Being a centrist, I can definitely understand the desire for more conservative policies, and a rejection of more liberal policies. What has been tough for me personally, though, is to see a person as amoral as Trump get so much support. I DO agree that Trump has done some good things, things that before him neither the left nor the right was willing to do in a substantial way (mainly his forcing a re-evaluation of our relationship with China). But his utter (and ongoing) disregard for our democratic system, his incessant lying, the fact that all he cares about is loyalty to him but gives no loyalty in return, the insane narcissism, treating the Justice Dept. like his personal legal firm, etc., etc.. I just find it disgusting on every level.
That said, the recent Sam Harris podcast really helped me understand his appeal. And I hope (but am not hopeful) that the left tries to mend their ways by refraining from pushing (mainly white, straight men, but also others, like the religious) many further from the Democratic party.
I had a Lyft driver on a business trip in Pennsylvania recently who was a very nice fellow. He was immunocompromised, worried about COVID, and said he hated Trump's character.
And yet, he said he was voting for Trump. Why? Because Joe Biden was a pedophile whose son f~~ked underage Chinese children and took money from a Ukranian dictator to influence US policy.
He saw Biden as more amoral than Trump. I think this is a significant demographic block that's been ignored, because the media class doesn't really meet with people of these sort. He was extremely convinced, and I'm sure he really believed it. He really seemed upset about the moral quandary of voting for Trump vs. voting for a pedophile.
The media class is not ignoring these people. It's getting really rich feeding them this poison. The media class consists of more than just a few large center-left outlets.
The media is not center left. Neoconservatise(Fox) and neoliberal(CNN/NYT) are different shades of right. We are watching different points of view of right wing politics argue. Wall street vs petrochemical companies vs SV, etc... all jostling for position. And all of these people with quite a bit of overlapping interests but slightly different focus i.e. foreign intervention but should the pentagon focus on M.E. destabilization or for African and S.A. lithium?
Remember: the thing about neoliberalism is that it ain't new, and it ain't liberal.
NYT follows the narrative supportive of the corporate agenda writ large, not because of an active choice about what it does write about, but because of the glaringly newsworthy things it ignores: like ongoing imperialism and terrorism committed by the US all over the world. This is true for most all major news orgs in the US.
Does supporting far right coups and writing context free puff pieces like this(constantly)[1] after a massive turnout for the very left wing party that the NYT railed against seem center left? Or, their uncritical push for the war in Iraq. Or their complete silence on the United State's role in Yemen etc... They write articles like this weekly, if that is not neoliberal then what is it?
Fair point. I was surprised at my blind spot, which I think I have because my media consumption consists mostly of the centrist media outlets you refer to.
I never realized how influential Bitchute QAnon believers are or One America News Network is either (mainly due to social media algorithms running haywire).
Please stop repeating the same comment, silently editing it, and deleting it when it's downvoted? You're very clearly not going to get any substantive replies.
Biden won because people have legitimate issues with Trump. Deride it as "the propaganda machine" and other nonsense all you like. But this administration has a mind-boggling amount of documented fact-checked lies, clear nepotism, a history of censoring government agencies and intimidating federal employees who disagree, and putting out some of the most absurd propaganda we've seen in this country in modern history. It's astounding that this administration's chief complaints about the other side are always exemplified by the administration themselves. And people mindlessly repeat it without a shred of irony.
> anything pro-Trump being consistently flagged which is so fitting of your liberal friends.
That's simply not true. There are pro-Trump comments here that are not being flagged or downvoted into oblivion. But they're the substantive comments that aren't full of baseless claims about Trump being the victim of conspiracies and abuse.
I'm really glad I saw that comment, because it's good to know people can look past their bias to see the very terrible thing that happened to our democratic process to give you the outcome you feel is good.
We need reconciliation, but it will never happen until we're at least willing to look at the facts objectively and realize we just witnessed a type of coup.
I didn't vote for Trump or Biden. I am talking about confidence in the process. GOP workers were thrown out of polls in PA and NV. There are due process violations. There are 6,000 votes that went the wrong way in one MI county due to software "glitchs" and that software is used in 45 counties. At least 7,000 dead people have voted in Michigan and officials are finding more all the time.
I am concerned with the integrity of the process. I have never believe US elections were fair. I would prefer they were. The irregularities here are massive. PA literally violated an order from Justice Alito going into this election, and that cause will very likely go back to the Supreme Court.
I know you want your side to win, but do you want it at this cost? The integrity of the system is in jeopardy. The media doesn't decide elections. There is a process, starting with certifying the results, electors being selected, those electors voting in the capitol and the House voting based on those electors. None of that has happened yet, and we've never had the news media "call" an election with this much up in the air.
> slandered by the mainstream media as racist evil orange man
He tweeted a video of a man yelling "White Power." Now, you can say that was "an accident", but it was up for four hours!
Our president is always reachable, by definition, and he has people who watch media like a hawk, so if it was accidental, four hours for removal would make zero sense. So Trump's racism is not a fabricated media narrative, it's directly provable with verifiable evidence.
> Why? Because Joe Biden was a pedophile whose son f~~ked underage Chinese children and took money from a Ukranian dictator to influence US policy.
In other words, voting for Trump because "samy is my hero." :)
Could there be a class action lawsuit against the various companies whose recommendation engines hijacked people's attention to recommend and reinforce this garbage?
> Could there be a class action lawsuit against the various companies whose recommendation engines hijacked people's attention to recommend and reinforce this garbage?
People like to hand-wring about "the algorithm", but then they seem to fall short[1] of understanding that exposure, impressions, and engagement are sold to the highest bidders on social media platforms. Not only that, the platforms allow fine-grained targeting of users based on tomes of data collected on them.
These recommender systems don't just hijack people's attentions as a side effect of increasing engagement, it is by design in pathologically manipulative and anti-user way.
It isn't a coincidence that those with money and an agenda[2] can inject money into social media platforms and have their content spread like wildfire.
> Could there be a class action lawsuit against the various companies whose recommendation engines hijacked people's attention to recommend and reinforce this garbage?
I think this thought is spot on.
The usual defense is "but free speech!". Which would boil down to: "such is human nature". But I don't believe that's the problem. The problem may indeed be selection and amplification mechanisms like recommendation engines tuned to divert max. attention to the medium, masterfully exploiting the vulnerabilities of the human psyche as evolution formed it. The rest is collateral damage which nobody seems to feel responsible for. Not a sustainable situation.
A good legal question is whether the selection/rejection of content by an algorithm tuned to provide financial benefit to the platform would be considered "editorial control".
If there were a dead simple filter where the user could pick friend groups, tags and sorting criteria to tune their feed this would not be an issue. Reddit, for instance seems relatively simple in that respect- the presentation is a function of the subreddit and the votes.
But once the algorithm is driven by sponsorships, monetization opportunities, and opaque surveillance data then the control of the presentation shifts from user to platform. One could argue that this should creates some liability on the part of the platform.
If the editor of a publication was monetarily compensated for publishing lucrative slander, in a manner designed to maximize its credibility with certain audiences, and it resulted in harm to people then they arguable could be held responsible. If the editor claimed that an algorithm decided to publish it and the publication developed the algorithm I don't think it would make them less responsible.
>> From Parade Magazine, September 10, 1989 – As I got off the plane, he was waiting for me, holding up a sign with my name on it. I was on my way to a conference of scientists and TV broadcasters, and the organizers had kindly sent a driver.
>> "Do you mind if I ask you a question?" He said as we waited for my bag. "Isn't it confusing to have the same name as that science guy?"
>> It took me a moment to understand. Was he pulling my leg? "I am that science guy," I said. He smiled. "Sorry. That's my problem. I thought it was yours too." He put out his hand. "My name is William F. Buckley." (Well, his name wasn't exactly William F. Buckley, but he did have the name of a contentious TV interviewer, for which he doubtless took a lot of good-natured ribbing.)
>> As we settled into the car for the long drive, he told me he was glad I was "that science guy" -- he had so many questions to ask about science. Would I mind? And so we got to talking. But not about science. He wanted to discuss UFOs, "channeling" (a way to hear what's on the minds of dead people -- not much it turns out), crystals, astrology ... He introduced each subject with real enthusiasm, and each time I had to disappoint him: "The evidence is crummy," I kept saying. "There's a much simpler explanation." As we drove on through the rain, I could see him getting glummer. I was attacking not just pseudoscience but also a facet of his inner life.
>> And yet there is so much in real science that's equally exciting, more mysterious, a greater intellectual challenge--as well as being a lot closer to the truth. Did he know about the molecular building blocks of life sitting out there in the cold tenuous gas between the stars? Had he heard of the footprints of our ancestors found in 4-mil-lion-year-old volcanic ash? What about the raising of the Himalayas when India went crashing into Asia? Or how viruses subvert cells, or the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence or the ancient civilization of Ebla? Mr. "Buckley" -- well-spoken, intelligent, curious -- had heard virtually nothing of modem science. He wanted to know about science. It's just that all the science got filtered out before it reached him. What the society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretense and confusion. And it had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation.
He does touch children very inappropriately. And YouTube actively pushes those videos to the very back of search. They're more difficult to find and they're creepy. They don't prove anything, but they're not good.
There is plenty of real hard evidence than Hunter was used to peddle influence and spread corruption, and the media completed censored all of that information, from one of the oldest newspapers in the country:
No doubt the whole matter isn't clean. At those upper echelons I think it's very hard to not be corrupt.
Joe Biden's touchiness does bother me, as does the Hunter Biden story. But I don't think that's anywhere near what my driver was talking about, and I also don't think Trump is better when it comes to sexually inappropriate behaviour or corruption.
My driver also brought up Pizzagate and other such (nearly unequivocally) debunked conspiracy theories, which makes me suspicious of his reasoning capabilities.
I really detest the conservative vs. liberal duality.
Conservatism is not comparable to liberalism. They are not alternatives. It just means a desire to maintain the status quo. The opposite of conservatism is progressivism, not liberalism.
In fact most Republicans in the US are liberal-democrats.
I mean, I don't disagree with you, but I feel you are missing my primary point, which is that I have no problem with people that have a strong preference for current Republican policy positions (or, on the flip side, Democratic).
My problem is that Trump is just a man of such awful character that it hurts to see how many supported him, regardless of policy preferences. I have never felt this way about any previous president, Republican or Democrat.
When considering a person of "awful character," a lot of people make the rational decision to nonetheless value the benefit of 320 million people as more important than retribution against that one person, if that person's policies benefit the rest.
But that's my point - a huge percentage of Trump supporters (not all, but probably a majority) don't support Trump for his policy positions. Indeed, there are large numbers of people who voted Republican in the past who love Trump despite the fact that Trump has done a complete 180 on policy items that used to be core Republican positions: support of free trade and being against protectionism and tariffs, support for foreign wars, containment of Russia, etc.
Most support for Trump is at a deep, emotional level (to be fair, strong support for leadership usually is).
There was certainly an "anyone but Hillary" contingent, but I think you'll find by actually talking to these people that the venn diagram overlap between that circle and the "actually likes Trump's policies" circle is about 99%.
A lot of the points you mentioned are points that people who were not Left, have come to move past on the Right. The Right has changed. Trump does support free trade - if the US is not taken advantage of. Foreign wars are something everyone's tired of. Russia as a major threat is not something people take seriously, unless it's used to influence people against Trump. Etc.
Many on the right would classify the points you mentioned as "neocon" or "neoliberal," something they've always been uncomfortable with and seen as an infection of the party and had to grudgingly accept without alternative, until Trump.
Support for Trump is at a deep, emotional level for many. But certainly not in spite of his policy positions. If anything, his policy positions reinforce that emotion for most of his supporters.
The people most in need of good policy, at the price of an acceptable nonchalance regarding a president's mere presentability - minorities - made their voices heard by voting for Trump. Every single minority demographic voted in higher numbers for Trump this election over last. The only demographic to vote for him less? White men. And that made the difference.
The privileged have the benefit of being able to vote based on presentability. The rest of the population cannot afford to in the same way.
I feel like you're glossing over the fact that minority groups still voted overwhelmingly against Trump, just slightly less overwhelmingly than before.
It is certainly something to recognize, that minorities generally held up that pattern. But the point I'm trying to make is about how peoples' minds changed after 4 years of experiencing an actual Trump presidency. Minorities moved towards him, and only white men moved away. That seems quite notable to me.
I think it's less notable than the media is making it out to be. In 2016, Trump was an unknown quantity to minorities. It was presumed that as a conservative xenophobe with racially charged rhetoric he was a monstrous individual, and people voted on that mere presumption. In 2020 the majority people of color still believed that he was unsuitable, and hence voted accordingly. But people's lives are not monolithic. Some minorities, regardless of group, prospered on a personal level over the past 4 years. They did better, their families did better, they were not dissatisfied with their lives under Trump. For some of those people, that personal reality took priority over what some call "tribal" politics. So they voted for more of the same.
It's for basically that reason that incumbent politicians are usually favored to win. As long as people's lives go generally okay, they want to stick with the devil they know.
> I think it's less notable than the media is making it out to be.
Really? From my perspective, the media has not noted it at all. I had to notice it in a Twitter stream before it disappeared down my feed forever, to know these statistics. It seems more notable than zero, and therefore to me more notable than the media is making it out to be.
I don't disagree with the rest of your comment. Peoples' lives were determined to be better under Trump, so they voted to keep it. Privileged people with the benefit of discounting quality of life bumps that were significant to others but insignificant to themselves, were more likely to vote based on appearances.
The massive turnout efforts likely had something to do with this.
For instance if black men who support Republicans very grudgingly (enough not to vote say) are swept up in a broader wash of getting all black men to vote more, you’d see that pattern.
Another reading of the data is that these were votes against Biden/Harris or protest votes against the Democratic party for their lack of more aggressive action on racial justice.
Or it’s all of these things. One of the thing about every 4 year elections is it’s hard to interpret trend data. Especially not 5 days later.
> For instance if black men who support Republicans very grudgingly (enough not to vote say) are swept up in a broader wash of getting all black men to vote more, you’d see that pattern
Why? There is no reason for this assertion. There are equally likely begrudging black democrats, and higher turnout doesn't necessarily lean towards a side. You'd expect higher numbers in equal proportions on both sides, all else being equal.
> Another reading of the data is that these were votes against Biden/Harris or protest votes against the Democratic party for their lack of more aggressive action on racial justice
Yes. Away from Biden is functionally equivalent to towards Trump if that's how the votes were placed. That's saying what I'm saying, in part
It is probably to mistake to lump together different minority groups as I imagine the issues that move them are very diverse.
I am not sure that the increases say much about Trump's actual policies outside of his stance on shutdowns and Covid which has had a tremendous negative effect on the Economy.
I think a certain segment of the population probably saw Biden as too much of an insider who will deliver more of the same.
I am not lumping them together at all. The statistic is more specifically interesting about white men than about other demographics. That the other groups moved in unison speaks to a deeper, more fundamental and more universally-applicable quality of life analysis for all Americans under Trump. The situation shows that things like low unemployment have broad appeal, and can overcome identity politics. Strangely, however, that overcoming is more true for the minorities themselves than for the supposed systemic promulgators of oppression!
The whites are having identity shouting matches with each other while the minorities they supposedly are trying to be considerate of, move in the opposite direction.
That is fascinating. Could you point me towards some of his policies that benefit minorities? Genuinely interested. I'm also in agreement with you that most people who vote for Trump do so in spite of his character, not because of it.
A good amount of people of color remember that Joe Biden was behind the 1995 three-strikes bill that heavily penalized nuisance crime, that he was behind the 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it impossible to have student loans written off in bankruptcy, and he was vice president in 2008 when Obama let the banks off with taps on the wrist after wrecking the economy. Oh, yes, the War On Drugs, too. Lots of people with a prison sentence over some marijuana.
It's not that Trump had a track record of doing things that benefitted non-white people, it's that Biden has a sustained track record of actually causing serious harm and people have not forgotten.
This makes more sense to me than beaner's argument that minorities think they will directly benefit from Trump's policies. Also bear in mind that Trump previously fought against a Clinton, and the Clintons are supposed to be specifically popular among some ethnic minorities.
> The people most in need of good policy, at the price of an acceptable nonchalance regarding a president's mere presentability - minorities - made their voices heard by voting for Trump. Every single minority demographic voted in higher numbers for Trump this election over last. The only demographic to vote for him less? White men. And that made the difference.
Can you share your source for this? (this is not a challenge, I'm genuinely interested in digging deeper into the data myself)
"The black male vote for trump increased from 13% in 2016 to 18% this year"
"The black female vote for Trump doubled from 4% in 2016 to 8% this year"
"Exit polls show a majority of white women voting for Trump. (Important note: Pew analysis of actual votes in 2016 showed that it wasn’t a majority but was a plurality.)"
"The percentage of LGBT voting for Trump doubled from 2016"
"The percentage of Latinos and Asians voting for Trump increased from 2016"
> core Republican positions: support of free trade and being against protectionism and tariffs
This is not the case, as (or at least has not been since Reagan) there have been 2 main tools of regulating/restricting foreign imports by Republicans: Tariffs and Quotas. Both have different tradeoffs.
“the share of American imports covered by some sort of trade restriction soared under ‘free-trader’ Reagan, moving from only 8 percent in 1975 to 21 percent by 1984.”
Political designations are contextual, not universal. Liberals call themselves liberals and most people in the country understand what that means. Definitions used in other countries are irrelevant.
They are really not contextual. Americans need to understand each others perspectives if they hope to ever come together. Understanding the political philosophies of liberalism, democratism, socialism, fascism, and anarchism is important. Those philosophies don't change from one country to the next, even if they translate into different sets of policies.
Different countries can have different challenges and circumstances facing them. The philosophy is framework to draft policies from, not a blueprint for how to run a community.
> And I hope (but am not hopeful) that the left tries to mend their ways by refraining from pushing many (mainly white, straight men, but also others, like the religious) further from the Democratic party.
>> Both sides could do with a culling of the old and an infusion of new blood.
Don't know if I could have come up with a better example of the unhelpful language I'm talking about if I tried. Why would some white guy, say, in his 50s want to be on board with your "culling of the old" rhetoric?
I already said culling was a bad word for what I wanted to convey: I meant kicking out the old guard with new capable, smart, energized younger people who haven’t been bought by lobbyists yet or resigned themselves to campaigning most of the time they’re in office to just stay in office.
Maybe, but presumably you want to see her on a ticket because you support her policies right now. If a more moderate candidate is what you want, then why not support someone who's already moderate?
> left tries to mend their ways by refraining from pushing (mainly white, straight men, but also others, like the religious) many further from the Democratic party.
Genuine question: how can this be done without giving up on the people who don't match that description?
That is the million dollar question, and honestly I don't really know, but would love insightful discussion on this topic.
I thought the Sam Harris podcast really hit the nail on the head. The messaging from the left for the past 10-15 years has really had very little to offer straight, white men at a psychological level. The rhetoric is pretty constant around wanting more diversity as a first, primary goal (meaning fewer straight white men), constant talk of privilege (you should be ashamed not just for trying to take pride in your own accomplishments, but you're guilty of your parents' and grandparents' sins as well), hyper-vigilance against language that has even the slightest resemblance to a color or culture (no more master branch for you), doing things once seen as "manly" is now filtered through the lens of "toxic masculinity".
And to be clear, I don't even disagree with many of these ideas. But in a democracy why should we be shocked when people vote in their own selfish interest?
But like, Harris is not exactly eager to care about my psychological needs - I am woman. Instead, he would mock my wish to not be looked down or not be reminded that i an lesser half the time.
The toxic masculinity thing is milder then everything i listened about feminity and anything feminine growing up. And plus it is tempered by boys are actually better thing that definitely still exist.
You can support people of color without actively denigrating straight white men.
Or, you know, we could stop focusing on race, gender and sexuality so fucking much.
The most important thing about a person in 2020 is their race it seems. Followed closely by their gender and sexual orientation. That is what needs to change.
> Does this mean giving up on attempting to prosecute police officers who murder citizens?
I'm not sure how your response there follows at all from the GP's comment of "You can support people of color without actively denigrating straight white men", and indeed I feel like this is a clear example of what I'm thinking about.
It follows because "supporting people of color" is an empty statement if it isn't backed by policies, some of which are quite different from the status quo.
The truth is you can't support people of color without having straight white men feel denigrated. Because as soon as you support people of color the straight white men show up with tiki torches shouting about how they won't be replaced. Equality is not acceptable for these people.
Not "Black Lives Matter" but "stop Police Violence". Not "Believe All Women" but "Believe Victims". Not "Affirmative action for non-white non-Asians" but "Affirmative action for the poor" (hint: every discrimination is positive for someone and negative for someone else).
I'm a straight white man (of a certain age) and support for people of colour doesn't make me feel denigrated... Two points we are not all the same... and really we aren't a we at all!
Joe Biden won the primary because he was the least divisive. White men have no "cards" to play. They can't play the LGBT card, the race card or the gender card - so they by default have the biggest tent. Until we stop with identity politics it will always be this way.
If you hang out in LGBT and general non-conforming circles, you will realize that the white male position is the societal default, and it is nowhere near neutral - it is assumed to be only by those who have never realized that there are other possible default positions.
Some white men are beginning to see that their bubble is breaking.
Expectations about what constitutes being qualified for leadership positions. The automatic deferring to old men as authority figures over other people (trans people have direct experience). The way most many carry out competition. The idea of stoic sternness as being the ideal. Tone and voice.
Trans people who express themselves as male have a ton of interesting anecdotes about how they were suddenly seen as more competent just for being men.
Yes absolutely. Mugabe of Zimbabwe is well known for illegitimately taking land from white farmers and forcefully redistributing it, and has been repeatedly called out for this. We shouldn't be surprised that when a President has more to do with Mugabe than Reagan that he will be called out on it.
I don't think that's a "debating in good faith" interpretation of the parent comment, which was clearly talking about moving beyond identity politics. That is, if you demand on identity politics, the "identity" that is going to be the biggest is the US for the near future is straight white people. If you really do want the biggest possible tent, as you suggest, we'll likely need to move beyond identity politics.
I honestly don't believe this is a serious question, and anyone paying any attention over the last 4 years couldn't believe it is a serious question either.
Basically, Trump's only concern about Covid was how it would affect his re-election chances. And this isn't just some "disgruntled staffer". Basically everything she says backs up Trump's own public pronouncements of only seeing Covid as some politically motivated attack, instead of one of the most serious threats facing our nation in decades.
Trump has been extremely transparent that he only views events as how they will help or hurt him. That's a very fair definition of amoral to me.
This is fake news. Trump was one of the first Western leaders that reacted to COVID, closing the borders to China back in February. He was relentlessly mocked as a result, accused of being racist.
> On Jan. 31, the Trump administration declared a public health emergency for the novel coronavirus and announced travel restrictions to and from China, effective Feb. 2.
Your own reference proves it’s anything but fake news. That link states right off the bat that banning travel was virtually useless. He’s on record with Bob Woodward talking about how he knew the virus is serious but he wanted to avoid ‘panic’. If Trump spent a fraction of the energy he’s devoting to without any proof undermining our voting he would have been re-elected free and clear.
The often-repeated claim was that he didn’t do anything, that he ignored or downplayed it. That isn’t true.
Its true that the problem was virtually unsolvable regardless of policy for pretty much every Western country (except a few small / sparsely populated islands), the virus started spreading way before it was detected, but that’s hindsight.
This is the viewpoint that confuses me, depending on what you mean by “default” behaviour. Do you think the everyday altruism displayed by people are exceptions? Or do you believe those people aren’t actually being nice to you/others and have ulterior motives? Such a viewpoint must make the world look like a very sad place indeed.
You may argue that altruism is actually in self-interest, by making you feel good, but that’s circular logic[1].
>"Do you think the everyday altruism displayed by people are exceptions"
Not exceptions but ratio of altruistic vs self-centric actions would be I think less than 1%. That is based on my life time experience. Maybe somebody else has better one.
As for the world being a sad place: well it is. The amount of people in need is staggering.
The point of politicians and especially leaders is that they are supposed to represent a group of people, and represent their best interests, not their own. If you just want to boost your own interests, then go into business and leave public service to those who are better suited to it.
that is the scary thing that debate is not allowed. biden voted laws that he is now opposed how is it not viewing event as how it will help or hurt him?
same for fracking right he changed his mind in a few month, same for black people that his laws and kamala harris jailed for small possession while she was joking on radio that of course she was smoking weed because she was jamaican.
the contradiction is that you give a pass for some people but not for donald trump only by pure political opinion.
> when you say "Amoral" some facts backing it up would be appreciated
It depends on the definition of amoral that each one has
For many people, dating porn stars while married would be a good definition... but some adults have open marriages, that's true.
Most people in the planet would say that snatching babies from their parents (and basically laughing about it) is definitely amoral. Double bonus if you do it while accusing other to conspire to kidnap children without showing any proof of that.
And telling citizens for months to go out unprotected in the middle of a potentially lethal disease, when you are fully aware of the danger and after more than 200.000 people died for this disease, is not much better.
actually im here rooting for the idea that one should judge every man same. which is clearly not what is happening in america seeing how we give up discussing any sensitive topics about biden and harris more than despicable past on how they treated minorities vs donald trump. why do you think donald trump got more minorities votes this year than in 2016?
I'm sorry I didn't realize Biden and Harris took out full page ads calling for the death of innocent black men and still to this day refuse to apologize.
that is very factual indeed. children in cages and family separation are not a trump policy but an american policy and obama and previous president did it too.
that leaves us with covid testing. On June 21st, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McAnany was asked to verify if Trump had ordered testing to be slowed down. She responded, “No, he has not directed that. Any suggestion that testing has been curtailed is not rooted in fact.” She added, “The president was trying to expose what the media often times does, they ignore the fact that the US has more cases because we have more testing.” She added, “It’s a fact the media readily ignores.”
When asked to clarify that the comment Trump made about slowing down testing wasn’t true, McEnany responded, “It was a comment that he made in jest, a comment he made in passing, specifically with regard to the media coverage...when you test more people, you find more cases.” so not a fact.
see. im probably gonna be downvoted for this because people are not factual and just hate the guy and while there are reasons to hate him they need to be concrete and real
"children in cages" is just reductive way of saying 'a policy of forced family separation'. It's seems pretty apparent that cruelty is a key part of Trump's immigration policy when you have his lawyers arguing in court that soap and toothpaste aren't requisite for sanitary conditions.
Obama did not separate asylum seeking families as policy. Child migrants who came here alone were processed like other migrants. Separating small children from their families is, in my opinion, a moral abomination. The justification for this policy was to deter migration by punishing them and their children. It's wrong.
> Obama did not separate asylum seeking families as policy. Child migrants who came here alone were processed like other migrants.
No, that isn't how it works. The policy is that children gets torn away from their family if the family gets prosecuted for a crime. That policy existed long before Trump. The only thing that changed under Trump was removal of lenience against parents, meaning parents now got prosecuted at same rate as other border crossers.
Yes, In the last 4 years while Trump was in charge it was. He had enough time and political resources and green light at senate. Could have stopped it at any time. He didn't.
That said, the recent Sam Harris podcast really helped me understand his appeal. And I hope (but am not hopeful) that the left tries to mend their ways by refraining from pushing (mainly white, straight men, but also others, like the religious) many further from the Democratic party.