People who deliberately lie and spread hate (1 Viewer)

[Wildcat]

Those that paint the yellow lines on the road 

Those that build road medians

Aisles in airplanes and first class seating 

 

[Wildcat]

I tried. Unfortunately there are some folks here who seem to love some of the dividers. So they’ve done their best to make a joke of the thread. And they’ve succeeded. Which is my fault; I should have known. Mea culpa. 

Don’t blame others. The premise of this thread was a joke from the start. 

 

[timschochet]

Republicans worked with Biden on Infrastructure.  The plan was always to do BBB without the Republicans and then he was butt hurt when he couldn't get his entire wishlist through reconciliation.  So he did what almost all politicians do when they don't get what they want--he blamed the other side.  

I think blaming the other side is always divisive.  It drives the "us vs them" mentality.  

A lot of the people you have disagreed with being divisive are IMO very divisive.  It's the nature of politics in 2021.  My side vs your side.  But you think Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, and AOC are on the right side of things.  Their constant "the other side is bad" quips are ok--because they're right in your opinion.  And I think that's why you're catching flak.

For the record, I don’t think that AOC is on the right side of things. I just don’t see her as deliberately divisive as the original people on the list. 
There seems to be some confusion here: I am not talking about partisan politicians no matter how extreme: I’m talking about people who deliberately lie and spread hatred. Even if I accepted your complaint about Biden, there’s a huge difference between that and claiming that all cops are racist or that the election was stolen. 

 

[timschochet]

Don’t blame others. The premise of this thread was a joke from the start. 

Why? Do you disagree that there are some politicians who are deliberately trying to divide us? 

 

[Wildcat]

Why? Do you disagree that there are some politicians who are deliberately trying to divide us? 

Yes. I disagree that it’s deliberate. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I’ve been thinking a lot about the issues raised in the “how do we get out of this” thread: like many people here, I’m worried about the growing divisions in our society. I don’t have any great solutions. But I thought one way forward might be to realize that there are people out there, in the public arena, who deliberately seek to divide us, to spread anger and hatred around, and that they do this for their own selfish gain, either political or monetary or both. I have decided to identify some of those that I believe fall into this category. In no way is this a complete list, and I will happily add or subtract from it if anyone has suggestions or arguments to make. I have divided this list into two categories: politicians and pundits. In no particular order: 

Politicians 

Donald Trump 

Maxine Waters 

Marjorie Taylor Greene 

Ihlan Omar 

Jim Jordan 

Ayanna Presley 

Rashida Tliab 

Paul Gosar 

Matt Gaetz 

Lauryn Boebert 

Adam Schiff 

Tomi Lahren 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

Joe Biden 

Pundits 

Tucker Carlson 

Don Lemon 

Candace Owens 

Joy Reid 

Tiffany Cross 

Sean Hannity 

Rachel Maddow 

Again this is just a preliminary list, off the top of my head. i will add more later on. 

Maybe you cover this in detail later but for this to have any real value I believe, we have to be clear.

If we want to do label a group of people as something, let's be super clear on exactly what defines that thing.

For our purposes here, are we saying it's a person "who deliberately seek to divide us, to spread anger and hatred around, and that they do this for their own selfish gain, either political or monetary or both."

For this, how we are we defining exactly, "spread anger and hatred around"? 

For me, this is where it's lost.

I see people have a strong opinion on something. And the other side will claim that person "hates" them. When there isn't any hate involved. 

I hear people talk about enforcing border restrictions and that turns into, "They just hate Immigrants".

I see Christians talk about removing prayer from school and that turns into, "They just hate Christians". 

I don't think either of those are necessarily at all true. 

 

[GoBirds]

Those that paint the yellow lines on the road 

Those that build road medians

Aisles in airplanes and first class seating 

PE teachers splitting up teams. 

 

[knowledge dropper]

PE teachers splitting up teams. 

Doctors assigning sex at birth.  

 

[jon_mx]

Why? Do you disagree that there are some politicians who are deliberately trying to divide us? 

But the most blatant offenders are those who divide the nation between 'people of color' and 'whites'.   The main focus of Democrats is to pit races against each other.  The entire Democratic strategy is to divide the nation in a way that they have enough minorities by gender, sexual orientation and race pitted against the evil white males oppressors to make up a ruling majority.  To be in denial of that obvious fact is to deny the crux of the problem. 

 

[Wildcat]

Maybe you cover this in detail later but for this to have any real value I believe, we have to be clear.

If we want to do label a group of people as something, let's be super clear on exactly what defines that thing.

For our purposes here, are we saying it's a person "who deliberately seek to divide us, to spread anger and hatred around, and that they do this for their own selfish gain, either political or monetary or both."

For this, how we are we defining exactly, "spread anger and hatred around"? 

For me, this is where it's lost.

I see people have a strong opinion on something. And the other side will claim that person "hates" them. When there isn't any hate involved. 

I hear people talk about enforcing border restrictions and that turns into, "They just hate Immigrants".

I see Christians talk about removing prayer from school and that turns into, "They just hate Christians". 

I don't think either of those are necessarily at all true. 

Agree. We throw hate around too often. If you don't agree with a person's stance on a topic, many often label that as "hate" or "phobia".

 

[GoBirds]

Doctors assigning sex at birth.  

That no longer counts. 
 

Airport Security Line. 

 

[crackattack]

I thought someone said Keith Olbermann. He should most definitely be on this list. He spews nothing but hate and vitriol towards people who aren't on "his side".

 

[Boston]

I thought someone said Keith Olbermann. He should most definitely be on this list. He spews nothing but hate and vitriol towards people who aren't on "his side".

I don't think "his side" even likes him.

 

[crackattack]

I don't think "his side" even likes him.

They shouldn't. That guy is just a miserable human being.

 

[jm192]

For the record, I don’t think that AOC is on the right side of things. I just don’t see her as deliberately divisive as the original people on the list. 
There seems to be some confusion here: I am not talking about partisan politicians no matter how extreme: I’m talking about people who deliberately lie and spread hatred. Even if I accepted your complaint about Biden, there’s a huge difference between that and claiming that all cops are racist or that the election was stolen. 

Perhaps we should change the title to "people who lie and spread hate."

Partisan politics divide us as much as anything.  Everything said publicly is said to either garner support for my side or take away from your side.  I know you've watched Impeachment, some of these prominent committee hearings--and they're always talking TO the American people--telling them how the other side is the problem.  

High ranking politicians--those in Congress and the Executive Branch or those level of aspirations--they want to keep us divided so they can keep the power they've attained.  

So if you want to talk about "people that divide us" all of these partisan politicians--and I think AOC is VERY bad here--need to be on the list.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The premise that there are politicians, pundits, and probably also "influencers" whose main goal, agenda or platform is to divide people makes sense, but when trying to identify names it's going to inevitably lead to "both-sidesing".

Like, you had to know if you put Donald Trump on the list the calls for Joe Biden to be on the list too were inevitable. 

The assigning is going to be somewhat subjective no matter what, but establishing some criteria around what constitutes primarily sowing division looks like might help. A review of public statements and speeches with some percentage assigned to the level of sowing division, for example. 

Not to pick on one "side", but looking at Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) statements on Twitter quickly reveal she is employing an "us vs. them" approach nearly all the time (The latest on the "national divorce scenario" is a real treat).

Looking at Joy Reid's statements on Twitter also reveal a similar pattern. Her rhetoric is almost always about what "they" are doing on taking away voting rights, etc.

Just a thought, as the premise seems valid enough, but the actual assignments get tricky without some rules. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I thought someone said Keith Olbermann. He should most definitely be on this list. He spews nothing but hate and vitriol towards people who aren't on "his side".

Reviewing his statements reveals he is almost always espousing something "bad" the "other side" did, usually with an "I told you so" to go along with it. He appears to belong on the list, although with a caveat that his actual reach/impact is probably fairly minimal (he's a has-been). 

 

[crackattack]

Reviewing his statements reveals he is almost always espousing something "bad" the "other side" did, usually with an "I told you so" to go along with it. He appears to belong on the list, although with a caveat that his actual reach/impact is probably fairly minimal (he's a has-been). 

I agree with the has been, but with almost 100k followers, I'd say he still has "reach" with his rhetoric.

 

[Wildcat]

I thought someone said Keith Olbermann. He should most definitely be on this list. He spews nothing but hate and vitriol towards people who aren't on "his side".

Yes, I suggested him earlier, but if he doesn’t meet Tim’s personal secret algorithm, he doesn’t get added. 

 

[timschochet]

Maybe you cover this in detail later but for this to have any real value I believe, we have to be clear.

If we want to do label a group of people as something, let's be super clear on exactly what defines that thing.

For our purposes here, are we saying it's a person "who deliberately seek to divide us, to spread anger and hatred around, and that they do this for their own selfish gain, either political or monetary or both."

For this, how we are we defining exactly, "spread anger and hatred around"? 

For me, this is where it's lost.

I see people have a strong opinion on something. And the other side will claim that person "hates" them. When there isn't any hate involved. 

I hear people talk about enforcing border restrictions and that turns into, "They just hate Immigrants".

I see Christians talk about removing prayer from school and that turns into, "They just hate Christians". 

I don't think either of those are necessarily at all true. 

I agree with your points 100%. 
 

The people I listed originally in the OP were way beyond what you’re describing IMO. They do not say things, or express ideas or push forth policies simply for partisan political purposes. They tell deliberate lies, and make deliberate false statements, for personal gain. 
 

To use one of your examples: a politician who says “illegal immigrants are a problem, we need to build a wall to prevent them from coming here, we need to deport as many as we can.”- those are strong views and I disagree with them, but this is not what I’m talking about. That’s not a divisive person. 
 

On the other hand, a politician who says about illegal immigrants in general “They’re rapists, they’re murderers, they’re drug dealers”- THAT guy is lying. Everything he said is true of a small minority but not true of the vast majority: So it’s a lie, and it’s being made to spread hatred and divide us, and it’s being done for personal gain. And that is what I’m talking about, the folks on the right and left who pull this crap. And there’s a few of them. 

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps we should change the title to "people who lie and spread hate."

Partisan politics divide us as much as anything.  Everything said publicly is said to either garner support for my side or take away from your side.  I know you've watched Impeachment, some of these prominent committee hearings--and they're always talking TO the American people--telling them how the other side is the problem.  

High ranking politicians--those in Congress and the Executive Branch or those level of aspirations--they want to keep us divided so they can keep the power they've attained.  

So if you want to talk about "people that divide us" all of these partisan politicians--and I think AOC is VERY bad here--need to be on the list.  

I think you’re right. I should have thought of this. My bad, I will change this. 

 

[timschochet]

But the most blatant offenders are those who divide the nation between 'people of color' and 'whites'.   The main focus of Democrats is to pit races against each other.  The entire Democratic strategy is to divide the nation in a way that they have enough minorities by gender, sexual orientation and race pitted against the evil white males oppressors to make up a ruling majority.  To be in denial of that obvious fact is to deny the crux of the problem. 

The goal of the civil rights movement, including up to today, has been to achieve equal treatment and opportunities  for minorities in our society. With the exception of a few, their strategy to achieve this goal does not involve division, 

I began my list with Maxine Waters because she fits into your description, But you claim that her tactics are the tactics of “the entire Democratic Party.” That isn’t true. 

 

[timschochet]

I agree about Keith Olbermann, but I haven’t heard from him lately, or from Ann Coulter either. If I was mailing this list 10 years ago both of them would have been immediate selections. But are either even still around? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I noticed the title change.  I assume we can't list FBG posters, right? 

 

[ekbeats]

I agree about Keith Olbermann, but I haven’t heard from him lately, or from Ann Coulter either. If I was mailing this list 10 years ago both of them would have been immediate selections. But are either even still around? 

It’s strange how Ann Coulter has disappeared from the planet.  

 

[BladeRunner]

I noticed the title change.  I assume we can't list FBG posters, right? 

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[timschochet]

I noticed the title change.  I assume we can't list FBG posters, right? 

Hey it’s a free country Lol. 
But as much as some of us might wish otherwise, we don’t influence millions of people around here. 

 

[jon_mx]

The goal of the civil rights movement, including up to today, has been to achieve equal treatment and opportunities  for minorities in our society. With the exception of a few, their strategy to achieve this goal does not involve division, 

I began my list with Maxine Waters because she fits into your description, But you claim that her tactics are the tactics of “the entire Democratic Party.” That isn’t true. 

The left has not been in favor of equal treatment for 40 years.  It is all about equal outcomes.  Today you are a bigot if you profess equal treatment.  Voter ID laws are a perfect example.  Eventhough the laws treat everyone equally, because the outcome could impact minorities more anyone who supports them are racists.  The idea that this is rare is complete BS.  It permeates into everything these days.  It is totally dividing the country....and yes was the cause of the rise of Donald Trump. 

 

[ekbeats]

One of the things I’d like to see come to an end is this trend of reading people’s minds (and hearts) when it comes to the motivations behind their political opinions.  Stop calling people racist without direct proof.  And stop insinuating that there is some dark, sinister, Marxist plot behind Liberal policies.  It’s dumb.  Instead, let’s assume positive intent.  Not only is it better for the soul, but it’s also a much more accurate representation of reality.  I firmly believe that the assumption of bad intent = the unintentional spreading of hate on a small level.  Yes there are a few bad apples out there, but an overwhelming percentage of Americans are good, fair minded people.

 

[timschochet]

The left has not been in favor of equal treatment for 40 years.  It is all about equal outcomes.  Today you are a bigot if you profess equal treatment.  Voter ID laws are a perfect example.  Eventhough the laws treat everyone equally, because the outcome could impact minorities more anyone who supports them are racists.  The idea that this is rare is complete BS.  It permeates into everything these days.  It is totally dividing the country....and yes was the cause of the rise of Donald Trump. 

It’s true that voter ID laws can negatively impact minorities; that is why most Democrats oppose them. It’s not true that Democrats believe that everyone who is for them is a racist. It wouldn’t surprise me if (a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it. And that, IMO, creates the divide far more than your assertion: 

 

[timschochet]

One of the things I’d like to see come to an end is this trend of reading people’s minds (and hearts) when it comes to the motivations behind their political opinions.  Stop calling people racist without direct proof.  And stop insinuating that there is some dark, sinister, Marxist plot behind Liberal policies.  It’s dumb.  Instead, let’s assume positive intent.  Not only is it better for the soul, but it’s also a much more accurate representation of reality.  I firmly believe that the assumption of bad intent = the unintentional spreading of hate on a small level.  Yes there are a few bad apples out there, but an overwhelming percentage of Americans are good, fair minded people.

I 100% agree with this. And I’ve been guilty of it at times myself. But you’re absolutely right.

Many of the people I listed in the OP do this deliberately, and they know better. 

 

[ekbeats]

I 100% agree with this. And I’ve been guilty of it at times myself. But you’re absolutely right.

Many of the people I listed in the OP do this deliberately, and they know better. 

Kudos to you for being able to have that self awareness Tim.  I too have done this in here and I regret it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It’s true that voter ID laws can negatively impact minorities; that is why most Democrats oppose them. It’s not true that Democrats believe that everyone who is for them is a racist. It wouldn’t surprise me if (a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it. And that, IMO, creates the divide far more than your assertion: 

This chain reaction happens way too much, and from both directions.   

IMO the big key is part C and what ek was getting at with the above post - there is too much assuming or maybe wanting to believe what the other side thinks.   You don't buy into A and B if you don't do C.  You are able to compartmentalize it and attribute that position to the person, not a whole segment of a political spectrum.  

 

[jon_mx]

It’s true that voter ID laws can negatively impact minorities; that is why most Democrats oppose them. It’s not true that Democrats believe that everyone who is for them is a racist. It wouldn’t surprise me if (a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it. And that, IMO, creates the divide far more than your assertion: 

Major mainstream media sources such as Washington Posts and the New York Times label voter ID laws as Jim Crow 2.0. It is not just a few leftwing idiots.  Even Biden referred to them as 21st century Jim Crow laws.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

Louis Farrakhan for sure.   Probably could add Al Sharpton as well.

 

[Summer Wheat]

It’s true that voter ID laws can negatively impact minorities; that is why most Democrats oppose them. It’s not true that Democrats believe that everyone who is for them is a racist. It wouldn’t surprise me if (a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it. And that, IMO, creates the divide far more than your assertion: 

If minorities voted GOP would Dems oppose having IDs to vote?  I think then they would be mandatory as they should be for both sides.

 

[djmich]

Major mainstream media sources such as Washington Posts and the New York Times label voter ID laws as Jim Crow 2.0. It is not just a few leftwing idiots.  Even Biden referred to them as 21st century Jim Crow laws.  

Well he's not wrong, Biden, the NYT and the Post are idiots.  Classic Tim, oh its just an anomaly argument.

I'd like to add Anthony Fauci to the list for being a liar.

 

[sho nuff]

If minorities voted GOP would Dems oppose having IDs to vote?  I think then they would be mandatory as they should be for both sides.

This seems to be admitting its done to suppress minority vote because they typically vote Democrat.

And the opposite would be true…if voter ID laws hit groups of heavy GOP voters, do you think they would be fore such laws?

And keeonin mind…Im all for ID laws if you make them more accessible to all people.  You ensure those who don’t historically have birth certificates or other documentation can get them.  You provide transportation to rural areas where its harder to get to an open Location to obtain one.  You don’t limit the number of station locations and/or their hours of the locations in areas of high concentration of minorities.  Don’t create a law, then add obstacles as we have seen done in the past. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Well he's not wrong, Biden, the NYT and the Post are idiots.  Classic Tim, oh its just an anomaly argument.

I'd like to add Anthony Fauci to the list for being a liar.

I do this as well.   I'm not sure anomaly is the right word, but I believe that at least 70-80% of the population are well meaning rational people who could sit down and talk things out.   We talk a bit in these threads how we all know that the purposeful division and extremes are meant to distract and keep those masses from realizing how much we have in common.     So, yes - a lot of those outlets are part of that % that is purposely trying to that.   IMO the mistake is then equating those positions to the rest of the population and thinking as a whole most also think that way.  I don't believe that to be the case.  

 

[djmich]

I do this as well.   I'm not sure anomaly is the right word, but I believe that at least 70-80% of the population are well meaning rational people who could sit down and talk things out.   We talk a bit in these threads how we all know that the purposeful division and extremes are meant to distract and keep those masses from realizing how much we have in common.     So, yes - a lot of those outlets are part of that % that is purposely trying to that.   IMO the mistake is then equating those positions to the rest of the population and thinking as a whole most also think that way.  I don't believe that to be the case.  

There is a wide chasm between "the rest of the population" and "an outlier or anomaly".

I don't think anybody is arguing its the entire population.  But lets agree that Joe Biden, the NYT and WaPo are pretty established representatives for large swaths of the country, no?

 

[urbanhack]

Great thread for the Holidays.

Happy New Year.

 

[Summer Wheat]

This seems to be admitting its done to suppress minority vote because they typically vote Democrat.

And the opposite would be true…if voter ID laws hit groups of heavy GOP voters, do you think they would be fore such laws?

And keeonin mind…Im all for ID laws if you make them more accessible to all people.  You ensure those who don’t historically have birth certificates or other documentation can get them.  You provide transportation to rural areas where its harder to get to an open Location to obtain one.  You don’t limit the number of station locations and/or their hours of the locations in areas of high concentration of minorities.  Don’t create a law, then add obstacles as we have seen done in the past. 

Not admitting to anything..but I think you would agree if the so called minority vote went for GOP canidates the IDs would be more important to Dems. Let people have more days to vote so they can vote, but ID to show you are should be mandatory.

 

[djmich]

Great thread for the Holidays.

Happy New Year.

Did you stumble into the political forum expecting a debate on whether Santa's elves were in fact slaves or just underpaid undocumented workers?

 

[KarmaPolice]

There is a wide chasm between "the rest of the population" and "an outlier or anomaly".

I don't think anybody is arguing its the entire population.  But lets agree that Joe Biden, the NYT and WaPo are pretty established representatives for large swaths of the country, no?

Come, on I know even you see this going on a ton in here.   

Poster A:  yeah, all you D/Rs are saying ______ 

Poster B:  uh, who the hell in here is saying that?

Poster A:  inevitable link to Fox/MSNBC talking head, somebody on Twitter, etc..   

To me that is 100% taking these things and incorrectly applying that thinking to a mass of people, and people in these threads.   We have many discussions here about the content of the media outlets.   I don't know your definition of "large swaths" of the country.    I mean even 5% if they believe exactly that  is a huge number of people, sure - but that is nowhere near what a majority portion of the country thinks, and that I usually what I am pushing back on.  

 

[djmich]

Come, on I know even you this going on a ton in here.   

Poster A:  yeah, all you D/Rs are saying ______ 

Poster B:  uh, who the hell in here is saying that?

Poster A:  inevitable link to Fox/MSNBC talking head, somebody on Twitter, etc..   

To me that is 100% taking these things and incorrectly applying that thinking to a mass of people, and people in these threads.   We have many discussions here about the content of the media outlets.   I don't know your definition of "large swaths" of the country.    I mean even 5% if they believe exactly that  is a huge number of people, sure - but that is nowhere near what a majority portion of the country thinks, and that I usually what I am pushing back on.  

Yes that happens, I mean unless you have access to on demand polling for every topic discussed everyone has to rely on what they have.  And I can't defend every single instance used in this forum, I'm sure many were inaccurately extrapolated.  But I am also sure that you concession of 5% is way low in many instances.  

All I can respond to and am responding to is the idea from earlier in this thread that the republican stance on voting laws was driven by racism.  To which, Tim responded

(a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it.

To which another poster referenced entities supporting this argument to include THE President of the United States.  The newspaper that has been around since 1851 and won 132 Pulitzer Prizes and another paper considered the newspaper of record in the US.  5% you say?

 

[Da Guru]

Keith Olbermann

Olberman for sure.   Keith is so full of hate and anger all the time.  I have to wonder is that he schtick?  Or is he just a miserable person.    I read he has heart and blood pressure issue so maybe it is real and not an act.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes that happens, I mean unless you have access to on demand polling for every topic discussed everyone has to rely on what they have.  And I can't defend every single instance used in this forum, I'm sure many were inaccurately extrapolated.  But I am also sure that you concession of 5% is way low in many instances.  

All I can respond to and am responding to is the idea from earlier in this thread that the republican stance on voting laws was driven by racism.  To which, Tim responded

(a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it.

To which another poster referenced entities supporting this argument to include THE President of the United States.  The newspaper that has been around since 1851 and won 132 Pulitzer Prizes and another paper considered the newspaper of record in the US.  5% you say?

I feel like this is another of our discussions where we probably agree but are arguing to argue.   I did a real fast search and the WaPo and NYTs combine for what 12-15M subscribers?   Even if every person who subscribed to those papers believed 100% and agreed 100% with their positions, yeah - that's about 5%.   Joe Biden's opinion is still Joe Biden's opinion.  He is the current leader of the party, but that doesn't mean everybody agrees with his opinions.    Yes, these are loud voices, but IMO I still don't believe these voices represent the vast majority of our country - which is why people are increasingly moving away from these media outlets and getting annoyed with our political system.    

But I've been told a few times in here that I am naive in my thinking, so   

 

[djmich]

I feel like this is another of our discussions where we probably agree but are arguing to argue.   I did a real fast search and the WaPo and NYTs combine for what 12-15M subscribers?   Even if every person who subscribed to those papers believed 100% and agreed 100% with their positions, yeah - that's about 5%.   Joe Biden's opinion is still Joe Biden's opinion.  He is the current leader of the party, but that doesn't mean everybody agrees with his opinions.    Yes, these are loud voices, but IMO I still don't believe these voices represent the vast majority of our country - which is why people are increasingly moving away from these media outlets and getting annoyed with our political system.    

But I've been told a few times in here that I am naive in my thinking, so   

Those are three examples, not close to an exhaustive list.  They were chosen because frankly I'm not sure how you get bigger than those three.  Jesus maybe?

I think a hell of a lot more than 5% believe the new voter laws are racist and the cacophony of voices saying this gives me confidence in that statement.

I think there are a hell of a lot more than 5% that think the election was stolen from Trump.

I think less than 5% of the population thinks that we should require wearing masks on zoom calls so as to not traumatize the other participants.  When stuff like that is posted I don't see people saying crap like that is more than representative of fringe elements of the population 

 

[The Dude]

Major mainstream media sources such as Washington Posts and the New York Times label voter ID laws as Jim Crow 2.0. It is not just a few leftwing idiots.  Even Biden referred to them as 21st century Jim Crow laws.  

And here is where you have fallen into the right wing propaganda as guys like Hannity and the like want you to believe the changes in voting laws is all about voter id - when it's not. Abrams was asked what her concern was on the change in GA voting laws and she had a half dozen complaints - and never mentioned voter id - and Biden didn't either.

Like having the Republican party of state government set the rules and validate the results - taking the validation role from SoS for no apparent reason other than to dispute the results without evidence.

 

[The Dude]

And here is where you have fallen into the right wing propaganda as guys like Hannity and the like want you to believe the changes in voting laws is all about voter id - when it's not. Abrams was asked what her concern was on the change in GA voting laws and she had a half dozen complaints - and never mentioned voter id - and Biden didn't either.

Like having the Republican party of state government set the rules and validate the results - taking the validation role from SoS for no apparent reason other than to dispute the results without evidence.

My bad - she does mention voter id - but not in the way you think.  Biden did not mention.

Watch the actual clip

https://www.businessinsider.com/stacey-abrams-lists-what-is-wrong-with-georgia-voting-law-2021-4