201–210 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties. They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.
Who is "they"? And yes, you can absolutely explain it with desperation, and arrogance and in-fighting on behalf of the non-fascists. The issues on the minds of American issues were mostly things like housing, healthcare; economics. Trump at least pretended to be also angry and willing to do something about it, while saying the Democrats were lukewarm would be flattering them. What is the point of saying "people wante…
They have continuing quest to make abortions as illegal as possible, the quest for male supremacy, the climate denial ... This was not hold your nose for economics. This was I don't care about economics, I hate others too much.
> What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it?
I am sick of excessive benefits of the doubt constantly given to the conservatives and their voters. Of sympathetic portraits of poor then while people they harm never get that. Of them lying, knowingly throwing false accusations and then centrists or left being blamed for not being nice to then.
Yes it should be fought. But it is not true that republican voters were victims of something when eventually Musks actions harm some of them. They wanted to cause harm and will cause more harm to people not like them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we then openly call republican voters guilty then? Instead of pretending that people voting for that party are good people? I do agree that many wanted the harm and that is why they voted for Trump.
IMO they're morally (and practically) responsible but it is politically unwise to do this.
Trump won by being not nice. Democrats lost by being nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it. This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site. But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.
I'm just going to go ahead and trust my own experience more than your expert opinion on that, and I'd advice anyone to do the same.
Here's one full hour of complete sentences from a talk at Google in 2010.
https://youtu.be/aJllQ9d3pYM?t=161
It's difficult to be a public prosecuter without also being literate.
> and I'd advice anyone to do the same.
Something you might work on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you serious? A. he already broke the law. The point in notifying in advance is for Congress to push back if they think the reason was inappropriate, as Inspector Generals are the watchdogs that report to Congress. B. Do you really think he had "the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer" for 17 simultaneous firings days into his administration?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I read high quality news sources- the WSJ, NYTimes, foreign affairs and a few others like the national review and mother Jones from time to time. I hear this argument a lot and my issues with Trump were from the primary source- his own words and tweets. The economy was already humming when Trump first entered office and despite his best efforts it continued to do so through his term.
And you honestly believe these "special" news sources are not spun to at least the same degree. I think you have a few nasty surprises coming up.
Those of use living in the real world don't have the luxury of believing what ever makes us feel good; we seek out and even pay for journalism that describes the world as it is and not just how we want it to be.
Our government is literally falling in a matter of weeks. It's being assaulted, and we're all just standing by.
The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
!
It’s interesting how these “both sides are bad” convos degrade into one side saying: “he clearly broke the law literally written specifically for him” and the other side trying to invoke some incredibly vague “whatever you call the last 8 years” imagery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s interesting how these “both sides are bad” convos degrade into one side saying: “he clearly broke the law literally written specifically for him” and the other side trying to invoke some incredibly vague “whatever you call the last 8 years” imagery.
It's interesting that when one tries to encourage a stepping back from the problem to consider larger patterns, that effort at abstraction gets carpet-bombed in the (im)moderation.
The larger pattern is actually that reactionary politics have no coherent model of the world, and that’s why it’s showing up by your continued inability to state your position.
For any readers interested in an extreme version of the intellectual emptiness that dominates this sphere (apparently Andreessen finds compelling!), the NYTimes profile of Curtis Yarvin was pretty hilarious for exactly this reason.
It is indeed a larger pattern!