Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
If only that had happened in the many, many opportunities he’s had so far.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sometimes when I’m on here I think Trump/Trumpism isn’t really that bad because a majority of his voters and supporters are just voting for the pocketbook issues.
Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
If Trump had seriously and legitimately condemned violence and white supremacy, we wouldn’t be where we are now, but he also wouldn’t be Trump if he was able to do that, so the question is pointless.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
Seriously, she doesn’t know Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hasn’t conceded and that a Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat hate rally was held in DC? She doesn’t know of or had heard of Charlottesville and all that’s transpired since, particularly since 11/4?
It's embarrassing and inexcusable that you support a party that shot up a charity softball game, including members of congress. Someone should come get you for your complicity in that event.
Me, and my party, roundly condemned the actions of what I believe where of a mentally ill person. Even if he isn’t/wasn’t mentally ill, his actions were vociferously condemned and dems rallied for the repubs. Nice try at a false equivalency or “both sides are the same” attempt.
Ok so if I find some republicans that condemn that sign, then all good right? Just curious, how many do I need? How many people are required to meet your imaginary, completely pulled out of your ass standard?
Pulled out of my ass standard? You’re the one who pulled one out of your ass. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone to support what is and has been occurring. Some repubs? They all should be condemning it. I’m sorry that’s lost on you.
You think something is lost on me? That i can't possibly process the depth of your argument? Uh huh. That must be the case.
Well, you made a poor analogy.
There are a million examples, including looting. There's a fucking book out now that talks about the social justice of looting. So you own that?
No, I condemn looting. I can understand why it happens though. I can understand the frustration and underlying complex social problems that may contribute to it.
Wow a book? What’s that? And yea, I march around my hood with a sign that says, “Loot for Social Justice.” And sometimes I stand at the intersection with a sign that says, “Honk if you support luting for social justice.”
Oh so you personally condemn it so that's okay. So because you as an individual are against it, then it doesn't stick to you. Make up your fucking mind.
I recall, and maybe you don’t because you were on brietbart, that the leader of my party and current POTUS elect condemned the riots and looting. See? I’m in alignment with my party’s values and I’m not out there with a sign saying kill all police or kill all repubs. And if my party were like that? I’d leave and go green or something else.
So if trump is asked about it and he condemns then all good?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
In response to the first bolded part, that would mean that this election wasn’t a referendum on trump, it was just another harmless (D) vs (R) presidential power struggle, decided by the majority that only care about the R or D by someone’s name.
As for the second bolded part. I agree 💯 and think this would be great, but as many here will tell you the United States is a two party system blah blah blah and I doubt those political interest groups known as the two major parties would ever let go of that power. I’m a fan of this in the form of ranked choice voting, but again in the very unimaginative American system of two party rule I don’t think ranked choice would sway things much because the pesky D and R would continue to be attached.
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
Post edited by static111 on
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,844
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
I have felt this way and said the same myself. But I have to say, the election this year and how I feel about anyone who voted for Trump puts this opinion to the most strenuous of tests. I'm having a very, very hard time believing anyone could vote for a man as despicable and of low moral character as Trump as not having many of those same characteristics. I won't go as far as to say "they do", but goddammit the notion of not lumping Trump voters together is wicked difficult!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
In response to the first bolded part, that would mean that this election wasn’t a referendum on trump, it was just another harmless (D) vs (R) presidential power struggle, decided by the majority that only care about the R or D by someone’s name.
As for the second bolded part. I agree 💯 and think this would be great, but as many here will tell you the United States is a two party system blah blah blah and I doubt those political interest groups known as the two major parties would ever let go of that power. I’m a fan of this in the form of ranked choice voting, but again in the very unimaginative American system of two party rule I don’t think ranked choice would sway things much because the pesky D and R would continue to be attached.
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
The referendum was about multiple issues, not just racial justice. His handling of COVID was his death knell. It's obvious when you look at Georgia that there was substantial ticket splitting. Once further analysis is done, i think it'll see more of that across the country. Looking at the house and senate, there's no evidence currently that the election was a referendum on republicans in general, rather than Trump
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
In response to the first bolded part, that would mean that this election wasn’t a referendum on trump, it was just another harmless (D) vs (R) presidential power struggle, decided by the majority that only care about the R or D by someone’s name.
As for the second bolded part. I agree 💯 and think this would be great, but as many here will tell you the United States is a two party system blah blah blah and I doubt those political interest groups known as the two major parties would ever let go of that power. I’m a fan of this in the form of ranked choice voting, but again in the very unimaginative American system of two party rule I don’t think ranked choice would sway things much because the pesky D and R would continue to be attached.
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
The referendum was about multiple issues, not just racial justice. His handling of COVID was his death knell. It's obvious when you look at Georgia that there was substantial ticket splitting. Once further analysis is done, i think it'll see more of that across the country. Looking at the house and senate, there's no evidence currently that the election was a referendum on republicans in general, rather than Trump
So if it was a referendum on Donnie boy, wouldn’t someone that voted for Trump be for trump and his policies? This is where I find the inability to separate ones support from a person as morally bankrupt and repugnant as Donald Trump from them at least having a passive approval of him and his policies. Any Trump voter I’ve talked to basically says something along the lines of I don’t care about all that other stuff I only care about (issue that pertains to me), how is that not giving approval to the rest of the malarkey?
How many people in 2020 do we think are truly ignorant to who Donald trump is? I would think the majority of his supporters know exactly who and what he is and just don’t care because (insert reason here).
Do I think every trump supporter is racist? No, but his racism isn’t a deal breaker for them either.
How many people in 2020 do we think are truly ignorant to who Donald trump is? I would think the majority of his supporters know exactly who and what he is and just don’t care because (insert reason here).
Do I think every trump supporter is racist? No, but his racism isn’t a deal breaker for them either.
That's a fine Pov but not the one expressed in the threads and not what i was arguing about. Further, last week sometime stated that anyone who voted for Trump was evil. I will argue with absurd statements on both sides.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
In response to the first bolded part, that would mean that this election wasn’t a referendum on trump, it was just another harmless (D) vs (R) presidential power struggle, decided by the majority that only care about the R or D by someone’s name.
As for the second bolded part. I agree 💯 and think this would be great, but as many here will tell you the United States is a two party system blah blah blah and I doubt those political interest groups known as the two major parties would ever let go of that power. I’m a fan of this in the form of ranked choice voting, but again in the very unimaginative American system of two party rule I don’t think ranked choice would sway things much because the pesky D and R would continue to be attached.
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
The referendum was about multiple issues, not just racial justice. His handling of COVID was his death knell. It's obvious when you look at Georgia that there was substantial ticket splitting. Once further analysis is done, i think it'll see more of that across the country. Looking at the house and senate, there's no evidence currently that the election was a referendum on republicans in general, rather than Trump
So if it was a referendum on Donnie boy, wouldn’t someone that voted for Trump be for trump and his policies? This is where I find the inability to separate ones support from a person as morally bankrupt and repugnant as Donald Trump from them at least having a passive approval of him and his policies. Any Trump voter I’ve talked to basically says something along the lines of I don’t care about all that other stuff I only care about (issue that pertains to me), how is that not giving approval to the rest of the malarkey?
Yes that’s exactly what they say. I’ve argued with my CEO 10x about this. All he cares about is the regulatory environment. I tell him I care about more than the p&l. All the race stuff is noise to him whereas the regulations are real. I try to convince him otherwise but I dont call him a racist or evil because first I don’t think he is and second it’s not going to be the argument that convinces him of his “folly”.
what's interesting to me is that "both sides" think their cause is righteous. the right thinks so about abortion and freedom. the left for oppression and, by extension, also freedom.
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
Where is the line for how bad things can get before the millions can be held accountable, or is there no such line? Were Germans not complicit until Dachau or was it slightly before or after? Were the people that didn’t think it would go that far less complicit? If Trump/Trumpism is not comparable then why did anyone campaign like it was?
i guess it depends on what you mean by 'accountable'? if you mean lumping them all in as racists and sexists and misogynists and whatnot, there is no line, because doing that is just a silly exercise and really helps no one.
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
The problem being that the votes are what give these people the power. The votes certainly come from somewhere. How is the person that is voted in to serve the interests of their constituency more accountable than his or her voting base?
BLM is a false equivalency. Last I checked BLM wasn’t a political party, but an ideology. There are currently no elected members of the BLM party that are calling for and allowing chaos. In addition if there were a BLM party that had members elected to the highest offices, calling for violence and standing idly by, and also getting re-elected while causing chaos I would say yes the people who voted for them are accountable. The thing is this is a fictional scenario that doesn’t exist, Trumpism however is alive and well and 70 million+ people voted for it. If this election was in fact a referendum on Donald trump, that means that a vote for Trump equals a vote in support for all that he stands for.
i was never trying to equate anything, as there really is no true equivalent to trumpism. just trying to get the closest possible example. the simple fact of the matter is a majority of the nation simply isn't engaged in politics. yes, they may vote, but they aren't on twitter, they have no or little awareness about his tweets, only possibly his policies because if they vote republican they are tuning into right leaning news sources and those don't report on his bullshit. or all they watch is local news that doesn't report on that stuff at all, or very little.
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
In response to the first bolded part, that would mean that this election wasn’t a referendum on trump, it was just another harmless (D) vs (R) presidential power struggle, decided by the majority that only care about the R or D by someone’s name.
As for the second bolded part. I agree 💯 and think this would be great, but as many here will tell you the United States is a two party system blah blah blah and I doubt those political interest groups known as the two major parties would ever let go of that power. I’m a fan of this in the form of ranked choice voting, but again in the very unimaginative American system of two party rule I don’t think ranked choice would sway things much because the pesky D and R would continue to be attached.
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
The referendum was about multiple issues, not just racial justice. His handling of COVID was his death knell. It's obvious when you look at Georgia that there was substantial ticket splitting. Once further analysis is done, i think it'll see more of that across the country. Looking at the house and senate, there's no evidence currently that the election was a referendum on republicans in general, rather than Trump
So if it was a referendum on Donnie boy, wouldn’t someone that voted for Trump be for trump and his policies? This is where I find the inability to separate ones support from a person as morally bankrupt and repugnant as Donald Trump from them at least having a passive approval of him and his policies. Any Trump voter I’ve talked to basically says something along the lines of I don’t care about all that other stuff I only care about (issue that pertains to me), how is that not giving approval to the rest of the malarkey?
Yes that’s exactly what they say. I’ve argued with my CEO 10x about this. All he cares about is the regulatory environment. I tell him I care about more than the p&l. All the race stuff is noise to him whereas the regulations are real. I try to convince him otherwise but I dont call him a racist or evil because first I don’t think he is and second it’s not going to be the argument that convinces him of his “folly”.
Sounds like we have the same approach to trying to discuss this with people. I still don’t understand the disconnect from the misogyny, bigotry and racism getting a pass, if someone I know says some dumb shit I try to call it out. If someone is ok with the potus stoking that climate in favor of their various economic and regulatory interests I just don’t understand how being ok with racism does not equal racism. I understand not calling someone a racist that may not understand that they are taking part in and enabling racist behavior and racism in favor of a long term argument to try to get someone to see the light. At a certain point how many times can we let people gloss over these issues in favor of our personal comfort and ease at work, home or our social groups because we don’t want to hurt their feelings by pointing out at the very least their racist enabling?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
each side thinks the other is fascist. there are actually examples where both could be considered true.
many on the left seem to give bill clinton a pass on his sexual history. just because they consider him a good president. i don't see anyone out there protesting him when he appears somewhere. they post pictures of him smiling with GWB (a man who started a war on false pretences, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and because of trump now seem to forget they used to call him a war criminal) and Obama, and seem to take great pride in doing so.
many, or most, on the left give obama a pass for his drone program that murdered how many innocent lives, but hey, collateral damage and all. he's the best president in history. ironically also got the nobel PEACE prize, even after blowing a wedding party of mostly women and children to bits.
trump is a piece of human garbage. but he is unapologetic about pandering to the evangelicals and their causes, and that is their main issue, so they support him no matter what he says or incites. does that make them all deplorable? in my opinion, absolutely not. people on both sides of the aisle will look at what their leaders have/have not done and decide where the line is that they won't cross. both sides allow their leaders transgressions if they consider it to be of their own personal or societal or global greater good.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, labelling an entire group comprised of millions of people based on their support of one man and a few of the issues he promotes, is both lazy and ignorant.
do i personally believe both sides are the same? no, i don't, but while i do my best to be objective, we're all partisan, myself included. but i also don't lump every single person in with those that do whatever damage it is they do. it's not guilty by association. especially with the sheer numbers we're talking about here.
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
should we lump all BLM folks with the looters and rioters, so basically saying if you support black lives, then you are a criminal and part of a terrorist ideology? that's as preposterous as it sounds.
should we lump all mccain supporters in with those that had signs "hang in there, obama" with a picture of him in a noose?
the only people you can hold accountable are the ones in office or his employ that supported his policies and rhetoric. graham and cruz come to mind. and basically the rest of his admin (mceneny is one of the worst at the moment) that are still doubling down on his dangerous election fraud BS. don't buy their books. don't hire them into cushy media political analyst jobs; nothing.
www.headstonesband.com
bliss is attractive
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
i'd be curious if there was any studies done on how many people go to the voting booths not even knowing the names of the down ballot candidates, that they only vote based on the letter next to their name. i honestly think that it would serve the public better if those letters were removed. it might help getting people more engaged and actually knowing the issues instead of just the party they've been voting for the last 30 years.
www.headstonesband.com
I think that we have a failed political system that was designed by the political and financial elite of centuries ago that served their needs well, but needs updating to serve the diverse population and equitable needs of today. As we have seen over the course of the last 40 years all of the inherent weaknesses of our system have slowly been exploited to get us here. I’m not certain that this system will hold but I hope my country is bold enough to bring about some sort of realignment. That is going to take acknowledgment of the nastiest most hateful and racist parts before that healing can begin. Can we collectively look inward for the amount of time that will take, or will we just continue limping along, because like so many of our corporations we have just become to big to fail?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I have felt this way and said the same myself. But I have to say, the election this year and how I feel about anyone who voted for Trump puts this opinion to the most strenuous of tests. I'm having a very, very hard time believing anyone could vote for a man as despicable and of low moral character as Trump as not having many of those same characteristics. I won't go as far as to say "they do", but goddammit the notion of not lumping Trump voters together is wicked difficult!
them at least having a passive approval of him and his policies. Any Trump voter I’ve talked to basically says something along the lines of I don’t care about all that other stuff I only care about (issue that pertains to me), how is that not giving approval to the rest of the malarkey?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Do I think every trump supporter is racist? No, but his racism isn’t a deal breaker for them either.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden