Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[MiaBabe23]

Doom, I know you like to consider the basics, so -
No doubt you’re mindful of the debates of the likes of Eatwell, Griffin and Payne, whose points might be summarized as concluding that fascism consists of:
a strong, dictatorial leader; a unified, homogeneous populace; absolute loyalty to the state leader who defines the nation; oppression of opposing voices
The above you’ll recognize as necessarily simplified, due to lack of space and the need for a working definition for the purposes of the discussion - do say if you think modifications are needed, or there are elements you fundamentally disagree with or think are missing.
So -

. I don't agree with the Democrats who say Trump is a fascist

But given what we can accept is meant by fascism, you do understand the alarm - pledges to become a dictator for a day; association with those who describe themselves as fascist; pledges to lock up opponents on the basis of them having criticized him and / or held him to account; suggestions that it is unacceptable to criticize him and that everyone must unify behind him; false equivalence drawn by him between protesters and those who use violence to achieve political goals; his actions, including inciting violence and the overthrow of the system.

So why do you become irritated when people point out Trump’s fascist traits and leanings?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Interestingly, although your points are valid, I hear a lot of people, for example, the Icanwizzardharpy's, Rightguide, and the various Busybody alter-ergos, who bandy the terms "Socialism," and "Marxism' around frequently when describing the Democrats' (or even, occasionally, the more moderate Republicans') social and economic policies.

The main difference, is these people have a much harder time actually understanding what true socialism and Marxism is, or how it applies to the things they disagree with. (Because most of the time it doesn't; for example, they try to claim that opposition to racism and bigotry is "Marxist.").

 

[JohnEngelman]

Which is preferable? A woman not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Easy answer, right?

Sadly, while it SHOULD be that easy...it's not!
Why?

Because many of the SAME PEOPLE and the SAME ORGANIZATIONS that are basically trying to reduce women to nothing more than state-owned breeding stock, are, at the same time, trying to take away all forms of contraception and birth control.

They are trying to ban or restrict access to morning-after pills.
They are trying to ban or restrict access to birth control pills.
They are trying to outlaw sex-education in schools, and restrict information on family planning and contraception.
There are even efforts to make condoms and IUD's harder to obtain.

These are things that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies. But ironically, many of the same militantly pro-life organizations, people, and political figures are AGAINST these things. Why would they be against them?

Simple. Because abortion was never the end game. They basically want to outlaw all sex that is non-procreative or pleasurable. Control people's sexual behavior; it's about repression, power and control. Even if abortion is outlawed nationwide, for any and all reasons, these people will not stop there- and they have said so. It's one of the planks of Project 2025 in fact.

If "pro life" people were consistently pro life they would support universal health care. Universal health care would reduce the number of women who die in pregnancy and the number of infant mortalities.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

Getting back to the original poster's original comment: I do enjoy investigating different points of view. When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial subject, any appeal to emotion inclines me to give more credence to the other side. This is true of insults and name calling.

Generally speaking, I have a high opinion of the other posters here. Their comments frequently present facts I had not known and insights I had not considered.