gulliver
gulliver's JournalDo the anti-vaxxers really worry about discrimination?
Maybe they should. Do they really think Republican politicians are going to be able to "protect" them with laws? Sure, some Republican politician bigmouth says it's Ok for you to go into a bar or other business unvaccinated and, what, you're Ok? What about all of your job opportunities going forward? Do you think you're not going to pay in some way eventually? No one's gonna remember your stupid little stand?
The Republican politician panders to you to get your vote as a "free" anti-vaxxer. Hallelujah! That's great for them. But they've done you no favors, my poor trusting friend. You're screwed, but your Republican "buddies" get a cushy political office where they don't have to do much—if any—work for life. What do you get? You get COVID probably, but that's nothing. You also get people looking down on you, shunning you, forgetting to invite you to parties for the rest of your life, and you don't know why (because they don't tell you).
You could have just gotten the vaccine. A couple of shots! (Wow, so tough.) But congratulations, you resisted. And, now, you're a hero crusader sacrificing yourself and your family to benefit a bunch of cynical, opportunistic Republican moron politicians (who think of you as the true moron). You've stuck your neck out...for nothing...for the rest of your life. Dumbest political stance ever taken, and the Republicans goaded your silly ass into taking it. A year from now, you forget how "brave" (stupid) you were, but everyone else remembers you're an idiot.
What about a ten-thousand-dollar bonus to every healthcare worker?
To be paid by immediately increasing the health insurance bill of anyone who isn't vaccinated. I'm just trying to think of a way that Republicans won't get away with burdening and harming our healthcare workers. I think a ten-thousand-dollar bonus to every one of them every time a surge happens would be just compensation. Spend a week in Tahiti with your family, courtesy of Republican anti-vaxxers.
Firing into the air is deadly for one thing.
The bullet that comes back down at its escape velocity can easily pierce someone's skull. The deceased was an idiot at best (assuming he really was firing into the air).
It's easy to say you should give a warning to someone currently firing an AR-15 when you're on the other side of a fence from them. That doesn't sound easy to actually do though. It really depends on the cop knowing the guy was firing into the air which, although deadly dangerous to innocents, might allow for a "Hey Stupid, put down the gun right now!" Unfortunately, the cop would have to wonder if the next shots were coming through the fence at him or going into a civilian on the other side of the fence.
The story doesn't say why the cops were there in the first place. Did they just happen to be walking by the fence when they heard gunshots coming from the other side? Was there some kind of threat? Were the cops called on the house?
I need more info on this one.
Bullying the dog. Are the media attacks on Biden a form of displacement?
Is the media being balanced when it hounds and criticizes Biden or is it just placating its abusers, the Republicans and Trump?
Throughout four years of Trump, the legitimate media were bullied. They were called "enemies of the people." They were called "fake news." They were subjected to vicious threats from the Republican "jackal peanut gallery."
There's a psychological concept called "displacement." A guy's boss yells at him at work. Since he's afraid of his boss, he goes home and bullies the dog. Is that why the media are so "tough" on Biden? Objectively, Biden has accomplished a lot of good, so it makes little sense to me that he has been the subject of such relentlessly negative coverage. It makes little sense, unless it's really a way for the media to be fearful and cowardly while appearing (to themselves even) balanced and tough.
The media know that Biden and the rest on our side will treat them with respect. They know Trump and the Republicans will give them more threats and grief. So maybe they pick on the side they feel (in their fear) they can get away with picking on?
Just a theory.
One edit: Changed the classic metaphor a bit to make it more sensitive
Is Josh Hawley guilty of cultural appropriation when he speaks "on behalf of men?"
I'm a man and I frankly resent Josh Hawley considering himself one, much less taking it upon his wormy little self to be a spokesman for us.
The media and Republicans should be called on the "Afghanistan exit" whining
Which historical exit from an "endless war" was painless and orderly? Frankly, I can't think of an exit that went better than the Afghanistan exit. Syria? Vietnam? Tens of thousands of Afghani friends of the United States were safely evacuated. America is out of a war we were stuck in for twenty years. There's nothing good in that?
Seems to me that if we ask how we get stuck in twenty-year wars in the first place, we now have at least a partial answer. The media and Republicans can't seem to emotionally and intellectually process a successful exit from a war as such exits happen in earthly reality.
Fight Republican ideas from a Republican framing
Otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir. Think of it, in a way, as making the sale to both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde if it helps.
For example, climate change isn't just bad because it hurts polar bears, melts pretty glaciers, and causes poor people to suffer disproportionately. That's a liberal framing, and liberals are already on board. That sale is made. It doesn't mean those things shouldn't stay front and center, of course. Just don't forget the other half of the argument.
With Republican types, you need a Republican framing. Climate change will cause job losses; not fighting climate change will make Americans miss out on the jobs and wealth bonanza in clean energy conversion; expensive real estate on beachfronts will lose all its value and the poorer nearby neighborhoods will gain that value; your landscaping and HVAC will suffer, making you have to do more work and pay for more maintenance...that sort of thing.
Raging about gerrymandering sells it, despite its downsides
When Dems get bent out of shape about Republican racial and partisan gerrymandering, it only makes Republicans want to do it more. They think they're onto something if it makes us unhappy. We should focus more on the downsides to gerrymandering. Here are a couple.
First, a red light doesn't stop cars; brakes stop cars. If everyone thought that a traffic signal in their neighborhood was cheatingly designed to make the commute faster for one of the two intersecting roads, everyone would ignore the traffic signal. You couldn't count on people stopping for red lights anymore. And it wouldn't be safe to drive through green lights. Gerrymandering gives seats to people who don't deserve them, and the laws they make won't be respected.
Second, gerrymandering distorts geographic location, destabilizing its role in defining communities, townships, neighborhoods, and real estate values. It's like rezoning on steroids. You put down roots, but, because both the left and right can legally gerrymander, you can't count on stability. Your district can move away from you, then move back, then be dissolved. Your home, business, and voice in government fluctuates on the whim of politicians.
We need Republicans to realize that winning seats by gerrymandering isn't winning. To do that, they need to be focused on something other than liberal tears, which they like. They need to see reasons for both sides to eliminate gerrymandering.
Saying some group X is "disproportionately affected" by bad thing B is a two-edged sword
While it may be true that bad thing B disproportionately affects group X, it might not necessarily be a good idea to wield that fact in arguments intended to benefit group X and/or oppose bad thing B. Justice and fairness aside, other groups, like less proportionally affected group Z, might decide that bad thing B isn't so bad after all, if it doesn't affect group Z as much. And group Z might also disproportionately consist of jerks who either don't care or actively root for bad things like B to happen to group X.
To defeat bad thing B and benefit any group X, Y, or Z, therefore, the best bet may sometimes be to focus on B's badness to all three groups.
Trump was a disaster, and we're succeeding like no one's ever seen before.
We shouldn't forget to say that. Always be closing. Our product is great; theirs is garbage.
Keep the "dignified mode" criticism with its facts and decorum. Sure. Refer to Fred Trump's brat as "the former president" or his harem of political concubines as "the former administration or Republican Party leaders." But don't forget on occasion to sum up what a worthless schlub he is, what a bunch of sneaky, lying dogs his salespeople are, and how great we're doing.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,280