Not paying attention is not the same as stupid. Many people don’t like politics and pay little attention to the details. If they just sweep the headlines, they miss a great deal. And back when Bork was being borked, a lot of people just assumed the accusations were correct, if they knew about them at all. One would have to take a special interest and do research (not so easy in those pre-internet days) in order to get the real story.

You be you.

“ “Robert Bork’s America” as “a land in which women would be forced into back??alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” https://www.cato.org/commentary/original-sin-robert-bork

Every Democrat voter with at least a room temp IQ has listened to nasty, vicious rhetoric like this for over 35 years. I think the argument that they aren’t aware of the ugly viciousness that they are supporting is beyond silly. They know exactly what they are supporting. They’d have to be stupid to not know.

Did you read neo’s response
to your paint baloon?

In a histrionic age where ALL conservatives are smeared relentlessly in the nastiest and most vicious terms imaginable, why shouldn’t we wonder about the mindsets and moral sensibilities of those who embrace and support the nasty viciousness?

If your concern is REALLY the broad brush, the most worthwhile inquiry would be to examine why liberals are so eager to support the broad brush slanders of their leaders. Most sane people expect more measured and considered nuance from national party leaders than from short blog comments. But not all people are sane.

Most of my friends are not especially politically oriented and most don’t consume tons of news, and the news they consume is the MSM. They have always voted Democrat, their friends vote Democrat, they really aren’t spending a ton of time examining issues in any depth. They think they are on the side of good rather than evil. In their personal lives they are not morally compromised.

Or, as the Bee Gees said, “Too many lovers in one lifetime/ Ain’t good for you…”

Mrrrr, not really accurate, as stated.

Sexual intimacy is important when you tie it to relationship intimacy. But when one takes a casual attitude towards sexuality, you’re reducing the actual value of it to the formation of relationship intimacy, something that is a really bad idea.

Relationship Intimacy is what matters, what leads to happiness and overall satisfaction with life.

I’m not a firm believer in chastity –I do think that, if you end your life with about 2-6 sexual partners, you’ve probably found the right middle ground between extremes. So taking sex lightly is just as bad as turning it into a magical perfection that only one person can ever help you attain. Because the fact is, you’re likely to only find true relationship intimacy with one or two people in your life, it’s too difficult to find that emotional connection, the inter-reaction of likes and dislikes, the synergies of personalities, and so forth that makes any relationship a deep-seated “fit” of two people. Obviously, that 2-6 varies with you, your luck with encounters, and so forth. Perhaps you met that perfect person at 18 and never needed to go searching again until one of you passed away in your shared four-score-and-ten. But the more of them you went to bed with, the harder it became for you to actually use the intensity of sexual connection to help form that emotional bond, too — so having lots of lovers arguably does not do the job for anyone, either.

Abortion beyond the fetal heartbeat stage is homicide perpetrated by “fallible” murderers.

Having an opinion is one thing. Having a strong opinion at the top of your voice is another thing entirely.

Rational discourse is how you change minds — even more so in a semi-public environment like social media, where others are often lurking and not being obvious about their review of what is being discussed.

You may have no hope of changing the mind of the hidebound jackass with whom you are having the discussion, but you are putting forth in public your arguments for your position for people to weigh them and find them valid or invalid from their own point of view.

It is essential to do this, or else all the lurkers encounter is the opposition’s point of view, often at the top of their voices. By being politely straightforward, not only do you make them look foolish and mentally inept, you often detract from their common talking point that YOU are the one who is unreasonable and evil.

This is one important reason why The Left is often so determined to shut up opposition voices, lest anyone actually consider the arguments on their merits, which all too often leads to them losing hearts and minds.