The opening post asked how we feel about the phrase "the personal is political", and gave examples of the WebDip political forum and a domestic dispute. How exactly are we meant to interpret that?

The personal is personal. People will break up, or never get together, over all sorts of things that vary in importance depending on circumstances and personal beliefs. Disagreement over how a child should be brought up is one of most common reasons for breaking up, but obviously doesn't matter a jot to a couple that has no interest in, or ability to have, children together.

There are various people I wouldn't touch with a barge pole in terms of relationships. People who are significantly older or younger, men and transsexuals, Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, devout non Christian religious types, drug addicts, criminals who have committed crimes I find abhorrent (theft from little old ladies, for example, although murder in certain circumstances would be forgivable). You can put a political label next to these categories if you really want to, but that depends purely on your definition of politics.

If we were to look at what I'm guessing would be my equivalent to the twitter link, that a girl I fancy was revealed to be a member of antifa, then it would indeed be a concern. But plenty of otherwise decent people join such groups, and I'd be keen to find out why before taking things further. The parallel of someone I'd been with for 14 years joining such a group is too ridiculous to contemplate, but I'd already know that they were fundamentally awesome based on those 14 years. As such my reaction would be either to help them recover from whatever malady they were going through, or try to dissuade them against some dangerous bring them down from within fantasy.

It is not a new question to ask if all politics are personal.

You asked if she was over reacting. I answered that question. You are now pretending you had asked a different question, which is not the case however much you might want it to be so.

Ok, so let's focus on your new question. We have no idea what the husband's political views are. There's a massive chasm between various media reports on what the Proud Boys are and what they claim to be. Frankly I find the media narrative of them being a white supremacist organisation led by a black man to be somewhat confused and not particularly convincing. We do know him, from his wife's description, to be a kind and attentive husband and dedicated father. So, in short, this case lacks far too many details to make any form of coherent judgment.

Are you deliberately ignoring the question, or have I given your intellect too much credit?

Whether her responce of going to the Internet for advice is not the question, the question is, would you be fine being in a relationship where the other person held such political positions.

Asking for advice is not an overreaction. Asking for marriage advice in a public forum is rather stupid, but there's no law against stupidity.

The Liberal woman asking what to do about her conservative/libertarian husband joining the Proud Boys.

As for money, it literally has nothing to do with anything. There's no exercise to complete.

I don't for a moment think that you can get a decent feel of someone's life from a handful of tweets, but which woman are you referring to? Personally I think that talking about private issues with random people on the Internet is an over/stupid reaction regardless of the subject matter. If you referring to the randoms sticking their oar in, we're in no position to criticise other people for being opinionated gits .

So you think the woman in the linked example is over-reacting?

I will leave it as an exercise what having money has to do with it.

Could do, have done, have literally no idea why it's an issue or what it could possibly have to do with being well heeled. The only common political view that would cause a problem is the view that there is only one right answer.

So ignoring the troll, could you date/marry someone with different political positions? Is (for example) joining the proud buys a step too far? Can anyone be expected to seperate politics from the personal? Or is that a privilege of the well heeled?

In what sense did I not engage with the topic? I answered as fully as it is possible to answer, and you showed no enthusiasm for any elaboration. I assumed you'd lost interest.

Trolling? I would never! Especially when you fail to engage with the topic of the thread and continue to deliberately miss the point. You too are no fool, despite your attempts to paint yourself as one.

This is trolling, isn't it? You're not an idiot, and this is up there with describing the Salvation Army as a religious fundamentalist paramilitary organisation.

Both involved armed insurgents in a doomed inserection occupying a building(s).

Are you saying the difference is the state responce? I mean, I think taking the capitol building is more insurrectiony than taking the General Post Office... But post was a vital communications hub at the time...

The events are not remotely similar. Besides which there was plenty of blame to share around for 1916. The act of the British army shelling a British city is unconscionable.

I hope you feel the same way about the 1916 Easter Rising, it never had any chance of succeeding, so it doesn't count as a bad thing?

I approved of his foreign policy (which as someone who doesn't have to live in the US is one of the major issues) and had no problems with his stance on immigration. I also didn't view him as the root of all evil, which in the context of the WebDip political forum made me something of an outlier. Oh yes, and the bollocks about him attempting a coup was never more than bollocks. None of that ever made me close to being someone who would actually vote for him.

The likes of Jamie and Flash spent a huge amount of time trying to portray me as a Trump loyalist because that better suits their narrative, but like many of the things they come out with it was a long way from being actually true

You always seemed like a Trump apologist on here but thats clearly my misinterpretation

Nope. Don't agree with his stance on gun control, abortion, the role of religion, his instinct towards protectionism, his playing down of the impact of climate change, support of the coal industry, his reluctance to introduce health care free at the point of use, and various other policies. Also I don't like him as a person. I'm sure I've made this clear several times