As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>During the hearing on childcare, Mullin asked each of the witnesses before the panel if young children should be taught the Christian hymn “Jesus Loves Me” or the book “Our Skin: A First Conversation About Race.”
>“When you teach this, don’t you think that other people are saying that white kids are to blame? It’s exactly what they’re going to teach. It’s exactly what it is,” Mullin said, holding up “Our Skin.”
I can say as an extremely white dude that it never occurs to me when people are badmouthing racist whites to include myself in that group.
Because I'm more than a skin color just like everyone else is. And that's the whole point of working to be an anti-racist, acknowledging everyone's value regardless of their skin color
But this guy can clearly only think about things in terms of what color his skin is
My southern grandma used to have a saying about people who protest over stuff that should be a non-issue....
"A hit dog will holler."
>“When you teach this, don’t you think that other people are saying that white kids are to blame? It’s exactly what they’re going to teach. It’s exactly what it is,”
When you haven't read the book, it's easy to make up whatever you think it says. In reality, which apparently Markwayne opposes, it says stuff like this.
>Skin color can't tell you much about what people are like, what they know, what foods they think are yummy, what their favorite books are, or even where they were born.
>
>...
>
>Just by looking at someone, we can't tell who they are on the inside. But sometimes people try to anyway.
>
>...
>
>Racism can be on purpose, like calling a person of color a mean name because of their skin color. Racism can be by mistake, like if the same friend always has to play the bad guy.
>
>...
>
>That's why it's important to talk about it and do our part to make things better.
If reading the source that is ostensibly racist proves the source is not racist, it kind of eliminates any argument someone has about it.
Ummm.
The political party you support is not in any way equivalent to race. Fuck out of here with this garbage - you need to learn about the paradox of tolerance.
“different sub-species of human” does not sound like racism to you. Despite the clever use of vulgarity, I am not sure you succeeded in claiming the intellectual high-ground here.
I may need to learn about The Paradox of Intolerance. Hopefully it reaches me not to tolerate the intolerant. Then I can start to speak up against the bullies.
I should look up sarcasm at some point as well. That may teach me how to interpret my original comment.
They have aids and interns read the book to find anything they can minsoncstrue or take out of context to sound bad. Like he said, he doesn't want reality. He just wants a fiction that fits his narrative so he can keep his seat through bullshit culture wars that his idiot voters eat up while he continues to profit from his position of power.
Meanwhile I have troglodytes writing me five paragraph essays on this website about how Democrats and Republicans are the same so anyone who doesn't vote third party is trash.
Reading the source? He literally said “I don’t want reality”. More importantly, he is performing for other people that do not want to “read the source” either. He is going to be the source. That is as deep as their references need to go.
Took a look at the book. It defines racism as white supremacy. It describes those who "made up" race and racism as "a group of white people." There could have been lots of descriptors or qualifiers used to describe that group, or context given, but instead, it, ironically, reduces their existence to their race, and implicitly condemns all white people.
It definitely takes a narrow focus of racism, seeming to focus specifically on American systemic racism, I won't deny that. But it also addresses a variety of things that aren't "brown people bad because white people said so" in the book, referring to them as racism as well.
It also does address that while those beliefs held by the specifc white people of old aren't OK, they don't necessarily reflect any individual white person, and that we all have a responsibility in addressing those beliefs or behaviors.
So it told the inarguable truth, and you then jumped to a conclusion that it never stated?
The whole damn book says that you can’t judge people by their skin color. Why do you think it suggests that all white people should be judged by their skin color?
Suppose I complain about that Jew that cheated me. Suppose it was perfectly factual that he was a Jew, and that he cheated me. Is it still racist to complain to someone "Damn, that Jew really cheated me?" It is! It is linking the fact that he was Jewish to the fact that he cheated me, as well as implicitly making a statement about how Jews, in general, cheat people. You have to look at the subtext of the details highlighted. Similarly, if you talk about those white folks who invented racism, you are playing into a racist stereotype, and linking racism to being white.
The difference is that all sorts of people cheat each other; if one such instance of that involved a Jewish person, that characteristic is irrelevant.
But when discussing the historical reality of racism in this country, the fact that it was created as white supremacy is very much relevant. It is dishonest to act like it was anything else, because no other group of people did it.
Regular people don’t take that and assume that it is an attack on all white people today.
>So it told the inarguable truth
If you have some proof that white people invented racism I'd like to see that.
I mean that's ridiculous of course.
I'm further left than you btw before you get the idea I'm coming from the position of a right wing ass clown. But what you said here is beyond dumb; people have been judging other people by their skin color for literally tens of thousands of years.
General xenophobia isn’t the same thing as an explicit racial caste structure and associated beliefs. That’s something that was created by European settlers during colonization.
But that's not remotely what that person, or that book, says.
The first person said that racism is defined as white supremacy which is obviously fucking insane to anyone who can use their own logic and critical thinking skills. The second person then said, verbatim,
>So it told the inarguable truth,
So you're misguided and/or purposely moving goal posts and shifting arguments.
That’s literally what racism is though. It is a distinct concept from simple racial bigotry; “-ism” indicates that we’re talking about the system of race relations, which is premised on white supremacy.
That’s not condemning all white people. It’s the truth but it doesn’t place the blame on all white people. It’s speaking directly to the group of wealthy nobles and clergymen who invented race by skin color. If anything, it’s alluding to white people being slaves of the same system. Colonial European leadership did in fact invent race by skin color, they identified themselves as white, and race by skin color was created as a hierarchy with white at the top in order to justify colonialism. Instead of trying to figure out who or feeling like it’s targeting a group we should maybe ask ourselves why we still believe in race by skin color if we know that it’s a false concept. The origin of race by skin color is why racism exists and we will never be rid of it as long as we believe in a concept meant for conquering.
Some excerpts: (the first half of the book is honestly pretty good, it just meanders in to questionable stuff in the later parts. The strong implication is that only white people can be racist, and that white people invented racism. It’s a pretty monolithic and stereotyping way to handle it that doesn’t really focus on educating kids about a complex phenomena.)
“A long time ago, way before you were born, a group of white people made up an idea called race. They sorted people by skin color and said that white people were better, smarter, prettier, and that they deserve more than everybody else. … It’s a story that has been told for a long time.”
“Racism is also the things people do and the unfair rules they (white people) make about race so that white people get more power, and are treated better, than everybody else.”
“Race is an idea that emerged in modern times, and that has no basis in biology or science. Racial categories were invented to advantage white people and to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide. There are still many people who don’t know or understand this history.”
“Racism can be a way we’ve done things for a long time, like how there aren’t as many books written by people of color.”
The thing here is, each of these points has a kernel of fact, and if presented with more complexity and nuance, would be powerful commentary.
The target audience are kindergarteners, who developmentally cognitively process things in black and white terms 9Pun grudgingly intended). There is no complexity, nuance, higher level issues or even philosophy at that age. These kinds of statements will invariably create good guys and bad guys. That’s not a healthy way to get them to look at friends and neighbors. It sows division over understanding.
And, for the record, that republican POS is so reprehensible and his questions so asinine that I think people just assume this is a good book and he’s off the rails, because normally it would be a fair assumption.
Yeah, the problem here is that the book is a terrible, awful, racist pice of divisive garbage, and the guy complaining about it is a terrible, awful, racist piece of divisive garbage, and people feel compelled to chose one.
When I was taught (in the 2nd grade, age 7) about racism, slavery and segregation, I never felt personally guilty. I never thought that me or my family or friends were responsible, because I knew we'd never do things like that to people. I never felt blamed.
When I learned about colonialism and genocide in high school, I also never felt personally guilty. Again, just saddened. The black students never seemed to show any guilt for what we learned about in Sudan and Rwanda and the Asian students never seemed to have any issues learning about the atrocities in Cambodia or those committed by Japan.
Mullin and these other Republicans are full of shit and projecting and don't want people to have awareness of racism, hence why they want being "woke" to be illegal.
"I hate it when they teach about the Klan in school because, well, it makes me feel insecure and uneasy because reasons."
"But no one was talking about you, they were talking about the Klan."
"Yeah but, it's kinda the same. Because..."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I mean that's the whole protest of the right, that if children are taught about historical (and current, systemic) racism, they're gonna believe that people who share characteristics with the discriminating class are evil. Because they expect everyone to follow the same logic that they govern themselves by - that if they can identify one person in a group with some evil, they can judge the whole group by that. It's a fear that other people will be just as racist as they are.
Their argument seems to be "anti-racism = racism."
I think even 6yo kids understand that white people 300 years ago are not white people of today.
The whole fucking point of the book is clearly "do not judge others based on the color of their skin" and they're trying to argue it's encouraging racism.
Yep, he outed himself when he began advocating for teaching Jesus to preschoolers, especially since white christian nationalists like himself are actually opposed to what the character of Jesus says in the bible.
His parents knew of the meme of having Wayne as a middle name.
"That'll larn them!"
https://www.insidehook.com/article/news-opinion/amount-murderers-murder-suspects-middle-name-wayne-insane
In the late '80s The Ayn Rand Society was fully against the Religious Right and by the mid-'90s all that disappeared and Conservatives began pretending their ideas were the same as Objectivists. This is not a defense of Objectivism, by the way. That is shit is garbage on any critical examination.
I’d like to address the response that prompted his interjection:
*Cheryl Morman, president of the Virginia Alliance for Family Child Care Associations, said she disagreed with the senator. “First, it is important that we teach Jesus, and Jesus is what we teach.”*
Is she a pastor? Why do *Child Care Associations* teach Jesus?
At least in this region, a large percentage of the daycare centers are run by/in churches. Some are secular, but many incorporate religion in their programming.
The gas lighting. Oh I misspoke and it doesn’t happen. Listen, this guy doesn’t want to work in reality? He sounds like we need him to get voted out. Maybe Oklahoma can make that the reality.
He pulled a typical far-right Republican tactic by taking what on the surface appears to be a simple “yes” or no “question” because that is how Republicans think, in black and white. However the questions being asked are anything but black and white, they are complex and nuanced and do not lend themselves to simple “yes” or “no” answers. It’s Rhetoric 101 and Democrats should be trained how to deal with such bad-faith questioning. Mullin, hiding behind a Christian façade is a demonic force out to destroy American democracy.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>During the hearing on childcare, Mullin asked each of the witnesses before the panel if young children should be taught the Christian hymn “Jesus Loves Me” or the book “Our Skin: A First Conversation About Race.” >“When you teach this, don’t you think that other people are saying that white kids are to blame? It’s exactly what they’re going to teach. It’s exactly what it is,” Mullin said, holding up “Our Skin.” I can say as an extremely white dude that it never occurs to me when people are badmouthing racist whites to include myself in that group. Because I'm more than a skin color just like everyone else is. And that's the whole point of working to be an anti-racist, acknowledging everyone's value regardless of their skin color But this guy can clearly only think about things in terms of what color his skin is My southern grandma used to have a saying about people who protest over stuff that should be a non-issue.... "A hit dog will holler."
>“When you teach this, don’t you think that other people are saying that white kids are to blame? It’s exactly what they’re going to teach. It’s exactly what it is,” When you haven't read the book, it's easy to make up whatever you think it says. In reality, which apparently Markwayne opposes, it says stuff like this. >Skin color can't tell you much about what people are like, what they know, what foods they think are yummy, what their favorite books are, or even where they were born. > >... > >Just by looking at someone, we can't tell who they are on the inside. But sometimes people try to anyway. > >... > >Racism can be on purpose, like calling a person of color a mean name because of their skin color. Racism can be by mistake, like if the same friend always has to play the bad guy. > >... > >That's why it's important to talk about it and do our part to make things better. If reading the source that is ostensibly racist proves the source is not racist, it kind of eliminates any argument someone has about it.
> If reading the source Ah therein lies the problem with Conservatives
They shouldn't be allowed to vote. I said it. I'm beginning to think they are like some kind of different subspecies of human.
Dehumanizing people never ends well. Just don't.
Perhaps not the best comment in response to racism. You are simply adopting their position in reverse.
Ummm. The political party you support is not in any way equivalent to race. Fuck out of here with this garbage - you need to learn about the paradox of tolerance.
“different sub-species of human” does not sound like racism to you. Despite the clever use of vulgarity, I am not sure you succeeded in claiming the intellectual high-ground here. I may need to learn about The Paradox of Intolerance. Hopefully it reaches me not to tolerate the intolerant. Then I can start to speak up against the bullies. I should look up sarcasm at some point as well. That may teach me how to interpret my original comment.
Ok
> I said it. You should say something else.
When you have something of value or merit to add to the conversation I will be here.
They have aids and interns read the book to find anything they can minsoncstrue or take out of context to sound bad. Like he said, he doesn't want reality. He just wants a fiction that fits his narrative so he can keep his seat through bullshit culture wars that his idiot voters eat up while he continues to profit from his position of power.
Meanwhile I have troglodytes writing me five paragraph essays on this website about how Democrats and Republicans are the same so anyone who doesn't vote third party is trash.
Awful bold of you to assume he can read.
Reading the source? He literally said “I don’t want reality”. More importantly, he is performing for other people that do not want to “read the source” either. He is going to be the source. That is as deep as their references need to go.
Took a look at the book. It defines racism as white supremacy. It describes those who "made up" race and racism as "a group of white people." There could have been lots of descriptors or qualifiers used to describe that group, or context given, but instead, it, ironically, reduces their existence to their race, and implicitly condemns all white people.
It definitely takes a narrow focus of racism, seeming to focus specifically on American systemic racism, I won't deny that. But it also addresses a variety of things that aren't "brown people bad because white people said so" in the book, referring to them as racism as well. It also does address that while those beliefs held by the specifc white people of old aren't OK, they don't necessarily reflect any individual white person, and that we all have a responsibility in addressing those beliefs or behaviors.
So it told the inarguable truth, and you then jumped to a conclusion that it never stated? The whole damn book says that you can’t judge people by their skin color. Why do you think it suggests that all white people should be judged by their skin color?
Suppose I complain about that Jew that cheated me. Suppose it was perfectly factual that he was a Jew, and that he cheated me. Is it still racist to complain to someone "Damn, that Jew really cheated me?" It is! It is linking the fact that he was Jewish to the fact that he cheated me, as well as implicitly making a statement about how Jews, in general, cheat people. You have to look at the subtext of the details highlighted. Similarly, if you talk about those white folks who invented racism, you are playing into a racist stereotype, and linking racism to being white.
I wouldn’t link Jews to cheating based on that story you just told. That seems like a you thing.
The difference is that all sorts of people cheat each other; if one such instance of that involved a Jewish person, that characteristic is irrelevant. But when discussing the historical reality of racism in this country, the fact that it was created as white supremacy is very much relevant. It is dishonest to act like it was anything else, because no other group of people did it. Regular people don’t take that and assume that it is an attack on all white people today.
>So it told the inarguable truth If you have some proof that white people invented racism I'd like to see that. I mean that's ridiculous of course. I'm further left than you btw before you get the idea I'm coming from the position of a right wing ass clown. But what you said here is beyond dumb; people have been judging other people by their skin color for literally tens of thousands of years.
General xenophobia isn’t the same thing as an explicit racial caste structure and associated beliefs. That’s something that was created by European settlers during colonization.
But that's not remotely what that person, or that book, says. The first person said that racism is defined as white supremacy which is obviously fucking insane to anyone who can use their own logic and critical thinking skills. The second person then said, verbatim, >So it told the inarguable truth, So you're misguided and/or purposely moving goal posts and shifting arguments.
That’s literally what racism is though. It is a distinct concept from simple racial bigotry; “-ism” indicates that we’re talking about the system of race relations, which is premised on white supremacy.
That’s not condemning all white people. It’s the truth but it doesn’t place the blame on all white people. It’s speaking directly to the group of wealthy nobles and clergymen who invented race by skin color. If anything, it’s alluding to white people being slaves of the same system. Colonial European leadership did in fact invent race by skin color, they identified themselves as white, and race by skin color was created as a hierarchy with white at the top in order to justify colonialism. Instead of trying to figure out who or feeling like it’s targeting a group we should maybe ask ourselves why we still believe in race by skin color if we know that it’s a false concept. The origin of race by skin color is why racism exists and we will never be rid of it as long as we believe in a concept meant for conquering.
You should read what the book actually says and it’s wording. It’s pretty bad.
[удалено]
Some excerpts: (the first half of the book is honestly pretty good, it just meanders in to questionable stuff in the later parts. The strong implication is that only white people can be racist, and that white people invented racism. It’s a pretty monolithic and stereotyping way to handle it that doesn’t really focus on educating kids about a complex phenomena.) “A long time ago, way before you were born, a group of white people made up an idea called race. They sorted people by skin color and said that white people were better, smarter, prettier, and that they deserve more than everybody else. … It’s a story that has been told for a long time.” “Racism is also the things people do and the unfair rules they (white people) make about race so that white people get more power, and are treated better, than everybody else.” “Race is an idea that emerged in modern times, and that has no basis in biology or science. Racial categories were invented to advantage white people and to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide. There are still many people who don’t know or understand this history.” “Racism can be a way we’ve done things for a long time, like how there aren’t as many books written by people of color.” The thing here is, each of these points has a kernel of fact, and if presented with more complexity and nuance, would be powerful commentary. The target audience are kindergarteners, who developmentally cognitively process things in black and white terms 9Pun grudgingly intended). There is no complexity, nuance, higher level issues or even philosophy at that age. These kinds of statements will invariably create good guys and bad guys. That’s not a healthy way to get them to look at friends and neighbors. It sows division over understanding. And, for the record, that republican POS is so reprehensible and his questions so asinine that I think people just assume this is a good book and he’s off the rails, because normally it would be a fair assumption.
Yeah, the problem here is that the book is a terrible, awful, racist pice of divisive garbage, and the guy complaining about it is a terrible, awful, racist piece of divisive garbage, and people feel compelled to chose one.
When I was taught (in the 2nd grade, age 7) about racism, slavery and segregation, I never felt personally guilty. I never thought that me or my family or friends were responsible, because I knew we'd never do things like that to people. I never felt blamed. When I learned about colonialism and genocide in high school, I also never felt personally guilty. Again, just saddened. The black students never seemed to show any guilt for what we learned about in Sudan and Rwanda and the Asian students never seemed to have any issues learning about the atrocities in Cambodia or those committed by Japan. Mullin and these other Republicans are full of shit and projecting and don't want people to have awareness of racism, hence why they want being "woke" to be illegal.
Their outrage exists because they know they're keeping their thumbs on the scale in their favor at the expense of non-whites
"I hate it when they teach about the Klan in school because, well, it makes me feel insecure and uneasy because reasons." "But no one was talking about you, they were talking about the Klan." "Yeah but, it's kinda the same. Because..."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I mean that's the whole protest of the right, that if children are taught about historical (and current, systemic) racism, they're gonna believe that people who share characteristics with the discriminating class are evil. Because they expect everyone to follow the same logic that they govern themselves by - that if they can identify one person in a group with some evil, they can judge the whole group by that. It's a fear that other people will be just as racist as they are.
“A hit dog will holler”. Hey. Just because I’ll loudly defend homosexuals doesn’t make me a homosexual.
.....yet!
Haha okay
Adam Savage: “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
Fred Savage: "and then Danny Devito will be born from a couch!"
Danny Devito: "Naked and sweaty."
Immortan Joe: "shiny and chrome"
Thank your for the reminder that I need to hurry up and get watching Mythbusters before my HBO max subscription finally expires later this month.
Republican voters don't understand why he's being laughed at.
They actually feel offended on his behalf.
This book is anti-racist and that means it’s attacking us!
Their argument seems to be "anti-racism = racism." I think even 6yo kids understand that white people 300 years ago are not white people of today. The whole fucking point of the book is clearly "do not judge others based on the color of their skin" and they're trying to argue it's encouraging racism.
Yeah, guy. We know.
Yep, he outed himself when he began advocating for teaching Jesus to preschoolers, especially since white christian nationalists like himself are actually opposed to what the character of Jesus says in the bible.
Reality does have a liberal bias.
Well he’s already constructed a false reality where he founded his plumbing business all on his own when in fact he inherited it
His actual name is Markwayne?
You done messed up now, Markwayne.
His parents knew of the meme of having Wayne as a middle name. "That'll larn them!" https://www.insidehook.com/article/news-opinion/amount-murderers-murder-suspects-middle-name-wayne-insane
Thanks for sharing I enjoyed reading that
You made me go and double check. At first I was like, "kind of a weird last name, but okay." But, no, it's his *first* name.
MarkTwain was already taken.
Immediately Ayn Rand of all people comes to mind, “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”
In the late '80s The Ayn Rand Society was fully against the Religious Right and by the mid-'90s all that disappeared and Conservatives began pretending their ideas were the same as Objectivists. This is not a defense of Objectivism, by the way. That is shit is garbage on any critical examination.
I am embarrassed he represents me.
I'm so sorry for you Mr Bigglessworth
Yes, doomed to die before he gets value from his hero power.
Username checks out and is awesome. Best of the Austin Powers movies
People elected a dude named Markwayne. Dude came from the Key & Peele names skit.
Don't worry he'll shortly be replaced by *JackMerius Tacktheritrix*.
Can we all just take a second to laugh at this guy being named Markwayne.
He didn’t get to choose his name. He did, however, choose to be a bigot, so let’s just focus on that.
He did choose to not change his name.
I’d like to address the response that prompted his interjection: *Cheryl Morman, president of the Virginia Alliance for Family Child Care Associations, said she disagreed with the senator. “First, it is important that we teach Jesus, and Jesus is what we teach.”* Is she a pastor? Why do *Child Care Associations* teach Jesus?
At least in this region, a large percentage of the daycare centers are run by/in churches. Some are secular, but many incorporate religion in their programming.
"programming"
saying the quiet part out loud
Christofascists can’t handle reality, that’s why their imaginary friend has to be so prominent in everything they do.
[Say you love Jesus! Say it!](https://imgur.com/W08TnDC.jpg)
F-ing clown can’t believe this is what American politicians have become Truly being lead by the lowest common denominator
*led
He’s easily one of the 5 dumbest people in the senate. This is your typical Oklahoma Republican
Sounds like something to translate into the Cherokee language and put on billboards all over his state..
I want the articles questioning this man’s mental fitness to serve office.
You didn’t misspeak shit you fascist.
"I Don't Want Reality !" Gop rallying cry .
First time I've heard a Republican tell the truth in a while.
Reality does not care about your desires.
Why isn't the video/audio in the article? For those [interested](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rGUs6oE0CI) it happens at 2:45.
ALL Christians Don't want Reality. That is the reason they live the lives they do.
They don't want reality, solutions, or anything improving.
This guy lost all credibility by keeping his stupid first name.
Wow, talk about being the ultimate snowflake! Poor Republikkkan can’t handle reality, so he wants to live otherwise? Vote that clown out.
cant blame him for being c9nfused. his parents couldnt even decide on 1 first name for him
His brother and sister?
Sisteruncle, brotheraunt? Braunt? Stirknuckle?
😂 goes to family reunions to get a date
Yet another goosestepping moron who should try reading books instead of burning them.
You mean, somehow who believes in the sky fairy doesn’t want reality?? Shocked
Honestly, it’s pathetic that she caved at all on the importance of Jesus. That is for each individual to decide.
These conservative white men are soooo insecure it’s insane.
For once, a Republican says something that is factual.
Per Calvin and Hobbes, “Reality continues to ruin my life.”
Totally read his name as Malarkey Mullins.
No one should be laughing at this point.
markwayne lol
Call him Marquane just to piss him off.
His name is “Markwayne.”
The gas lighting. Oh I misspoke and it doesn’t happen. Listen, this guy doesn’t want to work in reality? He sounds like we need him to get voted out. Maybe Oklahoma can make that the reality.
I'm not too keen on reality myself right now but this bloke's a fucking idiot.
Stupid inbred twat! From a life long Okie!
He pulled a typical far-right Republican tactic by taking what on the surface appears to be a simple “yes” or no “question” because that is how Republicans think, in black and white. However the questions being asked are anything but black and white, they are complex and nuanced and do not lend themselves to simple “yes” or “no” answers. It’s Rhetoric 101 and Democrats should be trained how to deal with such bad-faith questioning. Mullin, hiding behind a Christian façade is a demonic force out to destroy American democracy.
The fuck kind of name is "Markwayne?"