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.
Let the Trump Political Dynasty begin, let us turn now to Lara Trump who Lindsey Graham has said is likely to be the person who replaces Burr's seat when he retires next year.
Who will be next? Do we think Donald's bumblefuck sons will go next, or do you think Ivanka will be the one? Will they start in the House, Senate, or go right for the Presidency? Could we see them join the Supreme Court? Find out on the next episode of AMERICAN POLITICS!
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote: Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here.
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas.
The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance.
Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends.
As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting.
That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war.
I mean, what is that about exactly?
Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either.
I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast.
I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway.
Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting.
It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic.
Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president?
See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia.
If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton.
And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them.
No, it doesn't.
The fact that you would use that, as an argument, certainly speaks volumes to your lack of familiarity of conservative thinking and rationale.
Remember, the end goal is that electing the president results in less harm or in greater benefit than the other candidate when looking at the totality of the equation. If you understood this, then you would be able to articulate, ideally steelman, the conservative case for why they felt that the net positive of Trump outweighed the negatives of Clinton and...well...Trump being Trump.
Since you didn't do that, I can assume only one of two things:
1) You're arguing in terrible faith by knowingly mischaracterizing the people you disagree with in an easy to bash manner 2) You're honest and in good faith, but so clueless as to conservative thinking, worldview, and lens of perception that you're unable to formulate any decent understanding of why someone would vote Trump.
Can you not do the steelmanning for us?
I don’t think I’m particularly alone in this thread being considerably more sympathetic to the case and those who voted for Trump in 2016 vs the lay of the land when 2020 rolled about. Still not particularly considerate, think plenty of the dog whistling then was abhorrent, but the sheer depths of his craven narcissism and utter incompetence were not laid bear in anything like the same fashion.
Welcome to the thread by the way, or at least being more active in said thread!
My issue is that the onus is on others to find nuance and be sympathetic in a scenario where vast swathes of people are in thrall to the cult of personality of a man of egregious personal flaws who himself has no particularly coherent ideology. Who is more than willing to stoke the fires of division whenever it’s personally profitable.
I mean I can only speak anecdotally but the amount of Trump supporters who I would speak to who would just change their position on something if the Donald did it, or double down every chance they got was, utterly baffling, people who I’d had long political talks with and had a gauge of their views just flipped on a dime.
This absolutely isn’t anyone who voted for Trump, absolutely not but I really don’t believe the reasons people give for supporting him in many instances as they are totally out of whack with how they support him almost unconditionally even when he flips and does the thing they said they supported him for not doing.
A vote doesn’t necessarily exactly equal support either, there’s reluctantly choosing the lesser of two evils and there’s actively going to bat religiously for one of them. Plenty in this thread were Biden voters (don’t worry I’m not privy to your ballots I’m just assuming), but have been both critical of Biden during the primaries, and critical since.
You can still vote for the guy or gal closer to you politically and still hold them to account after the fact. In fact it’s really the lack of the latter that I find far more concerning than anyone actually voting for Trump
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote: Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here.
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas.
The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance.
Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends.
As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting.
That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war.
I mean, what is that about exactly?
Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either.
I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast.
I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway.
Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting.
It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic.
Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president?
See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia.
If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton.
And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them.
No, it doesn't.
The fact that you would use that, as an argument, certainly speaks volumes to your lack of familiarity of conservative thinking and rationale.
Remember, the end goal is that electing the president results in less harm or in greater benefit than the other candidate when looking at the totality of the equation. If you understood this, then you would be able to articulate, ideally steelman, the conservative case for why they felt that the net positive of Trump outweighed the negatives of Clinton and...well...Trump being Trump.
Since you didn't do that, I can assume only one of two things:
1) You're arguing in terrible faith by knowingly mischaracterizing the people you disagree with in an easy to bash manner 2) You're honest and in good faith, but so clueless as to conservative thinking, worldview, and lens of perception that you're unable to formulate any decent understanding of why someone would vote Trump.
Can you not do the steelmanning for us?
I don’t think I’m particularly alone in this thread being considerably more sympathetic to the case and those who voted for Trump in 2016 vs the lay of the land when 2020 rolled about. Still not particularly considerate, think plenty of the dog whistling then was abhorrent, but the sheer depths of his craven narcissism and utter incompetence were not laid bear in anything like the same fashion.
Welcome to the thread by the way, or at least being more active in said thread!
My issue is that the onus is on others to find nuance and be sympathetic in a scenario where vast swathes of people are in thrall to the cult of personality of a man of egregious personal flaws who himself has no particularly coherent ideology. Who is more than willing to stoke the fires of division whenever it’s personally profitable.
I mean I can only speak anecdotally but the amount of Trump supporters who I would speak to who would just change their position on something if the Donald did it, or double down every chance they got was, utterly baffling, people who I’d had long political talks with and had a gauge of their views just flipped on a dime.
This absolutely isn’t anyone who voted for Trump, absolutely not but I really don’t believe the reasons people give for supporting him in many instances as they are totally out of whack with how they support him almost unconditionally even when he flips and does the thing they said they supported him for not doing.
A vote doesn’t necessarily exactly equal support either, there’s reluctantly choosing the lesser of two evils and there’s actively going to bat religiously for one of them. Plenty in this thread were Biden voters (don’t worry I’m not privy to your ballots I’m just assuming), but have been both critical of Biden during the primaries, and critical since.
You can still vote for the guy or gal closer to you politically and still hold them to account after the fact. In fact it’s really the lack of the latter that I find far more concerning than anyone actually voting for Trump
As someone who has spent a good deal of time trying to understand conservative thoughts and where they are coming from, I would be interested in trying to do this....under the stipulation that its clear I'm steelmanning conservative points and these arguments are not the ones I subscribe to.
For those wanting to do their own research, much of the stuff by Thomas Sowell is great. That's probably the best starting point.
Jordan Peterson is good for understanding what conservatives see as dangerous about the current state of identity politics and cultural aspects. Bret Weinstein, and for a stronger side, Eric Weinstein, will give you that perspective.
If you want to steelman the "intellectual" further right, then Curt Doolittle and anything related to "P" or "Propertarianism" will give you a very strong understanding from the perspective of someone who I'd classify as a "non hateful white nationalist" (non hateful in that I genuinely believe he is trying to find the way that makes the world the best, and is minimally or not at all motivated by hatred of out groups or wanting gains for his own group).
If I end up doing this, it will take a bit of thinking. Steelmanning even a single idea can be lengthy, let alone many ideas and how they tie together...but its something I think is valuable. In my experience very few conservatives can really steelman liberal points and vice versa...which results in lots of arguments from different assumptions and frames that go right past each other.
Also worth noting that for general sensemaking and how to navigate the world with as little bias as possible anything by Daniel Schmachtenberger is fantastic, especially his series on YouTube called "The War on Sensemaking".
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:
On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote: Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here.
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas.
The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance.
Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends.
As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting.
That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war.
I mean, what is that about exactly?
Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either.
I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast.
I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway.
Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting.
It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic.
Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president?
See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia.
If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton.
And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them.
No, it doesn't.
The fact that you would use that, as an argument, certainly speaks volumes to your lack of familiarity of conservative thinking and rationale.
Remember, the end goal is that electing the president results in less harm or in greater benefit than the other candidate when looking at the totality of the equation. If you understood this, then you would be able to articulate, ideally steelman, the conservative case for why they felt that the net positive of Trump outweighed the negatives of Clinton and...well...Trump being Trump.
Since you didn't do that, I can assume only one of two things:
1) You're arguing in terrible faith by knowingly mischaracterizing the people you disagree with in an easy to bash manner 2) You're honest and in good faith, but so clueless as to conservative thinking, worldview, and lens of perception that you're unable to formulate any decent understanding of why someone would vote Trump.
Can you not do the steelmanning for us?
I don’t think I’m particularly alone in this thread being considerably more sympathetic to the case and those who voted for Trump in 2016 vs the lay of the land when 2020 rolled about. Still not particularly considerate, think plenty of the dog whistling then was abhorrent, but the sheer depths of his craven narcissism and utter incompetence were not laid bear in anything like the same fashion.
Welcome to the thread by the way, or at least being more active in said thread!
My issue is that the onus is on others to find nuance and be sympathetic in a scenario where vast swathes of people are in thrall to the cult of personality of a man of egregious personal flaws who himself has no particularly coherent ideology. Who is more than willing to stoke the fires of division whenever it’s personally profitable.
I mean I can only speak anecdotally but the amount of Trump supporters who I would speak to who would just change their position on something if the Donald did it, or double down every chance they got was, utterly baffling, people who I’d had long political talks with and had a gauge of their views just flipped on a dime.
This absolutely isn’t anyone who voted for Trump, absolutely not but I really don’t believe the reasons people give for supporting him in many instances as they are totally out of whack with how they support him almost unconditionally even when he flips and does the thing they said they supported him for not doing.
A vote doesn’t necessarily exactly equal support either, there’s reluctantly choosing the lesser of two evils and there’s actively going to bat religiously for one of them. Plenty in this thread were Biden voters (don’t worry I’m not privy to your ballots I’m just assuming), but have been both critical of Biden during the primaries, and critical since.
You can still vote for the guy or gal closer to you politically and still hold them to account after the fact. In fact it’s really the lack of the latter that I find far more concerning than anyone actually voting for Trump
As someone who has spent a good deal of time trying to understand conservative thoughts and where they are coming from, I would be interested in trying to do this....under the stipulation that its clear I'm steelmanning conservative points and these arguments are not the ones I subscribe to.
For those wanting to do their own research, much of the stuff by Thomas Sowell is great. That's probably the best starting point.
Jordan Peterson is good for understanding what conservatives see as dangerous about the current state of identity politics and cultural aspects. Bret Weinstein, and for a stronger side, Eric Weinstein, will give you that perspective.
If you want to steelman the "intellectual" further right, then Curt Doolittle and anything related to "P" or "Propertarianism" will give you a very strong understanding from the perspective of someone who I'd classify as a "non hateful white nationalist" (non hateful in that I genuinely believe he is trying to find the way that makes the world the best, and is minimally or not at all motivated by hatred of out groups or wanting gains for his own group).
If I end up doing this, it will take a bit of thinking. Steelmanning even a single idea can be lengthy, let alone many ideas and how they tie together...but its something I think is valuable. In my experience very few conservatives can really steelman liberal points and vice versa...which results in lots of arguments from different assumptions and frames that go right past each other.
Also worth noting that for general sensemaking and how to navigate the world with as little bias as possible anything by Daniel Schmachtenberger is fantastic, especially his series on YouTube called "The War on Sensemaking".
I’m familiar with all of those folks, the jump I can’t really make is from their positions and arguments thru to a fervent support of Donald Trump.
The jarring problem with Trump is that he isn’t a conservative, and he isn’t anti-establishment, but yet he has this appeal to conservatively minded, or people who think fuck the establishment.
Those base sentiments are both understandable, agreeable or at least comprehensible depending where you are on the spectrum, how they manifest rather less so.
My own political sensibilities have Trump as a repugnant actor, the confusion comes from others seemingly ignoring their own ideals for the sake of him, of all people.
Wait what? Texas doesn't have enough power generation if the weather gets cold? Like they planned to rotate cutting people off of power for short times because the net can't cope?
It's amusing that they couldn't even go a week after announcing that they planned to secede without begging the Federal government to save them from themselves. I read that there was a similar situation in 2011 and afterwards a commission looked into why Texas loses power when it's cold and made a number of recommendations which were ignored.
On February 17 2021 06:43 KwarK wrote: It's amusing that they couldn't even go a week after announcing that they planned to secede without begging the Federal government to save them from themselves. I read that there was a similar situation in 2011 and afterwards a commission looked into why Texas loses power when it's cold and made a number of recommendations which were ignored.
Quick guess is that they have stuff like watercooling with no anti-freeze additives (we have products which run hotter at -40C than at 0C because heatpipes freeze) , and greases/oils which are not spec'd to run too far below freezing because they thicken up and then cause damage to equipment, which is even worse than just shutting it down for a few days.
Obviously, preventing that stuff costs money, so it wasn't paid for.
As someone living in Texas right now, this situation really sucks. As I understand it, down here we mostly utilize electric heating systems which are very inefficient. However, in a normal winter for us, that isn't a problem because temperatures never get this low (temperatures haven't been this low in Dallas in 72 years), but in storms that are very much out of the ordinary like this one, the amount of power those electric heating systems need to combat the cold is overwhelming and causing these blackouts throughout the state.
People are already calling this storm a "once in a lifetime" storm, but the thing is these storms are becoming more frequent. As KwarK pointed out, we had another storm like this back in 2011. Texas has been told to winterize for years but our officials haven't done it. People are dying in their homes right now because of negligence and incompetence by our officials, but I doubt they will be held responsible. They'll just cite it as a freak storm no one could have predicted, people will eat up their words, and we'll see the same thing happen in less than a decade.
I love this state but the people running it really make that a fucking challenge.
fixing an entire states powergrid is a costly affair. And infrastructure costs money, which means taxes and I'm going out on a limb and saying that Texas has low taxes and boy would it be unpopular to raise tho to pay for actual winterproof infrastructure.
On February 17 2021 07:08 Mohdoo wrote: Texan weakness is always a pleasure to admire. A perfect example of a whiny brat that has convinced themselves they don't need parents.
It is an incredible irony that Texas has just been defeated by a bunch of literal, literal, literal snowflakes. Don't worry, the federal government will help them!
I really really hope folks in Texas can hold out okay, losing power and water across huge chunks of a huge state is a super big deal. It's not just inconvenient, it can be dangerous. Then add the pandemic to the list. That y'all have to live under Ted Fucking Cruz and his inimitable leadership through all this pisses me off. Stay safe folks.
I pray that folks in Texas realize how preventable this shit is so that they muster the political will to lead the way in fixing infrastructure. This winter storm has put a really sharp point on this with reference to the South, but the North has just as many problems that follow the same pattern. Tons of important infrastructure here is crumbling out of sheer neglect, and it’s not even an inherently partisan issue despite what Newt Gingrich and his ilk insist. The Republicans of Eisenhower’s day are rolling in their graves.
On February 17 2021 07:43 Gorsameth wrote: fixing an entire states powergrid is a costly affair. And infrastructure costs money, which means taxes and I'm going out on a limb and saying that Texas has low taxes and boy would it be unpopular to raise tho to pay for actual winterproof infrastructure.
texas has no state income tax, and yes, their own power grid. this is a case of reaping what you sow. They continue to elect their representatives, who routinely vote against using federal aid for disaster relief. maybe bootstraps generate heat.
vote out your representatives if you’d like to see any change, because this is literally what the likes of Ted Cruz want. Working as designed.
On February 17 2021 08:56 farvacola wrote: I pray that folks in Texas realize how preventable this shit is so that they muster the political will to lead the way in fixing infrastructure. This winter storm has put a really sharp point on this with reference to the South, but the North has just as many problems that follow the same pattern. Tons of important infrastructure here is crumbling out of sheer neglect, and it’s not even an inherently partisan issue despite what Newt Gingrich and his ilk insist. The Republicans of Eisenhower’s day are rolling in their graves.
I'm not really sure how it gets fixed, it appears to be a race to the bottom on taxes and a race to spend as much government money as possible privately. The stimulus package was the perfect opportunity to announce a whole bunch of repairs and needed infrastructure, create jobs and so but also fix so much that needs fixing. There seems to be no will from either side.
I wonder if it is at all related to how almost anything that breaks in people's lives we don't fix we get a new one that the idea of upkeep and maintenance is not valued?
I think it gets started with flipping Texas blue at the local/state levels.
9445
2194
1508
161
EPT
As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either.
