are people who disagree with you politically "evil"?

[dead0man]

go

[Damocles]

maybe a couple

[͘]

I consider that most people have other people in mind and have a good heart. With that, I think there are very few people who I consider truely "evil"

[SevenEleven]

No, not necessarily, but rashists, sexists, homophobes, etc definitely are.

[Mr. Morden]

No, not necessarily, but rashists, sexists, homophobes, etc definitely are.

Agreed.  Anyone who discriminates against a person on the basis of whether or not they have a rash is an HP.

[John Dule]

I don't believe in "evil" in a supernatural sense of the word. But if I were to apply the word to anyone, it would be to people who claim to possess a monopoly on things like empathy, truth, patriotism, or justice. Perhaps that mentality isn't inherently evil, but it fosters a malignant sort of self-righteousness that makes a person feel justified in any action they take.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Some of them, I assume, are good people

[Buffywawa]

No.

[Mexican Wolf]

No, they're just politically wrong. /s

[darklordoftech]

People who support civil forfeiture are evil and Charlottesville marchers are evil, but people who disagree with me on taxes aren’t evil.

[dead0man]

People who support civil forfeiture are evil and Charlottesville marchers are evil, but people who disagree with me on taxes aren’t evil.

How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government's Asset Forfeiture Program

Biden, a young Senator from Delaware, had to do something to show that despite his “liberal” reputation, he could be just as tough on crime as his Republican colleagues. He took notice of the RICO law, and he realized that law enforcement agencies were not taking advantage of it, particularly in regards to the Drug War. He turned to the General Accounting Office and asked them to produce a study on the potential uses of RICO for drug enforcement.

The report showed that the RICO Act granted enormous powers to police to confiscate drug-related assets, but these powers were not being taken advantage of: “The government has simply not exercised the kind of leadership and management necessary to make asset forfeiture a widely used law enforcement technique,” the report stated. By the time the report came in, Ronald Reagan was settling into office and getting ready to wage a renewed War on Drugs.

<snip>

The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act fixed all of these problems. The new bill was introduced by Senator Joe Biden in 1983 and it was signed into law the next year. With this law, federal agents had nearly unlimited powers to seize assets from private citizens. Now the government only needed to find a way to let local and state police join the party.

This came with the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act. In addition to a slew of new powers for prosecutors, the burden of proof for asset seizure was lowered once again (agents had to only believe that what they were seizing was equal in value to money believed to have been purchased from drug sales). More significantly, the bill started the “equitable sharing” program that allowed local and state law enforcement to retain up to 80 percent of the assets seized.

of course now he's the most progressive Presidential nominee ever (from a top party at least), so I understand you might be able to forgive him.  But was he "evil" in 1983?

[darklordoftech]

People who support civil forfeiture are evil and Charlottesville marchers are evil, but people who disagree with me on taxes aren’t evil.

How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government's Asset Forfeiture Program

Biden, a young Senator from Delaware, had to do something to show that despite his “liberal” reputation, he could be just as tough on crime as his Republican colleagues. He took notice of the RICO law, and he realized that law enforcement agencies were not taking advantage of it, particularly in regards to the Drug War. He turned to the General Accounting Office and asked them to produce a study on the potential uses of RICO for drug enforcement.

The report showed that the RICO Act granted enormous powers to police to confiscate drug-related assets, but these powers were not being taken advantage of: “The government has simply not exercised the kind of leadership and management necessary to make asset forfeiture a widely used law enforcement technique,” the report stated. By the time the report came in, Ronald Reagan was settling into office and getting ready to wage a renewed War on Drugs.

<snip>

The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act fixed all of these problems. The new bill was introduced by Senator Joe Biden in 1983 and it was signed into law the next year. With this law, federal agents had nearly unlimited powers to seize assets from private citizens. Now the government only needed to find a way to let local and state police join the party.

This came with the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act. In addition to a slew of new powers for prosecutors, the burden of proof for asset seizure was lowered once again (agents had to only believe that what they were seizing was equal in value to money believed to have been purchased from drug sales). More significantly, the bill started the “equitable sharing” program that allowed local and state law enforcement to retain up to 80 percent of the assets seized.

of course now he's the most progressive Presidential nominee ever (from a top party at least), so I understand you might be able to forgive him.  But was he "evil" in 1983?

People who talked about this before the Iowa Caucus were called “Sanders cultists”, yet people wonder why I hate that smear so much.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I am not sure that people can be inherently "evil", but there are small groups of people who can be really abhorrent. By the way, people who agree with me politically can be abhorrent too.

[Chips]

No. Everyone has the right to their own political opinions. It is a free country after all.

[foolcase]

Of course not.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't like any of the choices. Is it not true however, helping to spread a  deadly virus and foolishly repeating lies and misinformation about it and ignoring the experts and the science, and demanding that children be forced to go back to school with the result of even more deaths and cases is evil?? 3,781,985 cases is a good enough reason to support Biden, don't you think?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but so are people who agree with me.

🎶🎶🎶
Everyone is e-e-vil in their own way
Like a scary urban blight or a redneck's KKK
Everybody's e-e-vil in their own way
Under Satan's curse, the world's gonna blow away
🎶🎶🎶
There is none so blind as he who will not see
We all will close our minds, we must let our ids be free
For every hour that passes by, you know the world gets a little bit older
It's time to realize that ugly lies in the eyes of the beholder
🎶🎶🎶

[MarkD]

Generally no. But I'll make one specific exception.
I would not say that Justice William O. Douglas was politically evil, but his judicial philosophy was evil, and the man himself, just as a person, was evil. His colleague Justice Felix Frankfurter has been quoted as saying that Douglas was one of "two completely evil men I have ever met." He was "the most cynical, shameless, immoral character I've ever known." (Source: "Of Power and Right," by Ball and Cooper, published 1992, pp 90-93.)

In general, though, I believe the American Eagle can not fly unless it has and uses two wings. Neither wing is evil.

[thumb21]

I think its best to assume people with politics you disagree with are acting in good faith and care about what would be best until proven otherwise - and even if they have nasty views and motivations, evil is a special word for people who really don't care about other people and have acted on it in some way. Its a word I'd reserve for a small number of people.

[Person Man]

My image of someone who is evil generally is someone so obsessed with getting their way that they don’t care what must be sacrificed when they get their  way or what they must do.

Think of the people who steal people’s mail in ballots, or don’t care that someone can’t get treated for leukemia anymore because they are pregnant.

[AGA]

The vast majority no. Only tyrranical dictators are evil really.

[Mr. Smith]

Can be.

Then again, even those that agree with me are quite unsavory ones too at times.

[Figueira]

No, very few people are actually "evil". A lot of people are kind of bad though, regardless of politics.

[HillGoose]

no, if they disagree with me they're probably good.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, they're just dumbs.