I'm sure this thread will go the same way as the last, where I—a Jew—was repeatedly called a white supremacist and told to go **** myself by the angry Politics dwellers. But I'm not making this thread for the groupthink-devoted mods from the Politics forum, or their militant partisans. This thread, like the previous one, is for 2p2 admins and reasonable members of the forums to try to improve the failed Politics forum.
Here was the post I made—my first post since the last ban—responding to a poster who was asking for how conservatives could attack Buttigieg:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
How does the GOP attack Buttigieg? Besides the obvious "too liberal". Too young?
He's obviously not a family man. He's married to another man—so he's another one of these politicians with no personal stake in future generations, and doesn't understand what it means to work for a better country for your children and grandchildren.
He's a glib phony. It's clear not only from his canned responses that he gives in interviews, but from his whole life-path starting from academia that he's not actually in it for the American people; he's in it for himself, just like Hillary. Since high school he's been on the elitist track to becoming a career politician, and just because he's young doesn't mean that's not exactly what he is: another elitist, glad-handing, establishment-allied career politician. He was interning on left-wing political campaigns in his early twenties, and studied all the rhetoric and tactics to make himself a famous politician. His resume needed executive experience, so he cashed in favors to be mayor of South Bend, which is a city enough people have heard of because of Notre Dame that he can act like it's a major position. His resume also needed military experience, so he joined the Naval Reserve and made sure he got a deployment for a few months so he can say he's a veteran who served in Afghanistan. (A landlocked desert country where the Navy has little purview, especially for a reservist.) Now he's got the resume, and he'll waste no time trying to leverage it.
He's a fake Christian. Of course, his research shows you have to be Christian in this country to get elected, so he claims to be one. I supposed he's unfamiliar with 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:18? Or maybe he believes acting in sin wasn't a choice for him, but would God assign such a man to be leader of the free world? His self-professed Episcopalian faith seems only as important as the boost it gives to his political resume.
But enough about his character; what about his policies? He wants to expand the Supreme Court to fifteen members if he gets into power (and you can guess whether he'll appoint liberal or conservative justices to swing the balance in his favor). He wants amnesty for illegal immigrants. He opposes the current president's stance against open borders. He supports the Green New Deal, and agrees with its claim that we have only twelve years before the world ends unless we sacrifice our economy for it (and don't be irresponsible and have children in these climate end-times—we know Buttigieg won't be).
That was a lot of fun. I encourage any of you to come up with a better refutation of Buttigieg. For full disclosure I have a small wager on him to win the presidency in 2020 at 33:1.
But I guess I didn't preface it by saying that I myself don't actually espouse the above criticisms that Republicans will use to attack Buttigieg. (A thinking mod would realize Jews don't typically subscribe to New Testament scripture on homosexuality.) So despite responding with exactly what the poster asked for, in a way that I'm sure tens of millions of Republican voters would sign off on, I was banned for "Homophobia."
It's ban-level homophobia to say that Republicans will point to the Bible to criticize Buttigieg's gay lifestyle? Or that they disparage people without a wife and children in leadership positions? It's completely true that Republicans think that way, and again, I don't subscribe to those criticisms.
If the election were today, I would vote for Buttigieg. But I shouldn't have to say this to be able to post in the forum. As I said in the post, I've bet on him to win. But the rabid mods in Politics see anything that isn't dripping with loyalty as an affront to liberalism (note irony), and will ban anyone if they aren't clearly espousing allegiance. This total obliviousness is what has them banning a Buttigieg supporter as homophobic after banning a Jew for being a white supremacist sympathizer.
Politics is fun and interesting when you discuss the opposition strategy and try to understand opposing and nuanced viewpoints. But the Politics forum we have now on this site seems to be strictly a circle-jerk of hating the Right, and hating those who don't hate the Right enough, and praising those who show inspired hatred for the Right. And it's janitored by bitter mods who ban not just people who aren't liberal, but people who are liberal but post things that don't make it immediately obvious what their views are and this confuses the mods so they ban them anyway.
So if any mods want to apologize in this thread, feel free, but I don't expect that, of course. I do expect the mods to have a visceral sense that they're wrong, and I expect the people who PM'ed me in support of my last thread here but who didn't want to deal with the hostile backlash of expressing that support in the thread to know the mods are wrong. And the other lurkers in this forum who would like to have a functional Politics forum on this site—I expect they'll know the mods are wrong.