|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces
If you purposed it as an ecologically focused spiritual successor to the Marshall Plan, you could go for it.
The rationale of right nationalists should be largely discounted as they simply don’t like fair competition.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces
I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse.
I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy.
I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On January 18 2020 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:My experience from working with children is that they are extremely concerned with not being unfairly disadvantaged, but that they generally do not desire being unfairly advantaged. frankly I get the same impression from my dogs, although they have problems vocalizing it. 
They’re a rather useful prism through which to observe nascent human nature, and have rather influenced my own views on the matter since having a miniature version of me running around.
Can’t speak for dogs as I don’t really like animals, but I’ll take your word for it!
|
On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon.
i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On January 18 2020 04:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon. i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century
What is the problem with the role of democracy moving forwards?
|
On January 18 2020 04:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:27 IgnE wrote:On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon. i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century What is the problem with the role of democracy moving forwards?
coordinating a global economic plan that will necessarily involve wealth redistribution. unless you hold to utopic visions of politics without antagonism such redistribution will be involuntary, will be contested, and will block coordinated efforts, leading to factionalism at the national or subnational levels
|
On January 18 2020 04:16 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces If you purposed it as an ecologically focused spiritual successor to the Marshall Plan, you could go for it. The rationale of right nationalists should be largely discounted as they simply don’t like fair competition.
To both IgnE and your point and to connect it to what I hope is the larger argument/framework I've been stressing, I agree they should be discounted to the extent it doesn't result in losing elections and systemic power to them somewhat constantly.
I think people understand that I fall on the side of "mass social redirection of global productive forces". After that is where much of the apparent conflict arises.
What the post highlighted by Drone addresses and others most recently IgnE bring forward, is the nature to which we are materially beholden to the status quo. Why despite it's unsustainability, with rightist nationalist ideology, it remains an appealing alternative to the political imagination necessary to envision the mass social redirection route.
What I've been stressing as of late to the reasonable displeasure of some is that within this framework/understanding there isn't a neutral position. Additionally, that I don't expect everyone or anyone in particular to agree with my prescriptions, but that it's practically impossible to progress if people don't even recognize where they stand in this context.
Hence my frequent mentioning of class consciousness, critical pedagogy, and Freireian notions of revolutionary love.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On January 18 2020 04:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon. i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century
I disagree about the danger of climate change, then. I think on a 100 year timeline 1 billion deaths directly or indirectly attributable to it would be below average outcome of the potential outcomes. I think 2 degrees (so a bit less than 1 degree more than now) is gonna be 'fine-ish' (as in, humanity keeps on trodding), but there are so many unknown factors that 4 seems entirely plausible.
I also don't only care about humans. The destruction of nature and wildlife is as big of a concern to me as human suffering is.
And I mean, I don't think you can in any way disassociate climate change from threats to democracy. 2 million Syrian refugees made a significant amount of Europeans take a hard right turn (in some instances favoring parties that hardly respect the democratic process (even if they did have genuine support/are a counterbalance to an EU that can be similarly criticized)) - northern africa and the middle east have nearly 450 million inhabitants. Those are two of the regions most likely to become uninhabitable.
|
|
|
On January 18 2020 04:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon. i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century
I mean, the world war thingy is relatively easy to prevent. That would only require the US to get their act together and vote for a competent Congress, Senate and thus President.
The Climate Change threat isn't as imminent and thus many don't feel connected to it. Nevertheless, to be within grasping distance of preventing it, not only a couple hundred million people have to get their shit together and jump aboard the bandwagon, it's rather 3 Billion that have to (China, India, USA, Europe) and the rest will follow with sufficient technology and wealth transfer incentives that should pose no problem for the aforementioned.
|
On January 18 2020 04:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 04:27 IgnE wrote:On January 18 2020 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 18 2020 04:07 IgnE wrote:
@Drone
the problem with an immediate drastic reduction in consumption is that it would lead to a massive economic downturn in the developing countries you are concerned about. historically, these countries have climbed up the industrial ladder by selling products to more developed countries. you’d have to find a way to redirect the entire productive apparatus (essentially an economic “loss”) for an altruistic development of infrastructure and wealth in those developing countries. i think it goes without saying that the risk of political disruption and governmental collapse in such a global maneuver is extremely high. i’d venture to say as high as that already endowed to us by seemingly inexorable climate change. hence we start to grasp the rationale of rightist nationals who choose the unknown of climate over the unknown of mass social redirection of global productive forces I mean there's certainly truth to this. It's basically the end sentence where I disagree - because my perspective is that humanity has survived severe economic hardship and recessions in the past, whereas the 'unknown' of climate change has the potential to be much worse. I see some merit to the idea that severe and destructive climate change is unavoidable and that we have to gamble on savior-technology which is a project that cannot be undertaken in a poorer economy. I most certainly do not see a democratic way of achieving my goals (extreme redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries to alleviate problems with climate change + because it's the right thing to do, period) and I think real democracy has an extremely positive set of benefits that we also can't abandon. i actually don’t think climate change is an existential threat absent the prospect of nuclear war. climate change advocates have a woefully unmet burden of proof on this end. even a billion people dying is not an existential threat. since nuclear war is a general existential threat that pertains to even apparently trivial political events (assassination of a political leader?) i simply find it hard to say ex ante that climate change will definitely be worse than the outbreak of a world war or the elimination of hundreds of millions of political undesirables in a stalinist economic plan. i am perhaps playing on a false dichotomy here, but the role of “democracy” is, i think, one of the key questions facing us in the next century I disagree about the danger of climate change, then. I think on a 100 year timeline 1 billion deaths directly or indirectly attributable to it would be below average outcome of the potential outcomes. I think 2 degrees (so a bit less than 1 degree more than now) is gonna be 'fine-ish' (as in, humanity keeps on trodding), but there are so many unknown factors that 4 seems entirely plausible. I also don't only care about humans. The destruction of nature and wildlife is as big of a concern to me as human suffering is. And I mean, I don't think you can in any way disassociate climate change from threats to democracy. 2 million Syrian refugees made a significant amount of Europeans take a hard right turn (in some instances favoring parties that hardly respect the democratic process (even if they did have genuine support/are a counterbalance to an EU that can be similarly criticized)) - northern africa and the middle east have nearly 450 million inhabitants. Those are two of the regions most likely to become uninhabitable.
The black death killed maybe half of the the population of Europe and yet it didn't wipe out Europe. All I am saying is that if we are just balancing the risk of deaths, if we are just trying to find a vision of the future most of us would like, it is not as crystal clear as some would have it that cutting off economic growth under capital to prevent further CO2 emissions won't lead to political turmoil and human suffering on a similar scale to wherever our current trajectory is heading. My position is that the human catastrophe of climate change will be the second order political and economic effects it has, not the first order change to natural rhythms. It is not crystal clear that we will even have a hundred million deaths from climate change. Mass migrations are humanitarian, political, and economic nightmares to deal with, for sure. And I am obviously on the side of mitigating the human costs associated with them. I am just against hyperbolic assertions that 4 degrees of warming will wipe out the human race. And I am against willful self-delusion about the intransigence and pushback likely to come over slowing economic growth, and the potential for political disruption and war that might result. Such pushhback is just as likely to come from China, India, Brazil, etc. as it is from the Davos capitalist elite. In many ways the post-WW2 peace has been secured by precisely the economic growth that you praised in your first post on this topic. It is possible that such peace is far more fragile than we think, and will collapse under a protracted economic regression.
As for destruction of nature, this is another tricky issue. Yes, there is a tragedy to death and extinction. But there is also a tragedy in permanent stasis. Certain extreme views (not necessarily yours) would have us lock the planet in time, as if right now, or maybe 100 years ago, or whatever time you want, is or was the perfect culmination of natural diversity and should be preserved forever and ever. So on the one hand a lifeless desert is obviously bad. On the other hand, preserving "nature" in its current form like a museum piece is also a kind of abomination, is it not? We need to tease out what precisely—aesthetically, medicinally, spiritually, whatever—is important, and also to never forget that we ourselves are part of the very nature that we would like to objectify.
|
An historical anecdote: in 1923, shortly after a horrible famine in formerly Tsarist Russia that killed millions of people, Trotsky was trying to rollback a famine-time measure that allowed for peasants to sell their grain on the market in an effort to get more food to the cities. Before that, during the revolutionary war the Bolsheviks fought, the Bolsheviks had simply requisitioned grain from the peasants, at gun point if necessary, partly because they believed themselves to be fighting against imperialist bourgeois capitalists and had outlawed grain markets, partly because there was no effective governmental institutions to collect taxes at that point. But Trotsky wanted to get industrial production back up so that goods from the city could incentivize the peasants to actually bring their grain in rather than hide it or abandon their plots. But he knew that he would have to temporarily cut workers' wages under his grand economic plan because he didn't immediately have cash on hand to pay everyone he wanted to put to work. Lenin, ill and dying, opposed this plan because he thought it would destabilize the fragile grain production they had just gotten back on track after the famine.
Essentially, asking people in the global North to work for free to set up the global South so as not to be reliant upon external markets for bringing in productive capital is like Trotsky's proposition: work for the greater good for free until we can all enter a new communist society as comrades. You need something like religion, I think, to make that work. Otherwise you end up with something like Stalin's subsequent forced collectivization of agriculture.
|
Sorry to interrupt but Ken Start joining Trump legal team in his impeachment defense is absolute poetry. For those who don't remember it, it's his investigation that led to Clinton impeachment and Clinton's actions constituted according to him, clear felony.
How much more of a hypocrite one can be, I'm not quite sure.
|
On January 18 2020 07:25 IgnE wrote:
An historical anecdote: in 1923, shortly after a horrible famine in formerly Tsarist Russia that killed millions of people, Trotsky was trying to rollback a famine-time measure that allowed for peasants to sell their grain on the market in an effort to get more food to the cities. Before that, during the revolutionary war the Bolsheviks fought, the Bolsheviks had simply requisitioned grain from the peasants, at gun point if necessary, partly because they believed themselves to be fighting against imperialist bourgeois capitalists and had outlawed grain markets, partly because there was no effective governmental institutions to collect taxes at that point. But Trotsky wanted to get industrial production back up so that goods from the city could incentivize the peasants to actually bring their grain in rather than hide it or abandon their plots. But he knew that he would have to temporarily cut workers' wages under his grand economic plan because he didn't immediately have cash on hand to pay everyone he wanted to put to work. Lenin, ill and dying, opposed this plan because he thought it was destabilize the fragile grain production they had just gotten back on track after the famine.
Essentially, asking people in the global North to work for free to set up the global South so as not to be reliant upon external markets for bringing in productive capital is like Trotsky's proposition: work for the greater good for free until we can all enter a new communist society as comrades. You need something like religion, I think, to make that work. Otherwise you end up with something like Stalin's subsequent forced collectivization of agriculture.
I think a radical shift in education (inspired by Freire and others) aided by modern/existing technology is preferable and if not the best option at least worthy of consideration among the other 2. Specifically in ways that weren't possible prior to the rapid dissemination of goods and information the 21st century offers.
Really though any path will be fought on those three basic fields.
1. Education/Indoctrination
2. Morality/Spirituality
3. Power/Might makes right
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
Hopefully someone shoots him sooner rather than later.
User was warned for this post
|
What is threatening about this tweet? The intent is clear: get people (gun owners) to vote GOP in 2020. And good for the president for magnifying the issue of 2nd A. rights and how Virginia is going after them.
edit: good posts above by igne on a climate catastrophe.
|
|
|
a "well regulated" Militia is meaningless in a nation without organized or regulated militia or even the very basis for what regulations a militia should undertake. having your argument based on that doesn't have a leg to stand on. while the argument that the text means that the militia, being the mechanism for what state used to ensure the security of the people, couldn't be used to deprive the people of their ability to keep and bear arms has at least historical precedent and logical progression.
|
On January 18 2020 13:00 Introvert wrote:What is threatening about this tweet? The intent is clear: get people (gun owners) to vote GOP in 2020. And good for the president for magnifying the issue of 2nd A. rights and how Virginia is going after them. edit: good posts above by igne on a climate catastrophe.
You mean, what is threatening when the Capitol is under a state of emergency due to armed protest based on false claims, that people have already been arresting planning terror during this same protest, and you encourage those protesting by lying more that "they are going to take your guns, you're under attack" ?
(there is a law being debated for background checks, and forbidding large magazines etc, nothing about taking back guns)
If that's not encouraging the protesters to do more, what is it ? His job should be to call for calm, and to raise the issue at the polls. The phrasing itself during armed protests, exciting the protesters even more against his opponents, is what is threatening. Some people could take it as inciting them to take over the state congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
