Urban liberal that I am, I have a message and a proposal for you, my MAGA neighbors. I propose that we make a pact. I like the word “pact.” It comes from the Latin “pax” meaning peace, and that is precisely what I am offering here, a peace proposal. Let me explain.
I’ve meant to reach out to you earlier, ever since the 2016 election season, when you seemed to come out of nowhere. I feel some urgency to connect now, though, because there is something that is bothering me. More and more I’m hearing the term “civil war” tossed around, and recently by more mainstream voices. I’m sure you’re hearing it too and it seems that all that talk is really about war of some kind between us, you and me. It is talk that presumes that there is so much animosity between us that we are on the cusp of committing violence against each other on a broad and sustained scale that we are on the cusp of war.
As we speak the horror and brutality of war unfolds daily in Ukraine. Although not a civil war as most understand that term, the violence and suffering there offers us stark warning for us, a warning about what can happen when grievances over national identity are not resolved peacefully. With Ukraine as our backdrop, can you even imagine being at war, any kind of war, with your fellow-citizens?
I can’t.
As Americans we have some familiarity with actual civil war, don’t we? And given our history, how misguided would we be to allow that to happen again? After all, from our first (and to date only) civil war, we know that our country was brought to its knees: five years of bloody slaughter, some 800,000 dead, many more wounded and disabled, whole towns wiped off the map, a decimated citizenry and economy. The scars of the Civil War – economic, psychological, social and cultural – lingered for decades. Some linger still.
Of course, a civil war like our first or a war like that in Ukraine, with standing armies and well-defined geographic and ideological dividing lines, isn’t likely. But how reassuring is that given the deep vein of political hostility, of rage really, that currently pulses through our country? As sure as we might be that we won’t see again a clash of standing armies on American soil, are we as certain that we won’t see marauding militia groups with competing agendas threatening each other, or threatening the most heavily armed civilian population the world has ever known? Indeed, isn’t commentary about civil war growing – aren’t I writing this very piece – precisely because it seems there is grave risk that an act of political violence or even assassination, a senseless spark, could lead to cascading violence?
Whatever its definition, the outbreak of civil war in any form would surely mean constant threat to our lives and safety. It would mean disruption all around us, to government at all levels, to all our institutions, schools, churches, clubs, and businesses. In a state of civil war, there would be no security, but only profound instability and at a time when pandemic instability has already stretched us thin.
If we’re disturbed now by supply chain woes, imagine how those woes would be compounded by civil war. In a climate of widespread violence and fear, how do businesses function? How do they make or move the goods, supply the services that we need and rely on? With businesses under siege, wouldn’t we see widespread loss of jobs and loss of the income derived from those jobs? If we’re feeling that we’re merely treading water now, how soon before we drown – before we drown each other – in the chaos of civil war?
And what of our families? How would we keep them safe and healthy? If we’re already exhausted by virtual learning, by the emotional and academic toll that our children have suffered in the pandemic, wouldn’t that suffering be exponentially greater in a state of civil war? I don’t think it hyperbolic to say that, if we can’t figure out how to resolve differences without violence, it would all come crashing down, not just government and businesses and schools, but everything we hope for, all our dreams.
The alternative, and antidote, to civil war is that we figure out how to get along. And doesn’t a bit of empathy and compassion for each other sound more sensible, more patriotic? I also have a hunch that if we got to know each other better we might just see eye-to-eye on more than a few things. We might just realize that what binds us together is far greater than what pulls us apart.
For instance, that urban-liberal moniker. It is only a small part of who I am and not the most important part. Family is most important. I am married and have children, three girls and two boys. Three are out of the house, done with school, and starting to make their way in the world. The two youngest are teenagers, doing what teenagers do. They go to school, play sports and music, hang out with their friends, and listen ever less to what their parents have to say. Like their older siblings, they expect to get a good education, and to have the sort of work and life options that their parents have had. Our version of the American dream.
Might you have similar dreams, and might there be much more to you than that MAGA tag?
I was raised in the Catholic tradition where, as with most religious denominations, the central principle is love thy neighbor. I’ll bet we share this tradition too. I’ve fallen away from my Catholic roots but believe, more than ever, in that first principle. I feel morally compelled to abide by it, while also deeply aware of how often I fall short of it. I know we can relate on this point: sinners all, and in need of forgiveness.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there are deep divisions between us. I understand too that some won’t be easily resolved, and some perhaps not at all. We aren’t likely, for instance, to see eye-to-eye on a certain former President. I admit that I find your affinity for him confounding, sometimes infuriating. I offer this not to pick at a fresh scab, but in the spirit of full disclosure, so that you know how I think or, as you may see it, where my blinders are. I can assure you, though, that whatever our disagreement over President 45, he is not, in my view, worth starting a war over. Rather, I’m willing to accept that our best option may be to simply agree to disagree, about his character and competence, and let the chips – or, in this case, the voting ballots – fall where they may.
And about those voting ballots. Am I right that this may be a sore spot for you, and a fundamental point of contention between us? I hear constantly that you believe that the last election was rigged or stolen, that Joe Biden is not our legitimate president. Truth be told? I might agree with you that, if anything is worth fighting over, it would be a stolen election. Fighting to create and preserve democracy is central to our DNA as Americans, isn’t it?
However, before we fight or, God forbid, start a war, over election chicanery or anything else, don’t we owe it to each other to be certain of our suspicions, to be sure that there are good facts, and not bad assumptions, undergirding our beliefs? I mean, how much regret, how much shame, would we carry if we were moved to violence – against each other, against neighbors, and fellow Americans – based on bad facts and a false narrative? What if we brought about collapse of all that is good in America because we were misled and wrong?
Can we at least agree, then, that there should be good fact to support any belief that would lead us to civil war? Given the stakes, that’s not too much to ask, is it?
Now if you hear judgment in my rhetorical questions, I admit there may be some because I firmly believe, after close study of the available evidence, that the election was neither stolen nor rigged. Nonetheless, as part of the pact I’m proposing, I will promise to examine closely every bit of evidence that you offer to support your belief, and I’ll try to do so with an open mind, if you will do the same for me. Don’t we owe this to each other, to our families, communities, and our country? Isn’t this the least we can do?
So here’s my peace proposal, that pact that I would like us to make as citizens of one great country: that we strive to know each other better, listen better to each other, listen less to those that gain from dividing us, and that we commit to grounding our strongest beliefs – about each other and our politics – on fact and truth.
Wouldn’t a pact like this be in keeping with the commandment that we love our neighbor? Wouldn’t it be a far cry better than civil war? What do you say?
Urban liberal that he is, Bill O’Brien lives in Minneapolis and works as a labor and civil rights lawyer.
Difficult to have rational conversations in an irrational environment.
Facts like the Steele Dossier?
You skipped Hunter Biden’s laptop. Aren’t you supposed to go in order?
Reason is as good a place to start as any, I guess.
Many of us feel we have tried reason without any measurable result. Instead, we find the reactionary mind to be neither a logical nor reasonable mind, to begin with.
The loyal R opposition has become a powerful industry that never needs to compromise, and will attack over even their own contrived issues. It runs on vast amounts of dark money.
Any effective opposition receives threats of violence or public smears.
Their intelligentsia is represented by Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump.
Some of us are losing hope.
“Many of us feel we have tried reason without any measurable result.” In what way? In this forum, those who take alternative views seem very reasonable.
As for “threats of violence or public smears”, there is much threatening behavior on the Left, and as for smears, continuous insults directed toward the Right right here on this forum.
You problem is comprehension Audrey. Pointing out facts isn’t a smear. That you choose to discount facts that disagree with the curious narrative you choose to meander along is YOUR character flaw, not anyone else’s.
“GQP congresscritter” –smear/insult
“MAGAT’s” –smear/insult
“open bigots” –smear/insult
“crackpot rantings” –smear/insult
“misanthropic delusionals” –smear/insult
These aren’t facts. It’s Left Wing smears and insults. And that’s just in this thread.
The first two are self descriptors, used in alternative ways, the last three are accurate descriptions. Like I said, just because they don’t fit YOUR narrative, it doesn’t make them false statements.
They’re not “self descriptors”. They’re insults, which is irrational in any argument, as well as disrespectful, which again is what the opinion piece is decrying.
You missed mine on your list of grievance. In my comment below (and always) I call the former pres the ignorant racist, because it’s apt. He’s ignorant, and a racist, unless you think, like him that there is such a thing as a good Nazi, for instance.
You want civility, have different candidates, ones who think that grabbing women by the pussy is frowned upon might be nice. But, since that isn’t likely to happen in today’s Republican party, I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the moral character of your preferred candidate(s).
It’s smears and insults, irrational, unproductive, and what the author is trying to get away from. I could say the same about Joe Biden, but won’t. I have too much intellectual integrity to lower myself to insults.
How precious.
And rare.
So, up there on the moral high ground you inhabit, is there a bridge to far when it comes to the the bile coming out of the Republican party, or not?
So far there doesn’t seem to be. What has happened over the past 5 years is the full-throated racism unleashed by the former pres. Back in the good ol days Republicans could cover their inherent racism and look like normal people. Now, they wear red hats.
You don’t live where I do – things are different here in NW Montana than they are in Minneapolis. This has become a very red state, with an increasingly more militant governor and most certainly our legislature all looking to be the most rabid and trump like. So be it, we chose to move here, and understood that we were leaving our little blue nest in north Minneapolis.
I see what I like to call “merica” trucks on a daily basis. These are pickups, the bigger the better, (and coal rolling is always a plus with these guys) with multiple flags flying off the bed. Always an American flag, usually the confederate flag, and almost always a flag of the former pres, or not to be tread upon. I truly believe if I had a Biden flag off my truck, I would be assaulted, and this is not me being hyperbolic.
It used to be that businesses would generally not put candidate campaign signs in their windows for fear they would alienate half their potential customers; not any longer. They don’t care, because they know we are not half the population, so why not show their support for the most rightwing fringe candidate. Own the libs I guess.
My own state House of Representatives is a young man of 21, he’s up for re-election. His first introduced bill last session resulted in him both being laughed at outright in his face by his co-lawmakers, and it caused his co-signers of the bill to publicly ask to be removed. The bill was to make Antifa illegal in Montana. His second was to allow shooting of wounded animals in city limits. Sounds like a great idea to me, what could go wrong? That’s who’s representing my interests in the state house. I didn’t vote for him.
So, knowing all that, how do I have reasonable conversations with people who vote for people like our young Braxton. I’d like to say he’s an outlier, but just the other day on our MTPR radio, was an interview with a women running for a house seat in Kalispell. When lightly questioned by the reporter about election fraud and that there wasn’t any, the Republican candidate replied that it in fact did happen and she has proof, actual proof now 540 days post election there was fraud enough to deny the guy his second term. Both are main stream here and as a progressive it’s hard to listen to.
In my retirement I work in the trades, and have a lot of interaction with a lot of different people, clients, fellow trades people, non of which do I know their political stance, we all get along famously (even the store clerk with the FU46 hat and sticker on his truck window), so I guess there’s hope.
Their intelligentsia is represented by AOC and Rachel Maddow. It goes both ways…
Rachel Maddow holds a doctorate in political science from Oxford. Tucker Carlson only got into college because the headmaster of his prep school called in some favors.
As far as Ocasio-Cortez (BA cum laude) vs. Trump (GPA unknown, under pain of litigation), I don’t think there’s much comparison there, intelligence-wise.
There you go again, founding a reply on fact and evidence. Informed persons vs ignoramuses: who can who is who?
The right really seems to think that because their side has a Trump, or a Margery Taylor Greene, or a Madison Cawthorn (this recitation could go on for several lines), then the Dems must have them, too. And the argument is never more developed than that.
There are leftists out there who can charitably be counted as “loony.” The difference is that Republicans are empowering theirs and letting them drive the conversation.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
It’s nothing of the kind.
I recommend you review a good treatise on rhetoric before you indulge in the jargon.
My argument is right because my people are smart. Classic appeal to authority.
Au contraire. You are making the inference that I believe “my” people are right when all I was doing was comparing intellectual credentials. I was making no argument other than that.
Really, I can recommend several good treatises on rhetoric that can only help.
Then why bring it up at all? You’re fleeing your own point.
We’re not talking about which side is smarter. In order for you to knock it into the upper deck you have to be in the same stadium.
Replying like this to a polite, evenhanded comment is what the article is addressing.
This is the “you also” fallacy, and not rational. And if a point has any validity you should not need to deploy insults, which of course is another fallacy (ad hominem).
Thinking of the future, we need better education in civics. But that’s become harder to do, faced with the backlash against teaching facts of history.
Ukraine’s President Zelensky is trying to convince Russia’s Vladimir Putin to enter into negotiations with Ukraine to stop Russia’s war on Ukraine. His plea, his peace-talks proposal, sounds as rational and graceful as this essay’s attempt to get the Trump GOP to believe that the rest of us in the US of A are citizens of the same country as they are and are as patriotic as they are, and want the same basic things from life as they do. that we can talk with each other, right? That we don’t want to kill each other and destroy the country in the process?
This is a good article, with good aims. I only wish that any Trump supporters would actually agree that we are all part of the same country, and we all deserve to live. Preferably in peace.
Extremely well written. Thank you, and I concur. But: growing numbers of us feel the 2nd civil war is well underway. It’s just not being waged on a bloody battleground with bayonets. It’s far more insidious than that and being fought now in 2022 w lies, misinformation, manipulations, social media sites and more…. Making adjustments in our perceptions about all of it might help more folks understand it and help devise updated and more effective responses.
3rd Civil War. (Typing skills clearly worse and editing button still awol.)
To the author, they’ll kill you in front of your children, then laugh as they kill them too. You fail to grasp the scope of the threat that imperils us. It is impossible to reason with madness. It is indeed tragic and frightening that so many have succumbed to this particular madness, but pretending that it doesn’t exist will not make it go away.
“It is impossible to reason with madness.”
And willful deception.
“To the author, they’ll kill you in front of your children, then laugh as they kill them too”
I recommend healthier and more civil thinking than this.
“Hello, neighbor down the street with the big flag on his house that says ‘F**k Joe Biden and f**k you too for voting for him.’ I would like to examine closely every bit of evidence that you offer to support your beliefs, and I’ll try to do so with an open mind, if you will do the same for me.”
Sure, I can see that working.
“Hello neighbor, I don’t believe America is a racist country ”
Sure, I can see that working.
Is the speaker willing to listen to reasons why one might say the United States is a racist country, as was the premise of the hypothetical? Or are you just playing provocateur?
Has the other side been willing to reason that the United States is not a racist country ? We all know that equity/racism for the Uber liberal crowd is like elections for the Maga crowd. Just one sided yelling.
In other words, you choose to deflect the question.
That’s all the answer we need.
Well not really.
The feckless Republicans whine about a lost election, which is true, the ignorant racist did lose the last election. Racism is a bit more nuanced than merely blithely suggesting there’s some sort of moral equivalence between the two. But, as is often noticed, nuance is lost on some.
Sadly, if we devolve it an actual shooting war, none of us wins. But it might be wise to realize those who seek the conflict over with those who are prepared for it.
We need to find a way to coexist
A war no one wins. Like WWIII.
This article is well written and advances a compelling reason, or set of reasons, why we should pause in our slide toward an actual civil war. Who gains from a war? No one, and everyone loses.
I’m an urban liberal, too. Much of what the MAGA folks call for is beyond my comprehension. It is also beyond reality. And when one group does not even hold to the reality the rest of us are anchored in, no matter our respective political views, it is hard to see how to move forward. (Incidentally, the comment above comparing the competing visions of Tucker Carlson and AOC is inaccurate; one is on the playing field on national politics, if toward one edge, and the other just makes up what he wants to believe.)
But as the author implies, what else is there? Talking is the best option. It is easy (and correct) to point to dark money and internet trolls to explain how low the state of relations have become. But after recognizing that, what do we do then? We are all currently dangerously insular, and that isolation is growing, and the corresponding resentments and hatreds deepening.
We need to have a respected institution in each locale of the country – the U. of M.’s Humphrey Institute comes to mind – set up a series of discussions following the letter writer’s model, and we need to have both major parties endorse the efforts. We must find our common ground and build up from there.
I don’t like the alternative. It’s called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The baby, in this case, is our democracy.
Good grief do you guys just NOT get it. As someone who grew up as a decidedly NON urban liberal, you don’t understand that this isn’t a new phenomenon. These people have wanted to kill you and your loved ones at least since I was a kid, in the early 80’s and probably long before that. The “unity” politicians and patriots like to bloviate about is a thin veneer over a sneering maelstrom of hate, derision, and envy. The only change of late, is that they now realize they can say the parts they used to keep behind closed doors in the open without consequence. In fact, their crackpot rantings get legitimized as “grievance”, instead of summarily dismissed as the rambling musings of misanthropic delusisonals that they are.
Good points, Matt. I don’t disagree with a thing you say. And the bit about their hatred once being of the sort that you couldn’t say in public – that is spot on. Now they have permission to be open bigots, thanks to #45.
But understanding that this is our new reality – how do we move forward? If we are talking (and we barely are any more) – well, at least we’re talking. But if we stop talking, be it blue and red in the US or our government and Putin, then we are in trouble.
The larger issue here, at least domestically, is that the people in the respective parties have less and less opportunity to overlap, politically and socially. This is a significant set back, and the dark internet exacerbates an already challenging situation. We each, respectively, are getting to where we do not feel that we need to share the country, and this is dangerous.
The problem is that we have been coming to this playground for generations, snd we have all realized that it takes two to teeter-totter. But now one party has decided that they want to simply throw out the teeter-totter and be a bully on the playground.
If we have a chance to talk, that can only be a hopeful thing, however slim the chances for an improvement in the tenor of national life. If we simply admit that those rednecks hate us and want to shoot us up, what do we do? Reach for our own guns? Cower in our homes?
We have to avert a war no matter how much they hate us.
Our marvelous democracy and constitution were well crafted and, while always improving, still is the best model in the world. But it only works when we follow the rules. We cannot let it break, for what follows will be much less attractive.
You make the presumption that I think conflict is avoidable. For all the talk of playgrounds and teeter totters, when exactly was it that this period of unity occurred? The founding? What was that Articles of Confederation business about? The Civil War? Speaks for itself. Reconstruction? The Gilded Age? The Jim Crow South? Vietnam? The lies we tell ourselves about the greatness and exceptionalism of our society are just that. We’ve been fractured between two very different and incompatible visions of life and purpose from the beginning. The only truly peaceful means of reconciliation is an impossibility, a negotiated separation whereupon everyone agrees to go to their seperate territory and go forward in their vision without the others, and never threaten each the other. Unfortunately, there will never be agreement on the split of land, and one side, having conquest and domination as part of the fundamental nature of it’s worldview, will always threaten the other. As such there really is only one path to a lasting and meaningful resolution.
“As such there really is only one path to a lasting and meaningful resolution.”
You left us hanging.
I did not mean to suggest any period of unity ever existed. But we HAVE had periods where campaigns were intense but, once the election happened, we all moved forward, some pleased, the others grumbling. But the process of voting and accepting the results, and tolerating the other side, even while you hated them, was the norm. Our elections may have acted like a pendulum, but they worked.
This is no longer the case. Now a growing number of Republicans accept the whole stolen election nonsense, which is truly a pack of lies. They are running for office and garnering votes and influence based on that big lie. As a result, public confidence in elections, which had been generally high in our nation, is suddenly under assault.
This is what I mean about the Republicans threatening to bring down the whole system. It is criminal what they are doing, it is dangerous, and it is a specific threat to our democracy.
There is an information war in America. It is between our ruling elite and the rest of us.
With millions of politically oriented web sites, facebook pages, twitter accounts the idea that any entity has a controlling monopoly on information is beyond all credibility. The countering argument that:
“I’m smart enough to find the truth and you aren’t”
May have some credibility, see QANON. David Markle’s comment on Civics education has great merit with the major drawback of rampant truth decay in K-12 education…
Funny that the WaPo, NYT, Reuters curating the narrative of DC, Wall Street and the Fed call the vast majority of “millions of politically oriented web sites, facebook pages, twitter accounts” misinformation.
Yes, thank goodness truth-teller Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been silenced! Not yet anyway.
It’s quite a trick by the shadowy “ruling elites” (such as Soros, I’m sure) that they have created both a Righwing Noise Machine and a traditional media which say fundamentally inconsistent things to totally separate audiences! Very devious and reprehensible.
“Yes, thank goodness truth-teller Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been silenced! Not yet anyway.”
Does that mean you support silencing Greenwald and others like him?
Because after the uproar among our ruling elite about Elon Musk purchasing Twitter, while the same people are cheering the new Dept of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board, it would seem our ruling elite want the power to define (and mandate) what is the truth for everybody, using big tech and media as the censor.
You are basically on step away from the position that “everyone gets to have their own facts!” (If you aren’t there already.) But weighing evidence has never been the strong suit of the anti-(anti-Trumpers)…and it never will be.
My point on Glenn G is how have the ruling elite allowed such a dangerous truth-teller to obtain the significant platform he has?
You are basically on step away from the position that “everyone gets to have their own facts!”
What’s a fact? The sky is blue. That’s a fact. Trump is a bad man. That’s an opinion. Unfortunately, too many see the latter as a fact, not an opinion.
Thanks for the advanced instruction, Madame Headmaster.
Arguments over whether “Trump is a bad man” are hardly the sort of “disinformation” WHD is objecting to. So excellent deployment of the strawman.
I’m glad you (evidently) feel the statement Trump is a bad man is an opinion. I didn’t think you’d do that, so we’re getting somewhere.
As for a more appropriate consideration (see, I do listen) the statement the election was honest is also an opinion. It may be argued it was not, which is the definition of opinion.
You know the opposing sides of the “stolen” election “question” aren’t arguing about whether the word “honest” describes it; that’s your euphemistic attempt to turn the entire argument (and all its myriad facts) into one about mere “opinion”. And since you know the real terms of the actual debate, I regret to say it’s bad faith on your part.
Have a great day!
Word it any way you want. Stolen, honest, what difference does it make? These are opinions.
You seem not to understand the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Or that informed opinions are based on factual knowledge. Or that the soundness of the opinion depends on the soundness of the facts supporting it.
In short, like the Medieval Scholastics, you stopped at logic and never moved on to rational thought. But they at least had an excuse….
No doubt our ruling elite are wondering how they can silence Glenn. Though at this point, they aren’t thinking about any one writer as much as controlling whole platforms. The Disinformation Governance Board looks to define the truth that will inform the private censors.
As for facts, nothing has been more abused by our ruling elite the last six years.
How very curious that you date the start of the “abuse of facts” by our (mysterious) “ruling “elite” with the rise of Trumpolini.
A coincidence, I’m sure!
Make America Great Again scares some folks, why? America First had Lefties screaming everything from racism to homophobia, unreal. Putting America First means you don’t have 5 a gallon gas, you drill here, you manufacture chip boards in America, you move manufacturing our products back here in America. Putting America First means you have secure borders, it means having save streets to walk, it means teaching our children what they need to succeed in a competitive workforce. MAGA means Americans doing better, why does that scare Lefties.
The same old question will be asked this fall and in the fall of 24, are you better off now or 2-4 years ago. The answer is screaming so loudly it has Lefties putting their hands on their ears and saying lalalalala!
In other words, you are content with being Exhibit A for the problem the writer identifies.
I vacillate between thinking you understand that you make the same arguments that every 20th century fascist movement made in the run up to their disastrous tenures at the heads of their respective societies, but really think that’s the proper way to order society and that you’re truly too stupid to see the correlation and actually think you propose something novel and exciting. I’d say I lean 90-10.
Matt, so you think Canada First is a better idea for Americans? Ok, good for you. Every socialist is dumb enough to think that everyone should be limited in their ability to succeed. No 90-10 there, 100% of socialists think one person excelling hurts one other person who is not excelling. 5 bucks for gas, borders being overrun, crime sprees exploding that is your world under globalist Joe Biden and voters see it .
So the former it is, guess I can move to 100% now.
Do you not see the irony in posting a screed like this as a comment to an article that calls for understanding the other side’s opinions?
This is why I have to wonder if you really are just a pseudonymous conservative extremist, or if you’re a performance art project.
After careful deliberations, I think all of them, with the exception of Mr. Tester, who while silly, is at least verifiable extant, are the same person, all the way back to the Thomas Swift experience. It’s a curious level of dedication, but internet hobgoblins don’t usually have a lot going on in the real world.
A B- from MCAD.
It would appear that “America First!” requires some pretty spectacular exaggeration as well. It sounds more like Hyperbole First….
I also love the obligatory “globalist” label; I have to wonder just how well that word polled in the focus groups (that is beyond your pay grade, I know, but I’m still curious!)
My goodness MAGA sure means a lot of great things! Remarkable how none of them came to pass, nor were even much attempted, when Trumpolini was in power.
What MAGA really means is mindlessly cheering on a preening narcissistic imbecile who tells angry White Nationalists what they want to hear, while fleecing the Treasury for his own benefit and refusing to be constrained by the law. But hey, eat it up; it’s a free country (until the next election anyway…)
BK, simple question, is America better off now under Biden or when President Trump was in office?
“Joe”, America is incalculably better off under Biden than under an obvious malignant narcissist and wholesale ignoramus; a lifelong conman, pathological liar and scofflaw, who sought to “advance” the country via appeals to White Nationalism.
I need mention only contemplating Trumpolini dealing with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Suspect that answer depends on if you are having a rational or irrational conversation.
And just for the record, leaving aside the wannabe dictator’s manifest unfitness for (any) office, during Trumpolini’s tenure America suffered the greatest economic contraction since the Great Depression, endured a woefully mishandled global pandemic killing hundreds of millions, was saddled with a unilaterally-declared “Trade War” that was made possibly only by an unappropriated slush fund doled out to farmers, and witnssed absurdly unnecessary massive budget deficits brought about by fiscally idiotic tax cuts, making the national debt much higher than it should have when deficit spending became critically essential during the pandemic.
So, despite what you may imagine to be the case, America really did very badly under the maladministration and criminal misrule of the Trump Regime.
Whoops; “killing hundreds of thousands”. My apologies!
Here we have a writer imploring us to be civil, and the ensuing commentary explodes in left wing invective. You can’t make this stuff up.
Actually, the author is simply proposing that “we commit to grounding our strongest beliefs…on fact and truth”. (I would’ve preferred “evidence” to “truth”, but whatever…)
Which is what I’ve tried to do in describing the appalling misrule of the anti-democratic monster Trumpolini. Your task now is to show me how I’m wrong. And in my view the “invective” used is pretty mild.
The whole article is about civility. Not who’s tight and wrong. You’re using the old if I’m losing change the argument tactic.
I remember when Nancy Pelosi stood up and ripped apart her copy of President Trump’s State of the Union address. I knew then that this is not going to end well. That’s when the run on ammo began in earnest.
As far as I can tell from the latest gun mayhem in Buffalo, the rightwing “run on ammo” never ends.
But dating it to one of Trumpolini’s State of Disunion addresses is high comedy.