|
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 |
On July 10 2020 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 10 2020 04:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 04:18 Mohdoo wrote:On July 09 2020 23:13 PhoenixVoid wrote:Looks like Trump has to show his taxes in the New York grand jury case. Edit: Doesn't mean the public gets to view them any time soon and possibly until after the election. There's also the congressional subpoena which didn't go so well though and will continue to be kept hidden. They are being punted down to the lower courts. Fits with what I expected after the oral arguments a while back when legal observers thought the justices were skeptical about Congress but generally seemed more willing regarding New York's DA. Certainly an interesting day for legal precedent I'm sure other members here will comprehend and explain, but I don't think today's rulings were as great of an anti-Trump event as expected. His taxes likely remain blocked from the public until after the election and the House has to deal with another round of lower court wrangling. If the primary goal was to delay the revelation of his tax records, he got his short-term win. Though puncturing holes in the immunity of a president from oversight is critical on principle, which isn't something to take lightly. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdfUser was warned for this post. My favorite part is Thomas and Alito. What a complete mess. It is terrifying to think people with their views made it to the supreme court. If there were more of them, we'd live in an actual dictatorship. I am curious when they would think a president's power is limited. The argument is most likely that a significant majority of congress can remove the president at any time. If the republican senators didn't fully side with the president in the impeachment hearing Trump would have been out. And that's a good thing. Accountability should increase as power increases, forever and always. The most powerful man should be required to be a saint.
The most powerful person can't be a saint by default simply by having all the different entities with different interests trying to pull his strings. One way or another this person has to yield to the powers with vested interests. Or, if he doesn't, these entities either make the person impotent, or they replace him with a more impressionable person.
|
If the most powerful person can be made impotent by people with vested interests, how can they be the most powerful person? There is absolutely no need for politicians to yield to special interests, they do it because they want to. Because it makes their life easier. Or because they are rewarded for it. There are examples of politicians though, that sacrificed their political career for the greater good by standing up to special interests. The Australian gun ban comes to mind.
|
If you are a Saint you are also probably neither interested nor suited by the compromises and the realities it takes to get to power. After all, "Saint" sounds very much like the platonician philosopher-king from The Republic, and Plato's conclusion was that the philosopher would never want to - nor could be - king.
I think on the opposite that maybe it's time to accept that our leaders - past, presents and future - are humans and therefore flawed. And that what matters is that they have the immense qualities required to lead us to a better future - that is to say, to leave the country in a better place than they took it.
|
Attempting to describe how and why people in power do what they do as a component of a government with separation of powers is the stuff of poli sci scholarship, there's a ton of work all over the internet on that.
On July 10 2020 20:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you are a Saint you are also probably neither interested nor suited by the compromises and the realities it takes to get to power. After all, "Saint" sounds very much like the platonician philosopher-king from The Republic, and Plato's conclusion was that the philosopher would never want to - nor could be - king.
I think on the opposite that maybe it's time to accept that our leaders - past, presents and future - are humans and therefore flawed. And that what matters is that they have the immense qualities required to lead us to a better future - that is to say, to leave the country in a better place than they took it.
This is key, I think some kind of return to humanism is a requisite to making better sense of how political power works. I personally want to apply that principle to the work of judges, but it works with all stations.
|
On July 10 2020 20:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
If the most powerful person can be made impotent by people with vested interests, how can they be the most powerful person? There is absolutely no need for politicians to yield to special interests, they do it because they want to. Because it makes their life easier. Or because they are rewarded for it. There are examples of politicians though, that sacrificed their political career for the greater good by standing up to special interests. The Australian gun ban comes to mind.
I always get a bit uncomfortable with the question of vested interests. Politicians have to balance with a myriad of convergent, divergent, overlapping interests in almost all of their decisions - it's very rarely the clear cut interests of this group against the clear cut interests of that group. On top of that a group or an individual can represent divergent interests: the most obvious example is how deregulations can benefit you as a consumer while harming you as a worker.
This is not to say that politicians are never disingenuous - especially in a disfunctional democracy like the US where big fortunes have a totally disproportionate weight in the political agenda, but the question of interests in a capitalist, democratic society is immensely complex and is never a zero sum game.
|
On July 10 2020 20:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
If the most powerful person can be made impotent by people with vested interests, how can they be the most powerful person? There is absolutely no need for politicians to yield to special interests, they do it because they want to. Because it makes their life easier. Or because they are rewarded for it. There are examples of politicians though, that sacrificed their political career for the greater good by standing up to special interests. The Australian gun ban comes to mind.
Because you are granted the position of most powerful person through those entities? Sure, the 'people have chosen' is a thing, but if (a section of) the military feels like they need to run the country because reasons, the current "most powerful person" can very easily be reduced to a non-existing one.
Finance, resources, military, other politicians, the people, other countries and their influences all have a say in what you can and can't do.
If you're the most powerful person and a megalomaniac and want to big dick the world by pressing the big red button, guess what's going to happen: no one will let you do it because they have a stake in this world that they don't want to ruin through the pressing of a big red button. Does that sound like the most powerful person to you?
Edit: very bad example, but I guess it kind of gets my point across in a very crude way.
|
On July 10 2020 15:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 10:25 Nevuk wrote:So the supreme court issued a ruling that may have larger implications than Trump's tax returns that we didn't talk about at all. 5-4 decision in McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA, written by Gorsuch, that most of the eastern half of Oklahoma still belongs to native americans (the Creek specifically in the case, with four other tribes affected). This includes Tulsa. This is because the treaty that gave them the land was never revoked by congress, despite being from the 1800s. The ruling appears to be limited to law enforcement purposes currently, but it makes it very clear that they consider treaties valid unless congress invalidates them - which they almost never did. So expect a lot of challenges to be brought up rapidly. (bolded emphasis mine) The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision that could reshape the criminal justice system by preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans.
The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what the court affirmed was Indian Country. The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.
The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state.
A New Map of Oklahoma
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation.
“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.htmlSome more from the opinion - it has very strong language indicating that Gorsuch is willing to side with tribes in the future. The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf(both nyt and wikipedia have maps on areas affected) Is there anything stopping congress from passing a revoke-deprecated-treaties act that does what Gorsuch wants? Or even create legislation that automatically invalidates treaties older than 50/70/100 years? I mean, Gorsuch doesn't actually side with the Indians, her just says that Congress needs to get their paperwork in order. Of course, if this means reparations need to be paid for ~200 years of illegal exploitation of the land, and persecution of its rightful owners, this will have legs, but I don't think you can get there from this ruling.
Nothing other than congress itself. Congress is split currently and even when it isn't, is not particularly good at doing anything anymore. The US is also experiencing turmoil over accusations of systematic racism, so I'd imagine at least a few politicians are going to be reluctant to do something that would make them seem VERY racist.
While you won't get directly to reparations from this ruling, you can see how it could be extended to things like mineral rights.
|
I'm curious to the dynamics of the ruling on Indian Country. Do they own the land and therefore the rights? Are they now the end process for permits and the like? Is there a monetary figure that would make them consider giving it back to the US regardless of the treaty? I mean, if they own it and Sooners just took it, do they have power of eviction?
|
On July 11 2020 02:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm curious to the dynamics of the ruling on Indian Country. Do they own the land and therefore the rights? Are they now the end process for permits and the like? Is there a monetary figure that would make them consider giving it back to the US regardless of the treaty? I mean, if they own it and Sooners just took it, do they have power of eviction?
The ruling made it clear that they don't own the land. It's just a unique jurisdictional area.
|
On July 11 2020 03:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 02:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm curious to the dynamics of the ruling on Indian Country. Do they own the land and therefore the rights? Are they now the end process for permits and the like? Is there a monetary figure that would make them consider giving it back to the US regardless of the treaty? I mean, if they own it and Sooners just took it, do they have power of eviction? The ruling made it clear that they don't own the land. It's just a unique jurisdictional area.
I haven't had time to read anything this week. So thanks for that.
|
Currently it just means that only tribal and federal law enforcement can operate there - OK state has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws.
As far as monetary figure, no, there's no price for most tribes. Look up how much the Govt has setting aside for the black hills and you'll see. Now, that's holy land while this is more likely to be spite than it is actually wanting all the land - the land they actually want is much further east before they got relocated, but they'll cling to this bitterly if they can't have that.
It may lead to them being able to levy taxes on Tulsa instead of OK, but that's many court rulings away. The logic given is what would lead to it - technically, the treaty giving the land to them was never revoked. But the SC only ruled on the jurisdiction issue. Eviction is impossible. Trying to evict US citizens from their homes would be the fastest way to get congress to take away their rights to the land.
|
On July 11 2020 03:10 Nevuk wrote:
Currently it just means that only tribal and federal law enforcement can operate there - OK state has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws.
As far as monetary figure, no, there's no price for most tribes. Look up how much the Govt has setting aside for the black hills and you'll see. Now, that's holy land while this is more likely to be spite than it is actually wanting all the land - the land they actually want is much further east before they got relocated, but they'll cling to this bitterly if they can't have that.
It may lead to them being able to levy taxes on Tulsa instead of OK, but that's many court rulings away. The logic given is what would lead to it - technically, the treaty giving the land to them was never revoked. But the SC only ruled on the jurisdiction issue. Eviction is impossible. Trying to evict US citizens from their homes would be the fastest way to get congress to take away their rights to the land.
That is one helluva sentence, isn't it...
|
Grab bag of various bits of news that aren't really worth a post on their own.
Essentially, Trump's advisors are doing increasingly strange things to cheer him up, Trump is making odd statements about his cognitive abilities, and one of his key advisors is picking a very stupid fight publicly. Mostly important when taken together as an indicator of the general mood around the president.
Trump recently bragged on Hannity that he recently passed a cognitive test and that the doctors had doubts he'd pass. Test included identifying camels and drawing a cube (was a repeat of the MOCA test he last took in 2018). He said Biden needs to take the test too.
'I prove I was all there because I aced it. I aced the test and he should take the same exact test.'
www.dailymail.co.uk
Trump is depressed about his polling/the pandemic and to cheer him up, his staffers brought in big trucks for him to play with. No, I'm not joking. There are other, more normal (but still odd) things done in the article, but this stood out.
Other top White House advisers — including Hope Hicks and Dan Scavino — have also sought to buttress Trump’s mood with events they thought he would enjoy, such as celebrating truckers by bringing 18-wheelers onto the White House South Lawn in mid-April or creating social media videos that feature throngs of his adoring fans, according to aides.
www.washingtonpost.com.
Tucker Carlson is currently engaging in a war of words against Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee veteran. After she criticized Trump's speech, he claimed she hated america. After she responded, he doubled down and called her a coward and a moron. She's since written an op-ed response where she says he doesn't know anything about patriotism. This is important when it would usually be nothing much, as Trump has taken advice directly from Fox hosts. Carlson has always been one of the more reasonable of them, having convinced Trump to not go to war over an unmanned drone being shot down, among other things (being better on covid than the others, for one).
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/tammy-duckworth-tucker-carlson.html
|
Thanks for that post, the big trucks absolutely made my day 🤣
|
On July 11 2020 03:28 Nevuk wrote:Tucker Carlson is currently engaging in a war of words against Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee veteran. After she criticized Trump's speech, he claimed she hated america. After she responded, he doubled down and called her a coward and a moron. She's since written an op-ed response where she says he doesn't know anything about patriotism. This is important when it would usually be nothing much, as Trump has taken advice directly from Fox hosts. Carlson has always been one of the more reasonable of them, having convinced Trump to not go to war over an unmanned drone being shot down, among other things (being better on covid than the others, for one). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/tammy-duckworth-tucker-carlson.html
She alleged that Trump spent all his time talking about dead traitors, something that was factually untrue about the speech. Read More
She tweeted not too long ago about covering herself up in stars and stripes, going as Mt Rushmore next year ... and now can't remember anything good about it, because it's stolen land. Ex
So it's a tiny bit more than just a war of words. She lied about a speech, and never explained how her thinking changed from wanting to dress up as Mt Rushmore, to decrying the whole monument for being built on stolen land. War service does not shield you from criticism.
As for Trump, his poll numbers for handling the emergency are down, and he gets criticized/cut from airtime for press briefings when he has them, and criticized when he doesn't. His message discipline has been typically disastrous. His chances of winning re-election are down and I suspect he knows it.
|
From the Covid Thread:
On July 11 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:24 Simberto wrote:
It would be a lot easier to feel that we are all in this together if a relevant part of your population, incited by your president and a bunch of other politicians, wasn't actively harming any reasonable effort to deal with the pandemic by being complete morons and not adhering to basic safety precautions.
I do have the feeling in Germany that people generally feel that we are in this together. Because we have a pretty low amount of idiots trying to fight against stuff like wearing masks or social distancing.
In the US, this is different. Your president and a bunch of his followers did call the coronavirus a hoax, so calling them "covid-deniers" isn't really that far out of line. And your country IS currently suffering from the results of this. I hope you and your covid-denying friends are happy with increased deaths in Germany. + Show Spoiler +
You see how little effort I have to put into smearing you with that, as he did with me.
Save it for people that are writing against masks, or calling the pandemic a hoax, to resort to such smears. Otherwise, yeah, Coronavirus is a partisan issue and you're doing the typical partisan ploy to bring politics into the conversation to smear others. And like I said otherwise, TeamLiquid should be above that. We all should be above that. This thread should not make absurd political connections to demonize other posters, in a thread that proscribes against politics. Period. Don't try to hem and haw around it if you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion, you won't fool any thinking person.
I find it weird how you only seem to think that we "should be above it" when the "it" in question makes you look bad. Or are you saying that you no longer support Trump? That you would be willing to vote against Trump? If yes, then you haven't made your change of mind very obvious so far, but i greatly applaud you.
If, on the other hand, you still support Trump, then you are still in favor of a covid-denier being president. That might not make you a covid-denier immediately, and i don't know if you personally made statements like trumps "hoax" statement. But it does put you in the same box as those.
Covid shouldn't be a partisan issue. In any sane country, it isn't. In the US, you and your party did turn it into a partisan issue for utterly inexplicable reasons.
And now, when it turns out that that was a really bad idea (which pretty much everyone knew from the start), you try to play the "we should be better than this" card. Yes, we should be. How about you start, and stop supporting an incompetent, covid-denying president that actively harms your country, both through maliciousness and through incompetence by not doing the things which everyone knows are effective against the disease.
As long as you are still willing to vote for Trump and support Trump, you clearly don't see covid as a threat, because Trump has proven that he is not capable of dealing with it in any reasonable way, and actively blocks the things that need to be done for utterly inexplicable reasons.
Your country needs to work together in this. Trump is actively harming your ability to work together by turning everything (including disease control, i have to repeat this because it is just so absurd) into a partisan issue.
|
On July 11 2020 03:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:10 Nevuk wrote:
Currently it just means that only tribal and federal law enforcement can operate there - OK state has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws.
As far as monetary figure, no, there's no price for most tribes. Look up how much the Govt has setting aside for the black hills and you'll see. Now, that's holy land while this is more likely to be spite than it is actually wanting all the land - the land they actually want is much further east before they got relocated, but they'll cling to this bitterly if they can't have that.
It may lead to them being able to levy taxes on Tulsa instead of OK, but that's many court rulings away. The logic given is what would lead to it - technically, the treaty giving the land to them was never revoked. But the SC only ruled on the jurisdiction issue. Eviction is impossible. Trying to evict US citizens from their homes would be the fastest way to get congress to take away their rights to the land. That is one helluva sentence, isn't it...
The "their" in the sentence was actually meant to be the US citizens, but your reading is better.
On July 11 2020 03:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:28 Nevuk wrote:Tucker Carlson is currently engaging in a war of words against Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee veteran. After she criticized Trump's speech, he claimed she hated america. After she responded, he doubled down and called her a coward and a moron. She's since written an op-ed response where she says he doesn't know anything about patriotism. This is important when it would usually be nothing much, as Trump has taken advice directly from Fox hosts. Carlson has always been one of the more reasonable of them, having convinced Trump to not go to war over an unmanned drone being shot down, among other things (being better on covid than the others, for one). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/tammy-duckworth-tucker-carlson.html She alleged that Trump spent all his time talking about dead traitors, something that was factually untrue about the speech. Read MoreShe tweeted not too long ago about covering herself up in stars and stripes, going as Mt Rushmore next year ... and now can't remember anything good about it, because it's stolen land. ExSo it's a tiny bit more than just a war of words. She lied about a speech, and never explained how her thinking changed from wanting to dress up as Mt Rushmore, to decrying the whole monument for being built on stolen land. War service does not shield you from criticism. As for Trump, his poll numbers for handling the emergency are down, and he gets criticized/cut from airtime for press briefings when he has them, and criticized when he doesn't. His message discipline has been typically disastrous. His chances of winning re-election are down and I suspect he knows it.
True, but it's still a bad fight for Carlson to pick. Calling a purple heart recipient an unpatriotic coward tends to not go over well, even when they're wrong. If he'd called her a liar there'd be no controversy at all, I think.
|
There is a great piece in 538 about confederate statues and how they were never meant to preserve history. With their usual extensive data, they show that they have been erected as a symbol of white supremacy in eras where the civil rights of black folks were under attack, by people such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a slavery-nostalgic, KKK praiser, racist group.
Here it is:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/confederate-statues/
|
On July 11 2020 04:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 11 2020 03:10 Nevuk wrote:
Currently it just means that only tribal and federal law enforcement can operate there - OK state has no jurisdiction to enforce their laws.
As far as monetary figure, no, there's no price for most tribes. Look up how much the Govt has setting aside for the black hills and you'll see. Now, that's holy land while this is more likely to be spite than it is actually wanting all the land - the land they actually want is much further east before they got relocated, but they'll cling to this bitterly if they can't have that.
It may lead to them being able to levy taxes on Tulsa instead of OK, but that's many court rulings away. The logic given is what would lead to it - technically, the treaty giving the land to them was never revoked. But the SC only ruled on the jurisdiction issue. Eviction is impossible. Trying to evict US citizens from their homes would be the fastest way to get congress to take away their rights to the land. That is one helluva sentence, isn't it... The "their" in the sentence was actually meant to be the US citizens, but your reading is better. Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:48 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2020 03:28 Nevuk wrote:Tucker Carlson is currently engaging in a war of words against Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee veteran. After she criticized Trump's speech, he claimed she hated america. After she responded, he doubled down and called her a coward and a moron. She's since written an op-ed response where she says he doesn't know anything about patriotism. This is important when it would usually be nothing much, as Trump has taken advice directly from Fox hosts. Carlson has always been one of the more reasonable of them, having convinced Trump to not go to war over an unmanned drone being shot down, among other things (being better on covid than the others, for one). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/tammy-duckworth-tucker-carlson.html She alleged that Trump spent all his time talking about dead traitors, something that was factually untrue about the speech. Read MoreShe tweeted not too long ago about covering herself up in stars and stripes, going as Mt Rushmore next year ... and now can't remember anything good about it, because it's stolen land. ExSo it's a tiny bit more than just a war of words. She lied about a speech, and never explained how her thinking changed from wanting to dress up as Mt Rushmore, to decrying the whole monument for being built on stolen land. War service does not shield you from criticism. As for Trump, his poll numbers for handling the emergency are down, and he gets criticized/cut from airtime for press briefings when he has them, and criticized when he doesn't. His message discipline has been typically disastrous. His chances of winning re-election are down and I suspect he knows it. True, but it's still a bad fight for Carlson to pick. Calling a purple heart recipient an unpatriotic coward tends to not go over well, even when they're wrong. If he'd called her a liar there'd be no controversy at all, I think.
It's about as obscene as when The Boss, having dodged the war thanks to Daddy's connections, insulted Mc Cain for having been captured and tortured.
That those people don't realize how fucking awful it makes them look is just beyond my understanding. Anyone normal hears those words and thinks "What a eff-ing a-hole" because that's the only thing to think. And at that point it really doesn't matter who is right, it's just a matter of basic dignity.
|
On July 11 2020 04:04 Simberto wrote:From the Covid Thread: Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2020 03:24 Simberto wrote:
It would be a lot easier to feel that we are all in this together if a relevant part of your population, incited by your president and a bunch of other politicians, wasn't actively harming any reasonable effort to deal with the pandemic by being complete morons and not adhering to basic safety precautions.
I do have the feeling in Germany that people generally feel that we are in this together. Because we have a pretty low amount of idiots trying to fight against stuff like wearing masks or social distancing.
In the US, this is different. Your president and a bunch of his followers did call the coronavirus a hoax, so calling them "covid-deniers" isn't really that far out of line. And your country IS currently suffering from the results of this. I hope you and your covid-denying friends are happy with increased deaths in Germany. + Show Spoiler +
You see how little effort I have to put into smearing you with that, as he did with me.
Save it for people that are writing against masks, or calling the pandemic a hoax, to resort to such smears. Otherwise, yeah, Coronavirus is a partisan issue and you're doing the typical partisan ploy to bring politics into the conversation to smear others. And like I said otherwise, TeamLiquid should be above that. We all should be above that. This thread should not make absurd political connections to demonize other posters, in a thread that proscribes against politics. Period. Don't try to hem and haw around it if you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion, you won't fool any thinking person. I find it weird how you only seem to think that we "should be above it" when the "it" in question makes you look bad. Or are you saying that you no longer support Trump? That you would be willing to vote against Trump? If yes, then you haven't made your change of mind very obvious so far, but i greatly applaud you. If, on the other hand, you still support Trump, then you are still in favor of a covid-denier being president. That might not make you a covid-denier immediately, and i don't know if you personally made statements like trumps "hoax" statement. But it does put you in the same box as those. Covid shouldn't be a partisan issue. In any sane country, it isn't. In the US, you and your party did turn it into a partisan issue for utterly inexplicable reasons. And now, when it turns out that that was a really bad idea (which pretty much everyone knew from the start), you try to play the "we should be better than this" card. Yes, we should be. How about you start, and stop supporting an incompetent, covid-denying president that actively harms your country, both through maliciousness and through incompetence by not doing the things which everyone knows are effective against the disease. As long as you are still willing to vote for Trump and support Trump, you clearly don't see covid as a threat, because Trump has proven that he is not capable of dealing with it in any reasonable way, and actively blocks the things that need to be done for utterly inexplicable reasons. Your country needs to work together in this. Trump is actively harming your ability to work together by turning everything (including disease control, i have to repeat this because it is just so absurd) into a partisan issue.
I am disgusted at the user in that thread to choose to make the statement regarding my happiness at increased dead.
I know people here give aid whenever anyone gets called out for statements like that, and I’m asserting that political smear jobs should be kept in this thread and under the “dull roar”
The whole atmosphere of saying somebody’s politics make them responsible, by proxy, for death is a cancer. It’s an absolute plague among society. I do expect to find people that think it will never come for them, or pretend to be totally cool with translated responsibility. They will always find someone else to blame for rising tribalism, and they 100% will never attribute personal responsibility for aiding and furthering it’s rise.
Thank you for your contribution in making covid a partisan issue, and I hope you depart from this path for your own sake. God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
