Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Funktron3000 t1_ivktv0r wrote

Reply to comment by TreePointOhhhhh in Who got your vote? by uzernaimed

What was appealing about Bolduc to you? I consider myself independent and voted for a mix of R, D, and L candidates…but after researching them all, Bolduc was the one who seemed the worst of all. Im not surprised in today’s hyper partisan environment that he’d get many votes from people voting straight red…but I am curious if Bolduc was genuinely appealing to you?

12

TreePointOhhhhh t1_ivkzdv7 wrote

Thanks for asking. Yes, Bolduc is genuinely an appealing choice for me on many different levels. The first being, he truly is a grass roots candidate vs Hassan (2m vs $38m in donations). The second being, he’s not a career politician. He’s definitely not perfect, but I honestly think his heart is in the right place and he’s sincere about wanting to help NH. And the third and most important reason I went with him is because it’s more of a chess move. Voting for Bolduc is voting for someone to unseat McConnell as the head of the Republicans. He’s been very vocal about voting against McConnell as the Republican senate leader. It’s a win win to reform the party. That’s just my two cents.

1

Funktron3000 t1_ivl0m4c wrote

Thanks. Those seem like good reasons. You and I have different priorities but your explanation sounds totally reasonable and logical. Cheers neighbor

8

Ok-Glass7272 t1_ivmd08p wrote

>It’s a win win to reform the party.

Reform the party??? Bolduc is a full-on Trump guy. You want McConnell, who is, of course, a POS, out but Trump in? Bolduc wants to ban all abortions regardless of circumstance, stop funding Ukraine, who is fighting for basically western civilization at incredible human cost, and wants to find oil even if it's underneath Winnipesaukee.

Recalibrate brother.

2

[deleted] t1_ivkuhv5 wrote

[deleted]

−1

Funktron3000 t1_ivkvhf5 wrote

You and I probably agree about the merits of Bolduc as a candidate…but your response is really just a snarky diss. Personally I find the extreme partisanship and constant attacks to be pretty awful. We are all still neighbors after all. We can have different ideas without being toxic toward one another.

7

[deleted] t1_ivkw2c5 wrote

[deleted]

−1

Funktron3000 t1_ivkwi3e wrote

I never insisted that you shrug anything off with a smile. I just felt that your comment didn’t actually provide any useful insight. It was just an insult. Not helpful and mildly harmful. Of course, it could have been much worse…but what was the point? Was it cathartic?

4

[deleted] t1_ivky3uq wrote

I'd imagine it just has to do with the impact social media usage has on dopamine production. Insulting Republicans on reddit is socially acceptable and people responding to the insult just generates more dopamine.

2

Funktron3000 t1_ivkzf1k wrote

You’re probably right. Doesn’t seem to be a good thing though, does it? As individuals, we can always decide whether to continue the cycle or break it, and move forward in a healthier way.

5

[deleted] t1_ivkx2yb wrote

[deleted]

0

Funktron3000 t1_ivkxbj5 wrote

He appeals to a large portion of republican voters because he’s such an awful candidate…that wasn’t an insult?

3

[deleted] t1_ivkxsug wrote

[deleted]

3

Funktron3000 t1_ivky751 wrote

I’m aware of a lot of bad actors involved with politics. Not saying it’s a 50/50 split but they exist on both sides. It seems like you’re not discussing in good faith. Even though we probably voted similarly, I think you’re part of the problem.

2

lMickNastyl t1_ivl7w1d wrote

I think the issue is that for years conservatives pushed hateful rhetoric and the left attempted to debate it in good faith; thus giving many unacceptable positions an air of legitimacy.

The emerging thinking on the left is that the time of going high when they go low is over. It's reckless to entertain politicians who say things like kitty litter in schools or the only chip going on me is a Dorito. There is no need to be tolerant of a person so clearly pushing conspiracy, hate and lies.

4

Funktron3000 t1_ivlm7bv wrote

Yeah, I certainly understand your point and the logic behind it. I don’t agree though, personally. There are strategies to deal with bad faith actors other than becoming a bad faith actor for the opposite side. But that’s just a matter of strategy and opinion. I’m going to stick with my morals no matter what others do. Thanks for the genuine response

2

lMickNastyl t1_ivlo8ow wrote

It's not bad faith to publicly shame actual bad faith actors, in fact it's what they need.

Though I do wish I had a magic wand to wave so we could all get back to being semi-reasonable with each other. At least then we can make progress even if we disagree on the way to do it.

I'd love for the Republicans to put up a strong and just candidate because then the democratic party is going to have to try hard again.

3

Funktron3000 t1_ivmhghb wrote

I think we agree more than we disagree. Things have definitely seemed crazy and hostile for the past several years.

The part that we disagree on is the public shaming aspect. It’s ok that we disagree by the way. In my view, the best bet is to shine the light on ignorance. There is no need to insult or demean. The ignorant parties will do that work for you. Acting hostile in response tends to breed and provoke more hostility.

This video is a good example of a style that I prefer. Notice the interviewers aren’t dicks at any point. They just ask questions and shine the light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/yptuhx/so_scary_and_funny_at_the_same_time_smh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

1

[deleted] t1_ivky95g wrote

It was pretty clearly an insult. I'm sure you know that the vast majority of people that disagree with you on politics are good people. They certainly aren't voting for people specifically because they think they're awful.

1