|
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 September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:This is so incredibly disappointing, especially at a main stream party. To have a position that the kid was in over his head, mislead and deserves counseling and a lessor sentence I can understand the perspective. But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people? This is what you stand and cheer for? That is so disturbing. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mother-alleged-kenosha-shooter-gets-210905177.html Remember, the right is at war with the left. And in war you cheer for the soldiers on your side.
|
On September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:This is so incredibly disappointing, especially at a main stream party. To have a position that the kid was in over his head, mislead and deserves counseling and a lessor sentence I can understand the perspective. But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people? This is what you stand and cheer for? That is so disturbing. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mother-alleged-kenosha-shooter-gets-210905177.html
English dictionaries define "murder" as "the crime of intentionally killing a person" or "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". Do you really think the guy "murdered" three people?
|
On September 27 2020 06:31 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:This is so incredibly disappointing, especially at a main stream party. To have a position that the kid was in over his head, mislead and deserves counseling and a lessor sentence I can understand the perspective. But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people? This is what you stand and cheer for? That is so disturbing. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mother-alleged-kenosha-shooter-gets-210905177.html English dictionaries define "murder" as "the crime of intentionally killing a person" or "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". Do you really think the guy "murdered" three people? You could probably make a compelling argument that someone crossing state lines with an illegal weapon has some intent to use it, hence 'malice aforethought'.
|
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
On September 27 2020 06:31 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:This is so incredibly disappointing, especially at a main stream party. To have a position that the kid was in over his head, mislead and deserves counseling and a lessor sentence I can understand the perspective. But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people? This is what you stand and cheer for? That is so disturbing. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mother-alleged-kenosha-shooter-gets-210905177.html English dictionaries define "murder" as "the crime of intentionally killing a person" or "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". Do you really think the guy "murdered" three people?
I don’t personally think he did, or at least it’s plausible that he was a dumb kid who got in over his head, not necessarily a murder with intent.
The disturbing part is the hero worship of the kid, it’s some some defence of his actions as they were, it’s he’s a hero for standing up to the Antifa boogeyman or what ever.
It’s not whether he murdered people or not, it’s that people are cheerleading him regardless. Because they don’t like the left and think whatever is justified
|
|
|
I don't think she deserves a standing ovation for being a mother of that guy. If they were clapping to greet her, it's a non-issue.
|
On September 27 2020 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. I don't think you actually believe this The all or nothing approach is indicative of it. Do you have an opinion about Democrats decision to filibuster the Senate covid relief bill? Primarily if that’s an opinion that differs from the ones expressed in this thread?
If you offer me a deal where you give me $10 but I owe you $50 later, that doesn't mean I don't want $10. It means I want $10 without it actually making my life worse. I think it is silly for you to pretend you think its impossible democrats are considering costs and benefits to existing bills being put forth. McConnell doesn't like Pelosi's bill. Pelosi doesn't like McConnell's bill. Both have decided the pros and cons aren't favorable for the other's bill.
My belief is that the senate bill is a net negative, while fixing some things. It doesn't mean I don't want things fixed, it means I want net positive. No one ever wants a net negative situation lol
|
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
On September 27 2020 07:00 Sent. wrote:
I don't think she deserves a standing ovation for being a mother of that guy. If they were clapping to greet her, it's a non-issue.
Why is she being invited to speak at all?
|
On September 27 2020 06:20 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
And likewise, I'm pretty convinced your run of the mill Democrat doesn't care what gets broken in the process, as long as the process results in the crippling of the Trump administration and the ejection of Trump from office. His own intelligence agencies can act as a 5th column against him, instead of a subordinate department, and the average Democrat doesn't give a damn. I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. Same with police reform; that bill also got filibustered. It's all of the Democratic priorities, or none at all. You call that governance? I guess machine realpolitik is a form of governance, if that's your thing. I find the worst parts of the 2017-2020 Democratic media and politician relationship to the country arises from Democrats failure to "[change] the minds of the electorate." The rest is well attributed to acting out of frustration at finding themselves unable to convince enough of middle America that they present a good vision for the future governance of the country. The more Trumpian angle would be something like + Show Spoiler +The Democrats will focus on telling poor whites to apologize for their privilege, and focus on transgender bathroom equality, all while ignoring the thousands of deaths of despair from the opium epidemic. They'll be pulling down the statues of abolitionists, founding fathers, and Union generals, because they're incapable of valuing people beyond the worst construction of their example. They'll riot, while claiming it's all mostly peaceful and not that big of a deal. And after all the studied ignorance of the results of their rhetoric, they'll try to wash their hands of it and claim it has nothing to do with the party itself. Do not be gullible; these are exactly the acts encouraged by a lack of leadership from Democratic governors, and they want to gain political power by blaming them all on Trump. The Democrats are committed to power at all costs, whether that mean adding States, destroying the Electoral College and pushing the popular vote, packing the Supreme Court, and using national power to foist their agenda on all the states that reject their party platform. . Flipping the script, do you really call it governance when the party in power uses that power to punch down almost exclusively? Is it necessary to pick the specific SC nominee they have? Someone guaranteed to be controversial? Why not pick someone more even, with a spotless record, who couldn't realistically be argued against, instead of an obviously conservative pick with numerous statements attributed to her that would make a lot of people question her objectivity in the role? Do you call it governance when the President uses his pulpit to foist conspiracy theories and his party supports him lockstep all the way? Do you call it governance when the primary method is to divide and conquer and stoke divisions in the country when they're already at an all-time high? You can't possibly be going after the Democrats for poor governance when... they aren't actually in a position to govern. Proper governance isn't 'my party won so fuck you and everything you believe in and we're going to spend four years ramming that down your throat', proper governance is about trying to make sure everybody gets something. You don't really care about proper governance, though, so why even bring it up? You're openly gleeful about the idea of the Republicans ramming through a SC pick who fits your ideology because it tilts the scales in your favour and pretty much by definition because it fucks with the idea of the Democrats being able to govern effectively. The last time the Democrats had a President he made a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle and they shafted him at every turn. America is not a country that will permit good governance anymore. And it wasn't the Democrats who made that decision. Your guys made that choice. Once the Democrats start playing dirty (or at least throw away the social norms as badly as the Republicans have) then yeah, its Thunderdome. Expand the SC, pull every dirty trick, governance will break down. And at that point what complaint can you rationally raise? You've eagerly backed the process leading you there.
Divisions were at all-time highs in the wake of the Obama administration, yes yes. Trump comes in on the back of that. Good governance back then meant taking away your doctor and your health plan to be replaced with worse versions. Bringing down racial tensions meant saying Trayvon was like Obama's son, and citizens clung to their guns and their religion. Very uniting. We can flip the script back and forth as much as you want to go, as far back as you want to go. Media figures and Democrats were all too ready to call McCain and Romney racists when it suited them. It was divisive and Americans got a little fed up with the race card games.
I'm sure everybody's loving the results of it. I hear it every day here.
So yeah. I don't really have to like everything he does. He just had to beat Hillary Clinton on the scores that matter. America dodged a bullet with that one. Now he has to beat Biden. Biden, who has to read polls before deciding to condemn the violence. His gut instinct is to criticize the police and identify with the victims right off the bat, and give blanket statements as kind of an afterthought. I would like to say more about Biden and how he reconciles many positions on governance, but he's at the tenth or eleventh time calling a lid for the day and not taking questions. He should really go give an interview with someone like Swann to put the good governance narrative out there. Right now, we have to reconcile and guess at whether he's being truthful about carrying forward Bernie Sander's proposals, as in the Democratic Convention, or the moderate bona fides, as are talked up here and elsewhere. Who knows?
With what Democrats are promising to do if elected, I don't see any clear choice in favor of good governance. It's just the pursuit of raw power with the blue shorts on instead of the red. Democratic elites workshopped how to avoid conceding the election a few weeks ago. Very unifying, to be sure.
And yeah, the Democrats haven't shown a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle since Bill Clinton's years. They've dressed up a bill and told Republicans they should like it, but that was just a propaganda play. Republicans never had a hand in developing it. It's the record of Democrats telling Republicans the way it's gonna be that gave rise to Trump, and the last time Republicans had large majorities in the House.
|
On September 27 2020 07:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 04:56 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. I don't think you actually believe this The all or nothing approach is indicative of it. Do you have an opinion about Democrats decision to filibuster the Senate covid relief bill? Primarily if that’s an opinion that differs from the ones expressed in this thread? If you offer me a deal where you give me $10 but I owe you $50 later, that doesn't mean I don't want $10. It means I want $10 without it actually making my life worse. I think it is silly for you to pretend you think its impossible democrats are considering costs and benefits to existing bills being put forth. McConnell doesn't like Pelosi's bill. Pelosi doesn't like McConnell's bill. Both have decided the pros and cons aren't favorable for the other's bill. My belief is that the senate bill is a net negative, while fixing some things. It doesn't mean I don't want things fixed, it means I want net positive. No one ever wants a net negative situation lol
What about the Senate bill is fairly called $10 to owe $50, or a net negative?
Maybe you're some kind of outlier here, since I've only heard variations of "a small relief package is not worth compromising on at all" or "Republicans are going to get blamed if nothing gets passed, so we'll take the political win from inaction on relief bills." Also, you're missing the point that Democrats filibustered the bill ... it never made it to Pelosi, so don't act like she even held a vote. Translated to the current language of the thread, Senate Democrats are scared to hold a vote on covid relief.
|
On September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:
But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people?
Killed two, injured one.
Not taking a side, just pointing it out.
|
|
|
On September 27 2020 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 06:20 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
And likewise, I'm pretty convinced your run of the mill Democrat doesn't care what gets broken in the process, as long as the process results in the crippling of the Trump administration and the ejection of Trump from office. His own intelligence agencies can act as a 5th column against him, instead of a subordinate department, and the average Democrat doesn't give a damn. I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. Same with police reform; that bill also got filibustered. It's all of the Democratic priorities, or none at all. You call that governance? I guess machine realpolitik is a form of governance, if that's your thing. I find the worst parts of the 2017-2020 Democratic media and politician relationship to the country arises from Democrats failure to "[change] the minds of the electorate." The rest is well attributed to acting out of frustration at finding themselves unable to convince enough of middle America that they present a good vision for the future governance of the country. The more Trumpian angle would be something like + Show Spoiler +The Democrats will focus on telling poor whites to apologize for their privilege, and focus on transgender bathroom equality, all while ignoring the thousands of deaths of despair from the opium epidemic. They'll be pulling down the statues of abolitionists, founding fathers, and Union generals, because they're incapable of valuing people beyond the worst construction of their example. They'll riot, while claiming it's all mostly peaceful and not that big of a deal. And after all the studied ignorance of the results of their rhetoric, they'll try to wash their hands of it and claim it has nothing to do with the party itself. Do not be gullible; these are exactly the acts encouraged by a lack of leadership from Democratic governors, and they want to gain political power by blaming them all on Trump. The Democrats are committed to power at all costs, whether that mean adding States, destroying the Electoral College and pushing the popular vote, packing the Supreme Court, and using national power to foist their agenda on all the states that reject their party platform. . Flipping the script, do you really call it governance when the party in power uses that power to punch down almost exclusively? Is it necessary to pick the specific SC nominee they have? Someone guaranteed to be controversial? Why not pick someone more even, with a spotless record, who couldn't realistically be argued against, instead of an obviously conservative pick with numerous statements attributed to her that would make a lot of people question her objectivity in the role? Do you call it governance when the President uses his pulpit to foist conspiracy theories and his party supports him lockstep all the way? Do you call it governance when the primary method is to divide and conquer and stoke divisions in the country when they're already at an all-time high? You can't possibly be going after the Democrats for poor governance when... they aren't actually in a position to govern. Proper governance isn't 'my party won so fuck you and everything you believe in and we're going to spend four years ramming that down your throat', proper governance is about trying to make sure everybody gets something. You don't really care about proper governance, though, so why even bring it up? You're openly gleeful about the idea of the Republicans ramming through a SC pick who fits your ideology because it tilts the scales in your favour and pretty much by definition because it fucks with the idea of the Democrats being able to govern effectively. The last time the Democrats had a President he made a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle and they shafted him at every turn. America is not a country that will permit good governance anymore. And it wasn't the Democrats who made that decision. Your guys made that choice. Once the Democrats start playing dirty (or at least throw away the social norms as badly as the Republicans have) then yeah, its Thunderdome. Expand the SC, pull every dirty trick, governance will break down. And at that point what complaint can you rationally raise? You've eagerly backed the process leading you there. Divisions were at all-time highs in the wake of the Obama administration, yes yes. Trump comes in on the back of that. Good governance back then meant taking away your doctor and your health plan to be replaced with worse versions. Bringing down racial tensions meant saying Trayvon was like Obama's son, and citizens clung to their guns and their religion. Very uniting. We can flip the script back and forth as much as you want to go, as far back as you want to go. Media figures and Democrats were all too ready to call McCain and Romney racists when it suited them. It was divisive and Americans got a little fed up with the race card games. I'm sure everybody's loving the results of it. I hear it every day here. So yeah. I don't really have to like everything he does. He just had to beat Hillary Clinton on the scores that matter. America dodged a bullet with that one. Now he has to beat Biden. Biden, who has to read polls before deciding to condemn the violence. His gut instinct is to criticize the police and identify with the victims right off the bat, and give blanket statements as kind of an afterthought. I would like to say more about Biden and how he reconciles many positions on governance, but he's at the tenth or eleventh time calling a lid for the day and not taking questions. He should really go give an interview with someone like Swann to put the good governance narrative out there. Right now, we have to reconcile and guess at whether he's being truthful about carrying forward Bernie Sander's proposals, as in the Democratic Convention, or the moderate bona fides, as are talked up here and elsewhere. Who knows? With what Democrats are promising to do if elected, I don't see any clear choice in favor of good governance. It's just the pursuit of raw power with the blue shorts on instead of the red. Democratic elites workshopped how to avoid conceding the election a few weeks ago. Very unifying, to be sure. And yeah, the Democrats haven't shown a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle since Bill Clinton's years. They've dressed up a bill and told Republicans they should like it, but that was just a propaganda play. Republicans never had a hand in developing it. It's the record of Democrats telling Republicans the way it's gonna be that gave rise to Trump, and the last time Republicans had large majorities in the House.
Why do you think divisions were at an all time high under Obama? Mitch and the conservative Media are directly responsible for that. Obama governed from the center and actually tried to fix problems and for that was labeled a socialist.
Republicans dont even acknowledge there are problems and actively resist any attempts to make progress. Its shameful whats being done to democracy in our country. You and your people have no conscience.
|
You can only get so mad at Lucy before you gotta ask yourself what kind of brain worms it takes to not put responsibility on Charlie for being so damn gullible.
|
|
|
On September 27 2020 08:36 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 07:41 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 06:20 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
And likewise, I'm pretty convinced your run of the mill Democrat doesn't care what gets broken in the process, as long as the process results in the crippling of the Trump administration and the ejection of Trump from office. His own intelligence agencies can act as a 5th column against him, instead of a subordinate department, and the average Democrat doesn't give a damn. I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. Same with police reform; that bill also got filibustered. It's all of the Democratic priorities, or none at all. You call that governance? I guess machine realpolitik is a form of governance, if that's your thing. I find the worst parts of the 2017-2020 Democratic media and politician relationship to the country arises from Democrats failure to "[change] the minds of the electorate." The rest is well attributed to acting out of frustration at finding themselves unable to convince enough of middle America that they present a good vision for the future governance of the country. The more Trumpian angle would be something like + Show Spoiler +The Democrats will focus on telling poor whites to apologize for their privilege, and focus on transgender bathroom equality, all while ignoring the thousands of deaths of despair from the opium epidemic. They'll be pulling down the statues of abolitionists, founding fathers, and Union generals, because they're incapable of valuing people beyond the worst construction of their example. They'll riot, while claiming it's all mostly peaceful and not that big of a deal. And after all the studied ignorance of the results of their rhetoric, they'll try to wash their hands of it and claim it has nothing to do with the party itself. Do not be gullible; these are exactly the acts encouraged by a lack of leadership from Democratic governors, and they want to gain political power by blaming them all on Trump. The Democrats are committed to power at all costs, whether that mean adding States, destroying the Electoral College and pushing the popular vote, packing the Supreme Court, and using national power to foist their agenda on all the states that reject their party platform. . Flipping the script, do you really call it governance when the party in power uses that power to punch down almost exclusively? Is it necessary to pick the specific SC nominee they have? Someone guaranteed to be controversial? Why not pick someone more even, with a spotless record, who couldn't realistically be argued against, instead of an obviously conservative pick with numerous statements attributed to her that would make a lot of people question her objectivity in the role? Do you call it governance when the President uses his pulpit to foist conspiracy theories and his party supports him lockstep all the way? Do you call it governance when the primary method is to divide and conquer and stoke divisions in the country when they're already at an all-time high? You can't possibly be going after the Democrats for poor governance when... they aren't actually in a position to govern. Proper governance isn't 'my party won so fuck you and everything you believe in and we're going to spend four years ramming that down your throat', proper governance is about trying to make sure everybody gets something. You don't really care about proper governance, though, so why even bring it up? You're openly gleeful about the idea of the Republicans ramming through a SC pick who fits your ideology because it tilts the scales in your favour and pretty much by definition because it fucks with the idea of the Democrats being able to govern effectively. The last time the Democrats had a President he made a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle and they shafted him at every turn. America is not a country that will permit good governance anymore. And it wasn't the Democrats who made that decision. Your guys made that choice. Once the Democrats start playing dirty (or at least throw away the social norms as badly as the Republicans have) then yeah, its Thunderdome. Expand the SC, pull every dirty trick, governance will break down. And at that point what complaint can you rationally raise? You've eagerly backed the process leading you there. Divisions were at all-time highs in the wake of the Obama administration, yes yes. Trump comes in on the back of that. Good governance back then meant taking away your doctor and your health plan to be replaced with worse versions. Bringing down racial tensions meant saying Trayvon was like Obama's son, and citizens clung to their guns and their religion. Very uniting. We can flip the script back and forth as much as you want to go, as far back as you want to go. Media figures and Democrats were all too ready to call McCain and Romney racists when it suited them. It was divisive and Americans got a little fed up with the race card games. I'm sure everybody's loving the results of it. I hear it every day here. So yeah. I don't really have to like everything he does. He just had to beat Hillary Clinton on the scores that matter. America dodged a bullet with that one. Now he has to beat Biden. Biden, who has to read polls before deciding to condemn the violence. His gut instinct is to criticize the police and identify with the victims right off the bat, and give blanket statements as kind of an afterthought. I would like to say more about Biden and how he reconciles many positions on governance, but he's at the tenth or eleventh time calling a lid for the day and not taking questions. He should really go give an interview with someone like Swann to put the good governance narrative out there. Right now, we have to reconcile and guess at whether he's being truthful about carrying forward Bernie Sander's proposals, as in the Democratic Convention, or the moderate bona fides, as are talked up here and elsewhere. Who knows? With what Democrats are promising to do if elected, I don't see any clear choice in favor of good governance. It's just the pursuit of raw power with the blue shorts on instead of the red. Democratic elites workshopped how to avoid conceding the election a few weeks ago. Very unifying, to be sure. And yeah, the Democrats haven't shown a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle since Bill Clinton's years. They've dressed up a bill and told Republicans they should like it, but that was just a propaganda play. Republicans never had a hand in developing it. It's the record of Democrats telling Republicans the way it's gonna be that gave rise to Trump, and the last time Republicans had large majorities in the House. Why do you think divisions were at an all time high under Obama? Mitch and the conservative Media are directly responsible for that. Obama governed from the center and actually tried to fix problems and for that was labeled a socialist. Republicans dont even acknowledge there are problems and actively resist any attempts to make progress. Its shameful whats being done to democracy in our country. You and your people have no conscience.
Nah Obama made existing problems worse, and I gave a couple examples in the post. It's truly fitting that Trump followed him up, because I couldn't think of a better successor in that line. Take Obama calling the cops out for acting stupidly, and double it with Trump. Obama's hypothetical son is ground-and-pound Trayvon Martin, and Trump goes crazy on LAW AND ORDER tweets. Obama insults Americans clinging to guns and religion, Trump jacks it up to all the groups he insults on twitter.
It really didn't pay to doze off during Obama, then wake up and reflexively blame Republicans for society's ills. And the kinds of things I hear called progress in these parts are an embarrassment. After all the damage called "attempts to make progress," you start to doubt that the proponents actually have it as a goal or have any idea how to achieve it.
|
On September 27 2020 09:37 JimmiC wrote:
Is this the Morgan freeman everyone can pull themselves up, time to take some self responsibility talk.
I have to admit I did not see this turn coming from you.
No it is not. It's because you didn't. It's a comment on how habitually gullible and oblivious Democrats and their supporters are, as well as how shameless they are in what should be their constant embarrassment.
This is a consistent message of mine about the refusal of Democrats to reconcile their politics with the material conditions they operate under.
EDIT: They reflexively look at Republicans to rationalize their own remarkably stupid positions as less bad/stupid/hypocritical than Republicans because they (perhaps only at the subconscious level) understand their behavior/positions are irrational and morally bankrupt but can't acknowledge it.
|
|
|
On September 27 2020 10:12 JimmiC wrote:
Question: why are blue lives matters people pro guns? The logic makes no sense, if you trust the police are great, will protect you from.criminals and so on and are worried about the police themselves the most. Guns on everyone else makes no sense. I mean every criminal isn't one at one point and there is no way (pre-minorty report) to know ahead of time. So the best, by far way to protect blue lives is to get guns out of the populous. I'm scared to Google it but could it be that blue lives matter is not actually about saving cops lives?
Americans aren't good at the math that less guns = less death by gun violence. It's just a cultural thing.
|
Probably is comparable to people being pro green energy but unwilling to give up driving an SUV. Humans pretty consistently can identify something as 'good' but be unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
