[basisword]

He donated money to try and prevent a group of people from having the same rights as the majority of people. That’s never ok and it shouldn’t take an awakening to figure out that it’s wrong.

Not advocating he should be #cancelled or anything like that, but justifying his advocacy against civil rights as “political dissent” is disingenuous.

Edit: I find it pretty appalling that a comment calmly stating that advocating against civil rights is wrong is downvoted AND flagged.

[jaywalk]

So is donating money better or worse than an actual lawmaker saying they shouldn't have those rights? I'm confused.

[basisword]

What does that have to do with anything? They’re both wrong and it doesn’t matter which one is “worse” if in fact either one is. One bad thing does not negate a less bad thing if that’s the direction you were going.

[jaywalk]

I think that it's asinine to list a private citizen previously holding this view as a reason to not use a web browser but at the same time being OK with a lawmaker who also previously held the same view being POTUS.

[bombcar]

All depends on the Letter after their name. Everyone knows this, but pretends it's not the case.