Single-Issue Voting."

EDIT: And the scope of the thread above has been updated to reflect that, so thank you for that.

I'm feeling rather cautious about condemning any one person for their vote because the truth of the matter is their individual vote only mattered in swing states. And I think many of us are culpable - myself included - in waiting until elections to get involved in the political process. I do a lot of non-political volunteering but haven't donated money or time to any one individual party or candidate. I'm planning on changing that.

My wife and extended family are super pro life. But they do a lot to help women with crisis pregnancies, domestic violence survivors, and low income families who need safe cribs to prevent SIDS (my sister-in-law is the leader of the state SIDS alliance). They're not just pro life as a way to stick it to the slutz, and it is a core issue for them. Fortunately, I convinced most of them to vote third party since Trump is such a con man. I thought that would be one way that they could vote their conscience without supporting Trump. I don't think anyone thought it would be close enough to matter.

Several of my law enforcement/military buddies looked at how the Obama administration backed down in the Ukraine and hasn't made much progress in Iraq/Syria and voted for Trump because they want someone who scares our enemy. One of them told me - "we're not voting for a friend, we're voting for whoever will best protect this country. And nothing else matters if we get nuked by Isis or Iran." The LE guys also see the problem immigrants who commit petty and sometime serious crimes but then just get deported only to come back across the border a few months later. I disagree with their line of thinking, but there is a logic to it beyond plain bigotry.

Edit: Spoilered some cold, ridiculous math analogy that doesn't really add to the discussion. Feel free to ignore it unless you want to. I'll leave the conclusion in place below :-/

Spoiler:

I like Dimmer's discussion notes and title (moral calculus) and I think it goes a long way to showing the differences when choosing between candidates when both have positions one dislikes. At the end of the day, everyone is making a calculation, unconsciously or consciously, around their vote:

Candidate A score = A(a) + B(b) + C(c) + ....

Candidate B score = A(a) + B(b) + C(c) + ....

A = Position on abortion
B = Fiscal policy
C = Immigration policy

a,b,c = weighting factor for impact on country, individual, ideology

And at the end of it all, whichever candidate scores higher gets the vote. It's not necessarily known or rational what those individual numbers or weightings are.

So there are really three conversations going on: What positions provide positive numbers (for or against), is the number appropriate to the candidates true policy/feelings, and whether the weighting is appropriate towards your vote.

Single issue voters put a HUGE weight onto one number which will always impact the overall score. And even nominally good candidates on major issues can lose support when a large number of negatives start to pile up behind the main issues.

So to bring this to the specific, which is the right question to ask an otherwise progressive person who votes Trump due to pro-life?

Is your pro-life position a sound one to hold in the first place?
Does Trump really represent the pro-life vote you think he does?
Why is pro-life so important that it overrides so many other issues, including human rights, foreign policy experience, etc?

But in the end this is cold, unfeeling and I'm not sure if I'm sorry I typed it out in the first place. The nerd in me wanted to try it, but even when it accurately represents the decision making process it alienates everyone the same way as any other invalidation of their feelings would. I'm not sure there IS a good way to talk about this, other than with all possible empathy one can muster.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If you're a single-issue voter and hold the belief that unborn humans deserve more protection than actual, indisputable humans? Okay.

I mean, I think it's immoral and in contravention of the social standards we apply elsewhere, but okay.

When people point out the foreseeable and demonstrable consequences of voting based on that single issue to many of our most vulnerable fellow citizens, trying to pivot to a discussion about feelings is kind of disingenuous.

I'll share a story I know of someone who's pro-life and it's the most important issue for him. Sorry it's going to be long

In the late 60's my aunt got pregnant and wasn't ready for a baby. She wanted to get an abortion, but at the time was unable to do so. I don't know the details. She had the baby and it was adopted. 25 years later he sought my aunt out and they reconnected. I see him from time to time at family functions. He's of the opinion that my aunt's inability to get an abortion saved his life, and he will always support legislation that gives people like him a chance to live. I suspect of the 15 million people in the US who were adopted this may be a prevalent theme.

I have a hard time vilifying him for that and conversely I don't feel I betrayed him when I voted for Hillary and continue to vote pro-choice whenever I can.

OzymandiasAV wrote:

I get the desire to try and talk about the intersecting concerns in play, but let me put it this way: do we really want (need?) to have a discussion about whether you, as a voter in a representative democracy, are responsible for the actions taken by who you chose?

That's what I have been accused of in the elections thread. I was told that I am responsible for any bad that happens to trans people because I voted Trump. I used abortion as he flip-side to that argument.

I should probably clam down before continuing, but I want to get this out, even if it's disjointed.

Dimmer's thread (that turned into this one) mentioned "political calculus". That's a fitting term. My views do not 100% match any party or candidate.

Here are some of my positions and thoughts (in random order):
I don't care what bathroom people use. People don't walk around with their private parts exposed in the bathroom. There are stalls. Make them all unisex and only have stalls. Problem solved? Locker rooms are different. My 10 year old daughter should not have to see a penis in the women's YMCA showers.

I don't mind if LGBT are allowed to get married. Heteros have taken the "sanctity of marriage" argument off the table by divorcing at a rate of 50%.

I think Hillary should be in prison, based on what is public knowledge.

I think Trump will surround himself with experts because he never been a politician and will need the assistance of others to do a god job. He has held many Democrat stances in the past, and I don't think he's gong to be some alt-right puppet. Being an "outsider" I hope he will be open to ideas from others, both Democrat and Republican. He has shown he's not afraid to stand up to those in his own party that he does not agree with. Again, not a puppet.

I liked what he had to say about inner-cities. Some of them are hell-holes for a lot of people. Most of them have been run by Democrats for decades. Why not give him a chance to try some different things that can help these people, like finding more opportunities for jobs. I work in one. I grew up in one. I am familiar with how things are, the things that need fixing, and I think Hillary would have let these places continue to rot.

I believe life begins at conception. I am regretfully willing to concede abortions up to 3 months, knowing that there will never be full consensus on the issue.

I think we need to spend more on infrastructure and less on military. I am hopeful that military savings can come from getting other NATO countries to pitch in more spending so we can spend less. I have heard Trump say he is for infrastructure projects.

I think the ACA is a mess and needs to be replaced. Coverage for pre-existing conditions should be included in whatever new plan is put into place. I think it will be, as numerous Republicans have stated that this was a good thing in the ACA.

After all the calculus of what matters most and what I think will actually change, I decided on Trump. It was not an easy decision. I was close to 3rd party to send a message.

People (especially here) will not agree with these, but this is me. I hope this can turn into a productive discussion.

Waned to quickly add: No one issue made up my decision. There are more than what listed, but this is already pretty long. IT was like doing calculus, especially this year when I really disliked both options.

Trophy Husband wrote:

In the late 60's my aunt got pregnant and wasn't ready for a baby. She wanted to get an abortion, but at the time was unable to do so. I don't know the details. She had the baby and it was adopted. 25 years later he sought my aunt out and they reconnected. I see him from time to time at family functions. He's of the opinion that my aunt's inability to get an abortion saved his life, and he will always support legislation that gives people like him a chance to live. I suspect of the 15 million people in the US who were adopted this may be a prevalent theme.

I have a hard time vilifying him for that and conversely I don't feel I betrayed him when I voted for Hillary and continue to vote pro-choice whenever I can.

My best friend is adopted. I have 5 adopted cousins (my aunt couldn't have children). I will always be pro choice, but I'm firmly in the camp that this issue would be a lot more complicated if we had a humane cradle to the grave social safety net.

Not to mention all the huge issues we have with population. I don't see how forcing women to bring more unwanted children into an already overcrowded world is a pro-life position when all life in general is at stake. Top that off with the usual resistance against any sex education other than abstinence, and any sort of birth control, the message I get from it all is that their real perspective is that life ends at birth and who cares what happens to anyone after that.

There's also more to life than mere existence. There are quality of life factors to consider as well. Lots and lots and lots and lots of starving, homeless, and sick children (and adults) all over this world (yes, including within the beloved "it couldn't possibly happen to us" U.S.) and we want to continue to contribute to that problem by protecting at all cost life before birth, but discarding all of those people once they are here in the world with the rest of us.

Most people who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion. We just realize there is a whole lot more to it than whether or not the evil women are viciously murdering babies.

Now a whole heck of a lot more people are going to be suffering and dying. Thanks Obama. Oops, I mean thanks Trump.

jdzappa wrote:

I'm feeling rather cautious about condemning any one person for their vote because the truth of the matter is their individual vote only mattered in swing states. And I think many of us are culpable - myself included - in waiting until elections to get involved in the political process. I do a lot of non-political volunteering but haven't donated money or time to any one individual party or candidate. I'm planning on changing that.

Well, that's thing then, isn't it - if you vote for someone but your vote doesn't "count", should I say you don't really believe in anything at all they were behind? Just because you didn't move the needle doesn't mean you didn't push, I guess. Let me reiterate what I put in the other thread -

I'm less irritated about people voting for Trump, because I get it. I get that you can be so disillusioned with life and the process that anything sounds good. I understand feeling abandoned by the left or the Democrats or whomever. I really do understand that. But this insistence that someone voted for certain reasons and thus are above reproach regarding these issues is utter nonsense. This is not me saying "you voted for Trump, thus you're automatically a bigot" and hollering. This is me saying, "you voted for Trump, now be an adult and understand the fullness of your action rather than trying to hide from it."

Let me put it another way. Trump himself may not have been beating the drum about transgender issues, but he just hired an entire drumline who will do so, and this cannot reasonably come as a surprise to anyone who voted for him. "I wanted to help end the corruption and show the Democrats we feel abandoned" and "I do feel bad about what's going to happen to trans rights" are not mutually exclusive ideas. You can't use one as a shield against the other.

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm sorry if you deeply believe that your god allows you to feel morally ok punishing the lives of others. The rest of us humans just want to live our lives in peace with a measure of security about the future. You are now part of the problem and not the solution.

Can we please stay away from this kind of talk in this thread? I made a mistake posting in the trans thread. I think this is also a mistake here.

Point of order: Trans women are not male and we do not have 'male parts'.

Thanks for elaborating, MattDaddy. It seems part of the disconnect is that LGBT rights go much further than which bathroom to use. Sure, that's probably the most talked about provision of HB2, but it also allows people to discriminate in terms of housing, employment, etc. Healthcare is affected. Trans people are dying because of (mostly) legal discrimination. In 49 states, the "trans panic" defense is still legal. In other words, a person can get away with murder by claiming they were surprised that the victim didn't have the genitalia they were expecting. It's the LGBT version of "stand your ground."

I liked your long post MattDaddy, even though I don't agree with some of it. Oddly enough I don't really disagree with a few points but I really want to revisit this in 4 years and see if he did those things.

I don't think they will replace Obamacare with something better. I think they will say f*ck those without insurance, I don't think he will improve inner cities, and I don't think for a second he will spend less on the military and more on infrastructure.

Personally I think you have been sold a lie, and by the time that is clear it will be too late to fix a lot of the problems created.

However the trump administration is going to happen and the changes he pursues are going to happen.

MattDaddy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I'm sorry if you deeply believe that your god allows you to feel morally ok punishing the lives of others. The rest of us humans just want to live our lives in peace with a measure of security about the future. You are now part of the problem and not the solution.

Can we please stay away from this kind of talk in this thread? I made a mistake posting in the trans thread. I think this is also a mistake here.

These kinds of responses are exactly the opposite of the allowing free expression of ideas.

I think conservatives, and liberals, for that matter, that think people posting dissenting opinions need to be stopped probably should not participate in online discussions. Just because your opinion is being refuted, it doesn't mean your ability to respond has been curtailed. And just because you feel that the majority of the participants don't agree with you, it doesn't mean you voice was not heard.

While the conservatives on this site complain that the problem is that this is an echo chamber, the real issue is that conservatives continually opt to drop out if several people disagree with their position. It's not enough to have a dialogue, but some feel that they need their views validated instead of discussed.

The reality is, the progressives here rip each other's views all the time. I have certainly been taken to task by people whose views are not that far off from mine. That's the point of debate and discussion.

MattDaddy wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:

I get the desire to try and talk about the intersecting concerns in play, but let me put it this way: do we really want (need?) to have a discussion about whether you, as a voter in a representative democracy, are responsible for the actions taken by who you chose?

That's what I have been accused of in the elections thread. I was told that I am responsible for any bad that happens to trans people because I voted Trump. I used abortion as he flip-side to that argument.

I appreciate you explaining all of the issues that were considered as a part of your ballot. I disagree with almost everything that you posted and I think Trump has already betrayed most of your points in the last 72 hours, but I think it's fair that you got a chance to clear the air somewhere.

That said, my immediate response to what I posted above is that yes, you are responsible. And I have no problem at all with you turning that table on me or anyone else with abortion because that's the reality of casting a vote in a representative democracy. Actions and choices have repercussions and, if we don't hold our elected officials and ourselves accountable for the actions that they take, then we concede our democracy to demagoguery and fascism.

Trophy Husband wrote:

In the late 60's my aunt got pregnant and wasn't ready for a baby. She wanted to get an abortion, but at the time was unable to do so. I don't know the details. She had the baby and it was adopted. 25 years later he sought my aunt out and they reconnected. I see him from time to time at family functions. He's of the opinion that my aunt's inability to get an abortion saved his life, and he will always support legislation that gives people like him a chance to live. I suspect of the 15 million people in the US who were adopted this may be a prevalent theme.

To offer another data point: I was adopted at birth and am vehemently pro-choice.

Sure, if my birth mother had gotten an abortion I wouldn't be here. I also wouldn't be here if she hadn't had unprotected sex as a teenager, and I don't see anyone advocating that. There are infinite multitudes of people who "aren't here" because of choices that weren't made. If I were one of them, I wouldn't mind because I wouldn't have ever existed! And the people who care about me would've had other people to care about, because that's the way of things.

Jayhawker wrote:

While the conservatives on this site complain that the problem is that this is an echo chamber, the real issue is that conservatives continually opt to drop out if several people disagree with their position. It's not enough to have a dialogue, but some feel that they need their views validated instead of discussed.

Speaking personally, the problem arises when those disagreements are laced with toxicity, dismissiveness, and micro-aggressions. Not everyone does this, but it happens often enough here that it can often "build up" to a snapping point - so you either try to call it out, step away for awhile, or start responding in kind which has an overall negative outcome. Personally, I think MattDaddy is trying the first two options, and seems more cognizant of his own snapping point, and that's probably an overall good thing.

In other words Jayhawker, "here's why I disagree with you" is a dialog, "you are part of the problem" is an attack.

Jayhawker wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I'm sorry if you deeply believe that your god allows you to feel morally ok punishing the lives of others. The rest of us humans just want to live our lives in peace with a measure of security about the future. You are now part of the problem and not the solution.

Can we please stay away from this kind of talk in this thread? I made a mistake posting in the trans thread. I think this is also a mistake here.

These kinds of responses are exactly the opposite of the allowing free expression of ideas.

I think conservatives, and liberals, for that matter, that think people posting dissenting opinions need to be stopped probably should not participate in online discussions. Just because your opinion is being refuted, it doesn't mean your ability to respond has been curtailed. And just because you feel that the majority of the participants don't agree with you, it doesn't mean you voice was not heard.

While the conservatives on this site complain that the problem is that this is an echo chamber, the real issue is that conservatives continually opt to drop out if several people disagree with their position. It's not enough to have a dialogue, but some feel that they need their views validated instead of discussed.

The reality is, the progressives here rip each other's views all the time. I have certainly been taken to task by people whose views are not that far off from mine. That's the point of debate and discussion.

Considering the scope of this thread is "As the dust settles, you may be wondering how much is each individual voter's responsibility. Voting usually involves some level of compromise. Let's calmly and respectfully discuss what it means to have voted for your candidate." I don't see any problem with asking for respect. The new D&D has scopes for a reason and asking someone to participate in line with the scope is not the same as saying they can't criticize you.

Freyja wrote:

Point of order: Trans women are not male and we do not have 'male parts'.

I assume that was directed at my post. I never used the term "trans woman"? There are trans people with male parts that wish to use the woman's restroom. Is that correct?

I'm assuming by 'male parts' you mean 'penis'.

Trans women generally want to use women's public accommodations, and those who haven't had genital reconstruction have penises.

When you are describing someone with a penis who is a woman, you're 99% of the time describing a trans woman.

Given that trans women are women, their bodies are women's bodies, they are female bodies, and don't have 'male parts'.

MattDaddy wrote:
Freyja wrote:

Point of order: Trans women are not male and we do not have 'male parts'.

I assume that was directed at my post. I never used the term "trans woman"? There are trans people with male parts that wish to use the woman's restroom. Is that correct?

I can see why you'd think this, but you're confusing biological sex with gender, and they're not the same thing. Women can have a penis and testicles. While they've traditionally been designated as male genitalia, their mere presence on a person doesn't inherently mean that person is a man. Since they can be present on a woman, they can't rightfully be considered "male parts."

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

While the conservatives on this site complain that the problem is that this is an echo chamber, the real issue is that conservatives continually opt to drop out if several people disagree with their position. It's not enough to have a dialogue, but some feel that they need their views validated instead of discussed.

Speaking personally, the problem arises when those disagreements are laced with toxicity, dismissiveness, and micro-aggressions. Not everyone does this, but it happens often enough here that it can often "build up" to a snapping point - so you either try to call it out, step away for awhile, or start responding in kind which has an overall negative outcome. Personally, I think MattDaddy is trying the first two options, and seems more cognizant of his own snapping point, and that's probably an overall good thing.

In other words Jayhawker, "here's why I disagree with you" is a dialog, "you are part of the problem" is an attack.

It's easy to consider responses that whole-heartedly disagree with you as being, "laced with toxicity, dismissiveness, and micro-aggressions." I would say that more than a few people, conservatives and progressives alike, have been "guilty" of this towards me. I don't think I am alone. I just never thought that threatening to leave instead of self introspection and rebuttal was a way to increase civility.

Pages