I don't buy the 'both sides' POV except in the longest historical view. Right now it's just not true.
One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago, and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
>One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago
What is this referring to?
>and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
>It's just not the same.
What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I was responding the effort to paint the two sides as equal.
The cycle-of-reprisals is a separate point. In a two-party system, transfer of power means change. The minority party will always paint that as reprisal, so if you judge by who-complains-the-loudest, they will look the same. The churn of claims and counter-claims by politicians in the media has become a game with very predictable behaviors.
But if you look at actions, IMO they behave very differently.
> What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
>I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
Jailing Hitler sure stopped his movement in its tracks! Or maybe we should have gone even further and set a precedent for to jail people for decades for having "dangerous" political opinions?
While I agree that the question of "are we jailing this person for their political opinions" gets into skeevy areas, if we refuse to enforce laws just because elections and politics are involved we might as well not have any laws that involve elections and politics (and I don't think "lawlessness starts at the top" is a recipe for a healthy society).
> It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
Then I suppose the situation will get worse? I don't understand the point of your analysis. This isn't a situation where people are swatting away olive branches - the Trump administration works hard to ensure that their political opponents are furious at them. They repeatedly state, in a variety of contexts, that they have no interest in finding common ground with the other party: it's good that you're miserable if you don't agree with their political objectives, and if you get in their way you deserve to be shot.
A consequence of that large political movement and its leaders is that numerous people have been murdered. MAGA can't wash its hands of the consequences of its beliefs and actions.
There were hundreds of prosecutions. Then SCOTUS declared the president immune. Then the bad guy got reelected and pardoned everyone. Then started launched truly malicious prosecutions of political enemies. Cases which thankfully are dying due to lack of merit.
One side is doing all the bad things and the other is simply struggling to stop them. Being cynical helps nothing.
I'm curious why you edited your comment? To appear more rational while making irrational tropes?
> Only one side
If you're going to use that tired old trope, maybe Reddit is a more suitable
place for you. Thanks for reminding me to add it to my blocklist though.
Why is it impossible for most people (more specifically Americans in my experience) to act in good faith during political discussion? You can't even admit wrongdoing or poor phrasing without them twisting your words or deliberately misunderstanding you.
we just saw the biden admin not do that, and the polarization only grew. They very specifically slow walked their investigation into trump's treason, so they wouldnt have to Nuremberg him.
trump mind you, is nuremburging non-voters. they dont exactly have side beyond trying to work and eat
The two sides aren't remotely the same. One side has become authoritarian and shifted far to the right. The current administration is seeking to undermine liberal democracy to give the executive all the meaningful power to enact Christian nationalism. It's also a cult of personality where the president can do no wrong, and anyone who defies him gets sent death threats.
I don't buy the 'both sides' POV except in the longest historical view. Right now it's just not true.
One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago, and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
It's just not the same.
>One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago
What is this referring to?
>and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
>It's just not the same.
What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I was responding the effort to paint the two sides as equal.
The cycle-of-reprisals is a separate point. In a two-party system, transfer of power means change. The minority party will always paint that as reprisal, so if you judge by who-complains-the-loudest, they will look the same. The churn of claims and counter-claims by politicians in the media has become a game with very predictable behaviors.
But if you look at actions, IMO they behave very differently.
> What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
>I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
Jailing Hitler sure stopped his movement in its tracks! Or maybe we should have gone even further and set a precedent for to jail people for decades for having "dangerous" political opinions?
While I agree that the question of "are we jailing this person for their political opinions" gets into skeevy areas, if we refuse to enforce laws just because elections and politics are involved we might as well not have any laws that involve elections and politics (and I don't think "lawlessness starts at the top" is a recipe for a healthy society).
It did! They let him go!
Jailing Hitler did stop the movement. It was only that he was given a light sentence and was released that he was able to complete his evil.
Trump would have lost in 2024 if he was running from prison for his crimes against the country.
"Retaliation" is the wrong framing. We have laws, we should follow them. When we don't is when we have these issues.
> It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
Then I suppose the situation will get worse? I don't understand the point of your analysis. This isn't a situation where people are swatting away olive branches - the Trump administration works hard to ensure that their political opponents are furious at them. They repeatedly state, in a variety of contexts, that they have no interest in finding common ground with the other party: it's good that you're miserable if you don't agree with their political objectives, and if you get in their way you deserve to be shot.
Only one side is using a federal police force to murder citizens.
And the other side teases prosecution and never follows through
MAGA literally murdered a politician in Minnesota…
A Trump supporter murdered a politician in Minnesota, not "MAGA"
Tomato tomata
It is a massive difference of wording. Saying 'MAGA' suggests a large political movement/politicians committed a murder.
A consequence of that large political movement and its leaders is that numerous people have been murdered. MAGA can't wash its hands of the consequences of its beliefs and actions.
There were hundreds of prosecutions. Then SCOTUS declared the president immune. Then the bad guy got reelected and pardoned everyone. Then started launched truly malicious prosecutions of political enemies. Cases which thankfully are dying due to lack of merit.
One side is doing all the bad things and the other is simply struggling to stop them. Being cynical helps nothing.
[flagged]
I'm curious why you edited your comment? To appear more rational while making irrational tropes?
It is not a trope but a statement of fact.I thought better of that quoted paragraph as it contained little substance and was just rude goading, which is ironically what you are doing.
How dare you quote me!
Why is it impossible for most people (more specifically Americans in my experience) to act in good faith during political discussion? You can't even admit wrongdoing or poor phrasing without them twisting your words or deliberately misunderstanding you.
we just saw the biden admin not do that, and the polarization only grew. They very specifically slow walked their investigation into trump's treason, so they wouldnt have to Nuremberg him.
trump mind you, is nuremburging non-voters. they dont exactly have side beyond trying to work and eat
The two sides aren't remotely the same. One side has become authoritarian and shifted far to the right. The current administration is seeking to undermine liberal democracy to give the executive all the meaningful power to enact Christian nationalism. It's also a cult of personality where the president can do no wrong, and anyone who defies him gets sent death threats.
[dead]
[flagged]