ADVERTISEMENT

Montana GOP Candidate physically attacks reporter

Umm, that article explains exactly why previous special election results are not very informative.

"As you can see in the table above, special House and Senate elections in the two years leading up to a midterm can go any which way. In any of the previous four cycles before a midterm, there’s at least one example of a candidate doing poorly in a special election — relative to the previous weighted presidential vote — only to have their party do well in the midterms.California 48 in the 2006 cycle, which is rounded to 0 in the table." style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 18px; line-height: inherit; font-family: ArnhemPro, Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">6
 
More on the topic at hand: MONTANA.

Quist is outperforming the 2016 House race, but not the 2016 gubernatorial race. That speaks to a close race, but all the numbers are trending to a single-digit win for Gianforte. So Quist probably won't win, but he's still looking to do well enough that the GOP will need to take stock of what this means.
Quist may be a nice man,but I don't think He was a strong candidate.
 
One side effect of the increase in early/absentee voting (though I can't say I know just how much Montana has seen), is that it dulls the effects of last-minute swings.

I suppose the WWE guy would still have won if everybody had voted with knowledge of what he did -- but maybe not, or maybe it would've been closer.

I don't know if this is a positive thing or a negative thing. But it's clearly a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga
HOAs have been called "de facto government." They are private entities that nevertheless fill a government-like role.
That they "have been called" something doesn't make that the law. Local units of government in Indiana are created by state law and the Indiana Constitution and exist via no other authority.
 
They raised $100,000 after the punch. As I predicted, this is probably going to help him rather than hurt him. Trump's America is a sad, sad world. This is what he meant by making America Great again? Violence and corruption at every turn.[/QU
One side effect of the increase in early/absentee voting (though I can't say I know just how much Montana has seen), is that it dulls the effects of last-minute swings.

I suppose the WWE guy would still have won if everybody had voted with knowledge of what he did -- but maybe not, or maybe it would've been closer.

I don't know if this is a positive thing or a negative thing. But it's clearly a thing.
I saw an article last night looking at Montana news sites that 36% of the vote in Montana was early voting. Maybe the Dems want election day only voting right about now.
 
Our board wanted to build brick walls to replace the wooden ones at an estimated expense of $3 MM. Not surprisingly, many of them lived right off the road.

It didn't pass.
A friend lives in a neighborhood where the POA board proposed to establish a pension for themselves. Needless to say that was flushed and every board member defeated at the next opportunity to remove them.
 
Quist may be a nice man,but I don't think He was a strong candidate.
He lost to a guy that said this:

“How old was Noah when he built the ark? 600,” he said. “He wasn’t like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn’t hanging out, he was working. So, I think we have an obligation to work. The role we have in work may change over time, but the concept of retirement is not biblical.”

Our nation is in serious trouble. Serious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ement-is-not-biblical/?utm_term=.9aab9c7066ad
 
More on the topic at hand: MONTANA.

Quist is outperforming the 2016 House race, but not the 2016 gubernatorial race. That speaks to a close race, but all the numbers are trending to a single-digit win for Gianforte. So Quist probably won't win, but he's still looking to do well enough that the GOP will need to take stock of what this means.

With a guy running who body slammed an opponent and still managed to win, I don't know what kind of good info you could get out of this election....other than try not to run people who think assault is a-okay even if the person being assaulted acts like a jack ass.
 
That they "have been called" something doesn't make that the law. Local units of government in Indiana are created by state law and the Indiana Constitution and exist via no other authority.
For the purposes of Rock's analogy, it's plenty good enough. You know what he was saying, and it wasn't that HOAs have official sanction of state law as a government entity.
 
With a guy running who body slammed an opponent and still managed to win, I don't know what kind of good info you could get out of this election....other than try not to run people who think assault is a-okay even if the person being assaulted acts like a back ass.
Most votes were before the incident.
 
With a guy running who body slammed an opponent and still managed to win, I don't know what kind of good info you could get out of this election....other than try not to run people who think assault is a-okay even if the person being assaulted acts like a back ass.
This is why I can no longer call myself a Republican. This is why I don't care what flyover country wants in their leadership. Until flyover country can get their shit together and stop acting like a Christian caliphate, I have no purpose for them.

Thanks, religious America, for sticking me with having to vote for socialist academics because they're the lesser of two evils.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ement-is-not-biblical/?utm_term=.9aab9c7066ad
 
This is why I can no longer call myself a Republican. This is why I don't care what flyover country wants in their leadership. Until flyover country can get their shit together and stop acting like a Christian caliphate, I have no purpose for them.

Thanks, religious America, for sticking me with having to vote for socialist academics because they're the lesser of two evils.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ement-is-not-biblical/?utm_term=.9aab9c7066ad

I have never called myself a Republican or a Democrat.

And pardon me if I think the whole Christian caliphate talking point is laughable. If so, we are the worst Christian caliphate in the history of Christian caliphates.
 
I have never called myself a Republican or a Democrat.

And pardon me if I think the whole Christian caliphate talking point is laughable. If so, we are the worst Christian caliphate in the history of Christian caliphates.
You don't think we have a de facto Christian Caliphate in most red states? Pray tell.

If it wasn't for the federal government overturning ridiculous RFRA-type laws, we'd be a lot closer to real caliphate status in red states.
 
You don't think we have a de facto Christian Caliphate in most red states? Pray tell.

If it wasn't for the federal government overturning ridiculous RFRA-type laws, we'd be a lot closer to real caliphate status in red states.

No I don't.

RFRA was only about not forcing certain people to be involved in something they did not want to be. Gay people were still free to be gay. You can still get abortions in the red states. You can still drink in red states. You can still have sex outside of marriage in red states. You can still get divorced in red states. Science and technology still exist in red states. Even most people who believe in a creator are open to intelligent design which is completely compatible with modern science.

Gay marriage. That is probably the one thing that would probably be different in the red states if they had their way. And yeah, if you are gay that would suck. But for the 95% (and I think that figure is low) of people who are not gay, life would truck along ad usual. For those who are gay, 99% of their life would be no different.

I think calling red states a Christian Caliphate is akin to comparing political opponents to Nazis. It is an over the top characterization meant to demonize people for having a counter opinion.

I get it, you do not feel like you have a political home and that is maddening. But let's not overstate things.
 
This is why I can no longer call myself a Republican. This is why I don't care what flyover country wants in their leadership. Until flyover country can get their shit together and stop acting like a Christian caliphate, I have no purpose for them.

Thanks, religious America, for sticking me with having to vote for socialist academics because they're the lesser of two evils.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ement-is-not-biblical/?utm_term=.9aab9c7066ad

the irony of course is that this "christian caliphate" comprised the largest percentage of trump voters. (He's a real good christian) Not exactly einsteins.
 
No I don't.

RFRA was only about not forcing certain people to be involved in something they did not want to be. Gay people were still free to be gay. You can still get abortions in the red states. You can still drink in red states. You can still have sex outside of marriage in red states. You can still get divorced in red states. Science and technology still exist in red states. Even most people who believe in a creator are open to intelligent design which is completely compatible with modern science.

Gay marriage. That is probably the one thing that would probably be different in the red states if they had their way. And yeah, if you are gay that would suck. But for the 95% (and I think that figure is low) of people who are not gay, life would truck along ad usual. For those who are gay, 99% of their life would be no different.

I think calling red states a Christian Caliphate is akin to comparing political opponents to Nazis. It is an over the top characterization meant to demonize people for having a counter opinion.

I get it, you do not feel like you have a political home and that is maddening. But let's not overstate things.
I agree the analogy is way overstated, but just as a point of fact, you are wrong about some details. RFRA was and is about more than you ascribe to it. Intelligent design is not compatible with science. Belief in a creator God is, but ID is a specific type of belief that contradicts scientific understanding. And finally, you need to understand that there are ways other than a flat ban to prevent something sinful. No state bans abortion or alcohol, but it's a lot harder to find a clinic or a liquor store in some areas than others, by design.
 
Last edited:
No I don't.

RFRA was only about not forcing certain people to be involved in something they did not want to be. Gay people were still free to be gay. You can still get abortions in the red states. You can still drink in red states. You can still have sex outside of marriage in red states. You can still get divorced in red states. Science and technology still exist in red states. Even most people who believe in a creator are open to intelligent design which is completely compatible with modern science.

Gay marriage. That is probably the one thing that would probably be different in the red states if they had their way. And yeah, if you are gay that would suck. But for the 95% (and I think that figure is low) of people who are not gay, life would truck along ad usual. For those who are gay, 99% of their life would be no different.

I think calling red states a Christian Caliphate is akin to comparing political opponents to Nazis. It is an over the top characterization meant to demonize people for having a counter opinion.

I get it, you do not feel like you have a political home and that is maddening. But let's not overstate things.
Of course it's overstated but I'm talking about a de facto caliphate. The red (traditionally red - not purple) states are directly correlated with religiosity and it's highly unlikely that an avowed atheist or agnostic will ever hold executive office or a senate seat in those states in my lifetime.

Statements like that of Gianforte and Inhofe in the past should be automatically disqualifying. If Gianforte really believes that a 600 yr old built a big ass boat thousands of years ago, he's not fit for office. If Inhofe thinks that God promised seasons and thus there can be no climate change, he's unfit for office.

And Intelligent Design is completely incompatible with science. The idea of a creator is, but ID and Young Earth Creationism are wholly incompatible. Again, anyone who privately believes in these things introduces skepticism but those who vomit these atrocities to intellectualism should be disqualified. Instead, red staters soak it up and use it to fuel their own cognitive dissonance.
 
You don't think we have a de facto Christian Caliphate in most red states? Pray tell.

If it wasn't for the federal government overturning ridiculous RFRA-type laws, we'd be a lot closer to real caliphate status in red states.

I think that's absurd, Ranger.

I live in a red state. And here in this Christian Caliphate I can (if I'm so inclined) drink, gamble, go to a strip club, go to a sex toy shop, watch R rated movies, watch X rated movies, have a threesome, be gay, have a gay threesome, be transgendered, be an Atheist, be a Jew, be a Hindu, be a Muslim.....I think I could even be a gay Muslim (at least as far as the state's concerned).

These are the sorts of available options in a Christian Caliphate? Hmph.

There are such things as theocracies in the world today. I suspect if you were to live in one for a little while, you'd scoff at the notion that Red State America actually belongs in that league.

In fact, let's not forget our history that one of the theological fathers of the modern Sunni Islamist movement, Sayyid Qutb, became radicalized after living and working for a while in Greeley, CO -- which isn't now, and wasn't then, exactly Las Vegas or San Francisco. He was so appalled by the depravity of the Western culture that he saw in Greeley that he came to see Western Civilization and Islam as being mutually exclusive -- and, as such, decided that Islam must kill Western culture or else Western culture will kill Islam.


Now, where I stand on RFRA laws is going to depend on the details. If the basic nature of the law is such that the proverbial wedding cake baker can legally refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then that's fine with me -- the law should most certainly NOT compel somebody to do that against their will. But if the basic nature of the law is to compel a certain moral code on people -- such that I can no longer be a Muslim having drunken gay threesomes -- then count me out.
 
I agree the analogy is way overstated, but just as a point of fact, you are wrong about some details. RFRA was and is about more than you ascribe to it. Intelligent design is not compatible with science. Belief in a creator God is, but ID is a specific type of belief that contradicts scientific understanding. And finally, you need to understand that there are ways other than a flat ban to prevent something sinful. No state band abortion or alcohol, but it's a lot harder to find a clinic or a liquor store in some areas than others, by design.

I know RFRA in writing was about more but it came about in reaction to forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings. Without that story (fear) making the rounds, RFRA does not happen.

Abortion is one issue where I am happily a member of the make it illegal in almost all cases camp, so on that, yeah...welcome to the Caliphate I guess. On alcohol though, other than some dry counties here or there or the Sunday law in Indiana, I have not really been anywhere where I felt I could not get a beer. For that matter, it is not the religious folks driving many of those laws anymore. For instance, the liquor store lobby does not want Sunday sales in Indiana for their own economic interests.

I think I believe in intelligent design and I think my beliefs are pretty compatible with modern science. Maybe my version of ID is not whatever the popular version that you and Ranger are referencing?
 
I know RFRA in writing was about more but it came about in reaction to forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings. Without that story (fear) making the rounds, RFRA does not happen.

Abortion is one issue where I am happily a member of the make it illegal in almost all cases camp, so on that, yeah...welcome to the Caliphate I guess. On alcohol though, other than some dry counties here or there or the Sunday law in Indiana, I have not really been anywhere where I felt I could not get a beer. For that matter, it is not the religious folks driving many of those laws anymore. For instance, the liquor store lobby does not want Sunday sales in Indiana for their own economic interests.

I think I believe in intelligent design and I think my beliefs are pretty compatible with modern science. Maybe my version of ID is not whatever the popular version that you and Ranger are referencing?
Intelligent Design is the proposition that certain aspects of the universe represent overwhelming evidence that an intelligent creator was involved in the making and ordering of existence. The idea that a creator exists and was involved is a religious belief, and it's fine. But the idea that it can be proven in the way ID claims is pseudoscience. They will talk about irreducible complexity and jet airplanes in tornadoes, and it's all nonsense. Just an excuse to put a scientific veneer on a religious belief. The ultimate motive behind this, of course, was to be able to teach Genesis in public schools.

As for the beer thing, Indiana is quite unique. You should see how things run in some of the plains states.
 
I think that's absurd, Ranger.

I live in a red state. And here in this Christian Caliphate I can (if I'm so inclined) drink, gamble, go to a strip club, go to a sex toy shop, watch R rated movies, watch X rated movies, have a threesome, be gay, have a gay threesome, be transgendered, be an Atheist, be a Jew, be a Hindu, be a Muslim.....I think I could even be a gay Muslim (at least as far as the state's concerned).

These are the sorts of available options in a Christian Caliphate? Hmph.

There are such things as theocracies in the world today. I suspect if you were to live in one for a little while, you'd scoff at the notion that Red State America actually belongs in that league.

In fact, let's not forget our history that one of the theological fathers of the modern Sunni Islamist movement, Sayyid Qutb, became radicalized after living and working for a while in Greeley, CO -- which isn't now, and wasn't then, exactly Las Vegas or San Francisco. He was so appalled by the depravity of the Western culture that he saw in Greeley that he came to see Western Civilization and Islam as being mutually exclusive -- and, as such, decided that Islam must kill Western culture or else Western culture will kill Islam.


Now, where I stand on RFRA laws is going to depend on the details. If the basic nature of the law is such that the proverbial wedding cake baker can legally refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then that's fine with me -- the law should most certainly NOT compel somebody to do that against their will. But if the basic nature of the law is to compel a certain moral code on people -- such that I can no longer be a Muslim having drunken gay threesomes -- then count me out.
You're talking about not being prosecuted and that doesn't make it truly free. Many people on this board and in red states throughout America went ape over gay marriage. In many senses, the governments of red states are more progressive than their constituencies. When I talk about a de facto caliphate I'm not talking only about laws, but more so the will of the people.

Let's just go through your list:

I can (if I'm so inclined) drink, gamble (in one or two places) go to a strip club, go to a sex toy shop, watch R rated movies, watch X rated movies, have a threesome, be gay (and likely not be elected to office and may be run out of certain low level public jobs such as teaching), have a gay threesome, be transgendered (and have bathroom laws passed in your name), be an Atheist (not openly - not if you want a job or hold office in red states) be a Jew, be a Hindu, be a Muslim.....I think I could even be a gay Muslim (at least as far as the state's concerned) (and not hold office.)

It's not about criminal persecution - it's about the bumpkins who would marginalize you if you were on of the above. That's a de facto caliphate.
 
the irony of course is that this "christian caliphate" comprised the largest percentage of trump voters. (He's a real good christian) Not exactly einsteins.
I understand why they'd vote for Trump who isn't much of a Christian himself. And that's an understatement. If abortion and so called religious freedom are your main things you're going to vote for the person that claims to oppose abortion and support 'religious freedom' over the prochoice gay rights supporter.
 
Intelligent Design is the proposition that certain aspects of the universe represent overwhelming evidence that an intelligent creator was involved in the making and ordering of existence. The idea that a creator exists and was involved is a religious belief, and it's fine. But the idea that it can be proven in the way ID claims is pseudoscience. They will talk about irreducible complexity and jet airplanes in tornadoes, and it's all nonsense. Just an excuse to put a scientific veneer on a religious belief. The ultimate motive behind this, of course, was to be able to teach Genesis in public schools.

As for the beer thing, Indiana is quite unique. You should see how things run in some of the plains states.

My intelligent design would not really fall in that category then. I think God created it and set out certain blueprints for how the universe works. Then he kind of let it go. I would not spend my time proving God, my view is to use our method "science" to further our knowledge.

I am not as familiar with how the plains states do things but I have spent some time in the south and know how they tend to work.
 
You're talking about not being prosecuted and that doesn't make it truly free. Many people on this board and in red states throughout America went ape over gay marriage. In many senses, the governments of red states are more progressive than their constituencies. When I talk about a de facto caliphate I'm not talking only about laws, but more so the will of the people.

Let's just go through your list:

I can (if I'm so inclined) drink, gamble (in one or two places) go to a strip club, go to a sex toy shop, watch R rated movies, watch X rated movies, have a threesome, be gay (and likely not be elected to office and may be run out of certain low level public jobs such as teaching), have a gay threesome, be transgendered (and have bathroom laws passed in your name), be an Atheist (not openly - not if you want a job or hold office in red states) be a Jew, be a Hindu, be a Muslim.....I think I could even be a gay Muslim (at least as far as the state's concerned) (and not hold office.)

It's not about criminal persecution - it's about the bumpkins who would marginalize you if you were on of the above. That's a de facto caliphate.

Let's see, the mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana is openly gay. And I'd say that he has a pretty bright future. So is the mayor of the 2nd largest city in Kentucky -- who also happens to be one of the Caliphate of Kentucky's most respected businessmen. So what's this about not being able to hold office in a red state? That's nonsense.

Moreover, of a lot of the things you mentioned, are they really any different in the typical blue state? I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the Governor of New Jersey resigned after being outed as gay. And how many openly Atheist officeholders are there in blue states? For a long time, the lone openly atheist member of the House of Representatives was Pete Stark. There may be a few more now, I don't know. But it's not a big caucus, either way.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are any states in America that are terribly restrictive, culturally, socially, or legally. There may be some relatively minor differences from here to there. But Vive la difference, right? If you want to live in a place where gambling is rampant and hookers are legal, absolutely nobody will prevent you from moving to Vegas. If you want to live in a place where kinky sex is taboo, but everybody secretly likes their Internet porn, move to Utah.
 
Overwhelming?

53% of white women voted Trump.

353628392.icon
 
My voting demographic is educated women. 62 percent of non college educated white women voted for Trump. College educated women voted for Hillary 51-45, and if you move on to post graduate work even more voted for Hillary. So I am indeed speaking for the majority of women in my demographics, even though I've never said I speak for all women. But as a reference, 85% of the phone calls that representatives have been getting are from women, the large majority of those attending town halls are women, and you are going to see a huge number of women running for office now. Like I said, lots of pi$$ed off women, mainly at men with attitudes like you and those that are amused at a President that treats women the way Donnie does.

You misspelled "College educated women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary."
 
My intelligent design would not really fall in that category then. I think God created it and set out certain blueprints for how the universe works. Then he kind of let it go. I would not spend my time proving God, my view is to use our method "science" to further our knowledge.
Your belief is fine, and there is nothing wrong with believing it. Where ID goes wrong is claiming your belief can be proven using the scientific method. The proposition that God set the table, said, "Go," and let everything unfold according to his design* is perfectly compatible with what we observe in the universe. The idea that what we observe in the universe proves God did that, however, is fallacious, and violates the basic principles of the scientific method. That's where the ID folks go wrong. They want to prove a non-scientific theory using science.

Liquor laws are fascinating animals. You can usually tell which lobbies are most powerful in a state based on liquor laws:

Indiana - No Sunday sales, no option for dry jurisdictions, state is run by the liquor lobby.
Ohio, et al. - State liquor system, on-premise allowed, no BYO, restaurant lobby rules.
Kansas, et al. - Lots of dry counties, restricted on-premise sales, must BYO in a lot of restaurants, religious lobby is in charge.
 
Let's see, the mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana is openly gay. And I'd say that he has a pretty bright future. So is the mayor of the 2nd largest city in Kentucky -- who also happens to be one of the Caliphate of Kentucky's most respected businessmen. So what's this about not being able to hold office in a red state? That's nonsense.

Moreover, of a lot of the things you mentioned, are they really any different in the typical blue state? I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the Governor of New Jersey resigned after being outed as gay. And how many openly Atheist officeholders are there in blue states? For a long time, the lone openly atheist member of the House of Representatives was Pete Stark. There may be a few more now, I don't know. But it's not a big caucus, either way.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are any states in America that are terribly restrictive, culturally, socially, or legally. There may be some relatively minor differences from here to there. But Vive la difference, right? If you want to live in a place where gambling is rampant and hookers are legal, absolutely nobody will prevent you from moving to Vegas. If you want to live in a place where kinky sex is taboo, but everybody secretly likes their Internet porn, move to Utah.
It's hard to communicate a point over this forum when I'm trying to make a broadbrush point. It's not impressive that the mayor of south bend is gay. It would be impressive if one of the senators or the governor were gay. Cities inside of red states are not red. They are lone bastions of secularity.

I don't want Vegas in every city. I don't care about kinky sex or porn. I do care that atheists and agnostics and gays have to pretend they're not to fit in. I do care that ridiculous religious-fueled statements made by morons like Gianforte and Inhofe aren't automatically disqualifying.

Edit: I'm very happy that people derive joy and happiness from religion. What I cannot tolerate are the typical red state behaviors of using dogma to inform bigotry/prejudice, using dogma to wield cognitive dissonance in the face of science and sound economics, and relying on religion to justify illogical positions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: DRH4IU
You're talking about not being prosecuted and that doesn't make it truly free. Many people on this board and in red states throughout America went ape over gay marriage. In many senses, the governments of red states are more progressive than their constituencies. When I talk about a de facto caliphate I'm not talking only about laws, but more so the will of the people.

Let's just go through your list:

I can (if I'm so inclined) drink, gamble (in one or two places) go to a strip club, go to a sex toy shop, watch R rated movies, watch X rated movies, have a threesome, be gay (and likely not be elected to office and may be run out of certain low level public jobs such as teaching), have a gay threesome, be transgendered (and have bathroom laws passed in your name), be an Atheist (not openly - not if you want a job or hold office in red states) be a Jew, be a Hindu, be a Muslim.....I think I could even be a gay Muslim (at least as far as the state's concerned) (and not hold office.)

It's not about criminal persecution - it's about the bumpkins who would marginalize you if you were on of the above. That's a de facto caliphate.

So they need to THINK like you.
Allowing you to do what you do and them to do what they do is no longer good enough?

Double plus good.
Very cosmopolitan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
It's hard to communicate a point over this forum when I'm trying to make a broadbrush point. It's not impressive that the mayor of south bend is gay. It would be impressive if one of the senators or the governor were gay. Cities inside of red states are not red. They are lone bastions of secularity.

I don't want Vegas in every city. I don't care about kinky sex or porn. I do care that atheists and agnostics and gays have to pretend they're not to fit in. I do care that ridiculous religious-fueled statements made by morons like Gianforte and Inhofe aren't automatically disqualifying.

Edit: I'm very happy that people derive joy and happiness from religion. What I cannot tolerate are the typical red state behaviors of using dogma to inform bigotry/prejudice, using dogma to wield cognitive dissonance in the face of science and sound economics, and relying on religion to justify illogical positions.

what's worse... dumb religious statements, or an actual beatdown of a reporter. Gop members in congress were publicly defending the latter. Apparently this kind of violence is now an acceptable part of public discourse.
 
It's hard to communicate a point over this forum when I'm trying to make a broadbrush point. It's not impressive that the mayor of south bend is gay. It would be impressive if one of the senators or the governor were gay. Cities inside of red states are not red. They are lone bastions of secularity.

I don't want Vegas in every city. I don't care about kinky sex or porn. I do care that atheists and agnostics and gays have to pretend they're not to fit in. I do care that ridiculous religious-fueled statements made by morons like Gianforte and Inhofe aren't automatically disqualifying.

Edit: I'm very happy that people derive joy and happiness from religion. What I cannot tolerate are the typical red state behaviors of using dogma to inform bigotry/prejudice, using dogma to wield cognitive dissonance in the face of science and sound economics, and relying on religion to justify illogical positions.

Wait a second....isn't Tammy Baldwin the first openly gay Senator in US History? If so, why all the hating on red states? Where's Vermont's gay Senator, dude?
 
Apparently this kind of violence is now an acceptable part of public discourse.

Sure is, just ask Milo Yiannapolous and Charles Murray -- not to mention all the bloodied up people in the streets wearing MAGA hats.

Come on, toasted. If you want to decry political violence, at least do it consistently....instead of picking out the incidents that best fit your narrative.
 
So they need to THINK like you.
Allowing you to do what you do and them to do what they do is no longer good enough?

That is a huge and important distinction, MTIOTF -- and thank you for pointing that out. Somewhere in recent history, we've crossed that all-important line. And it's one we shouldn't ever cross in a free society.
 
It's not impressive that the mayor of south bend is gay. It would be impressive if one of the senators or the governor were gay.

BTW, if you keep moving those goalposts, they've eventually going to be in the parking lot.

I'm sorry, you're never going to convince me that Red States are this oppressive culture you're making them out to be. Not only do I live in one, but my most common spot for vacationing is an even deeper Red. And my experiences in both places make me really scratch my head at your impression of them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT