Just an elected representative hinting that you should make a list of and punish Trump voters. Very normal things happening in this country.
I wonder why people don't tell pollsters who they vote for.
When the inevitable violence does happen, and it will, as it already has, will anyone in power hold people like this to any accountability? Nah. They are on the "good" side.
Without covid trump would have won it easily and regardless of the other candidate unfortunately
If Trump handled COVID properly, he would have won in a landslide.
If he handled COVID competently, he would have won outright.
If he did the bare minimum when it came to COVID, he would have squeaked through.
COVID isn't to blame for Trump's loss. Trump's incompetence is.
Basically this. He found a way to fail historically at a once in a lifetime opportunity to do unequivocal good for the nation by saving lives, and even validating his own ideology by making border control a part of it. Instead he leaned into denial and conspiracy and made us one of the worst of the first world countries at tackling the virus.
If anything, it's amazing his support is so resilient.
Saying Trump would have won without COVID-19 being bad is like saying the '86 Red Sox would have won the World Series if Buckner didn't let the grounder go through his legs. I don't know why the man should be divorced from his MOST IMPORTANT failure as some kind of free pass. Carter would have been reelected without inflation and the hostage crisis. Bush Sr. would have been reelected without the recession. And the major event on Trump's watch is orders of magnitude worse than either of the last two one-term Presidents.
I'm also not convinced COVID-19 even ended up playing a significant role in this, which is kind terrifying to think about. Because it's coming hard for us right now.
Also worth mentioning that he strongly discouraged mail-in voting. Any number of things can prevent a person voting on election day. Trump support includes quite a good number of seniors, who have plenty of valid reasons for not turning out during a pandemic. Could easily have lost a few neccesary thousand votes right there.
Another way that buying into conspiracies can hurt you in the end.
What are the chances that Trump will step down during the lame duck period so that Pence can give him a full pardon for any offences committed while in office?
I think any "offenses" committed while in office will be forgiven. It has long been a precedent in U.S politics not to prosecute the outgoing President. Reason being that this can easily be used in a punitive fashion against the minority party any time they lose power. If they actually did pursue this, not only would I think the ruling class has lost their minds, it would almost inevitably evolve into other politically motivated prosecutions down the line.
Just an elected representative hinting that you should make a list of and punish Trump voters. Very normal things happening in this country.
I wonder why people don't tell pollsters who they vote for.
When the inevitable violence does happen, and it will, as it already has, will anyone in power hold people like this to any accountability? Nah. They are on the "good" side.
No, it isn't the Trump voters, it's the elected officials who crawled up Trump's ass the last 4 years who she is saying needs to be held accountable.
When Lindsey Graham comes out in six months time saying he was a never trumper, and never backed any of the Donald's pet spending projects which added greatly to the deficit he needs to be called out.
What are we suggesting here? "AOC is going to compile a list of all of Trump's tens of millions of supporters and go tweet-by-tweet to persecute them individually?" Does this seem like a realistic threat?
I think you're just seeing another specter of a threat to freedom of speech here, because you've been afraid of that for a long time--and it doesn't gel with either AOC's history or Democratic discourse.
The notion that AOC of all people--whose attention has always been on concentrated on politicians and lobbyists--is focused on what random yahoos on Twitter said about Trump is paranoid fearmongering. No, AOC isn't going to ask people to stay up late at night cataloging the average Trump voter's tweets.
I'm going to point out the obvious: AOC is talking about the same thing other Democrats have been talking about for years, the GOP lawmakers who have been covering for Trump and keeping him from being held accountable by providing him with excuses.
I MYSELF have been predicting that the GOP will suddenly turn around and pretend to have opposed Trumpism the whole time, instead of sucking up to him for the past 4 years. I'm not the only one who has said, in this very thread, that we need to remember that Republican lawmakers have served as Trump's sycophants and defenders his entire term.
Was I trying to crack down on voters when I said the same thing as AOC? Was @jjstraka34 suggesting we hunt down millions of people who tweeted stuff we didn't like? No, they're not on our radar. We're furious with the GOP leadership and its cowardice.
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
Just an elected representative hinting that you should make a list of and punish Trump voters. Very normal things happening in this country.
I wonder why people don't tell pollsters who they vote for.
When the inevitable violence does happen, and it will, as it already has, will anyone in power hold people like this to any accountability? Nah. They are on the "good" side.
No, it isn't the Trump voters, it's the elected officials who crawled up Trump's ass the last 4 years who she is saying needs to be held accountable.
When Lindsey Graham comes out in six months time saying he was a never trumper, and never backed any of the Donald's pet spending projects which added greatly to the deficit he needs to be called out.
I don't see the term "elected representative" anywhere in there. Probably because it's not there. I *do* see the term "Trump sycophant", which as a term of disparagement applies just as easily to supporters as politicians.
And punishing folks for tweets and photos, rather than making laws, or their behavior within the halls of power? No mention of that at all? Yeah, I think it's pretty clear this isn't about elected representatives and their Trump photos but voters.
It doesn't take sophisticated reading comprehension to see the subtext.
I think any "offenses" committed while in office will be forgiven. It has long been a precedent in U.S politics not to prosecute the outgoing President. Reason being that this can easily be used in a punitive fashion against the minority party any time they lose power. If they actually did pursue this, not only would I think the ruling class has lost their minds, it would almost inevitably evolve into other politically motivated prosecutions down the line.
I honestly think Trump is going to be the exception to this though.
Most of what NY is looking into are things that happened prior to Trump becoming president.
I can also see them doing a full audit of Trump's business dealings over the last 4 years and if there is any corruption to be found (I am expecting mountains). Anyone who brought up Hillary's Charity as being corrupt but not the actual president's family profiting off of his position this is extremely hypocritical.
I don't see charges coming from the full audit though, just laws that will prevent it from happening in the future.
sycophant: a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
The average trump supporter wasn't supporting him to gain an advantage. They were supporting him for what he actually represents. Spineless politicians who were afraid of being mean tweeted at, or kicked from the party for standing up for what they believe in, like Amash, are people who were gaining advantage while Trump wrecked havoc.
the second tweet actually references elected officials since it is talking about 'the party of personal responsibility.'
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
How many Olympic-level leaps does it take to interpret the statement "Punish Trump sycophants for their tweets, photos, and writings" to mean "The GOP is going to pretend they weren't complicit during the Trump administration"? At the very least, I can see a few.
You would have to believe AOC isn't concerned with laws or any material actions out of the Trump administration or the GOP, merely their "tweets, photos, and writings". Funnily enough, the only visible things that voters contribute to politics outside of their vote. If this alone isn't invalidating, I don't know what is. Why wouldn't she just say "GOP is complicit"? Why wouldn't she name one law or one thing the GOP, rather than mere voters, did? Because it wasn't about the GOP.
You would have to believe AOC refuses to call out GOP lawmakers directly, as she has done before, out of newfound cowardice, and instead uses the term "sycophant" that is vague enough to easily describe Trump supporters rather than politicians, and has been often used for exactly that reason before.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, as it is in this case. It means exactly what it says.
The whole "it's so ridiculous that anyone would ever imply Trump supporters should be punished"! Is playing dumb and you know it. It has been suggested, all along, during the entire administration. I have not forgotten how it was fashionable to label all Trump supporters as nazis, and there were open questions about whether physically assaulting "nazis" in public was justified. This game isn't as clever as some seem to think it is. Maybe you forgot this ever happened, but when and if it is ever your turn to be falsely labeled, and then singled out as uniquely deserving of violence, you won't forget it.
The networks are breathlessly stating over and over that Trump has no chance of making up these gaps, yet everyone refuses to even call NEVADA, which is as done as done can be. I don't know if they are doing this for ratings, or because they are afraid of pissing off the guy in the White House, but they are clearly being WAY more cautious about this than they have ever been in the past.
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
How many Olympic-level leaps does it take to interpret the statement "Punish Trump sycophants for their tweets, photos, and writings" to mean "The GOP is going to pretend they weren't complicit during the Trump administration"? At the very least, I can see a few.
You would have to believe AOC isn't concerned with laws or any material actions out of the Trump administration or the GOP, merely their "tweets, photos, and writings". Funnily enough, the only visible things that voters contribute to politics outside of their vote. If this alone isn't invalidating, I don't know what is. Why wouldn't she just say "GOP is complicit"? Why wouldn't she name one law or one thing the GOP, rather than mere voters, did? Because it wasn't about the GOP.
You would have to believe AOC refuses to call out GOP lawmakers directly, as she has done before, out of newfound cowardice, and instead uses the term "sycophant" that is vague enough to easily describe Trump supporters rather than politicians, and has been often used for exactly that reason before.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, as it is in this case. It means exactly what it says.
The whole "it's so ridiculous that anyone would ever imply Trump supporters should be punished"! Is playing dumb and you know it. It has been suggested, all along, during the entire administration. I have not forgotten how it was fashionable to label all Trump supporters as nazis, and there were open questions about whether physically assaulting "nazis" in public was justified. This game isn't as clever as some seem to think it is. Maybe you forgot this ever happened, but when and if it is ever your turn to be falsely labeled, and then singled out as uniquely deserving of violence, you won't forget it.
I mean, given the entire Trump Administration's core governing philosophy was not just punishing liberals, but indeed the ENTIRE population of blue states up to and including disaster relief, even if I were to grant you the courtesy of assuming everything you think about AOC is true, the worst that it could be described as is "turnabout is fair play". Lucky for conservatives (if this is indeed the fear), it's Joe Biden who is walking into the big role. And his entire campaign was basically based on being magnanimous to people who don't vote for him. But I'll reiterate again, do you REALLY deny that the operating principle of Trumpism was anything other than "causing liberal tears"?? I think you know better than that.
Even average conservative family members these last four years (at least in my experience) have been pretty explicit in rubbing this guy's success in our faces for 4 years in a row, and to think they aren't going to get blowback for that now is just a denial of human emotions. Joe Biden may be above it. Your average liberal isn't going to be. The Democrats aren't going to use vengeance as a governing philosophy like this Administration has, but they are gonna gloat.
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
How many Olympic-level leaps does it take to interpret the statement "Punish Trump sycophants for their tweets, photos, and writings" to mean "The GOP is going to pretend they weren't complicit during the Trump administration"? At the very least, I can see a few.
You would have to believe AOC isn't concerned with laws or any material actions out of the Trump administration or the GOP, merely their "tweets, photos, and writings". Funnily enough, the only visible things that voters contribute to politics outside of their vote. If this alone isn't invalidating, I don't know what is. Why wouldn't she just say "GOP is complicit"? Why wouldn't she name one law or one thing the GOP, rather than mere voters, did? Because it wasn't about the GOP.
You would have to believe AOC refuses to call out GOP lawmakers directly, as she has done before, out of newfound cowardice, and instead uses the term "sycophant" that is vague enough to easily describe Trump supporters rather than politicians, and has been often used for exactly that reason before.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, as it is in this case. It means exactly what it says.
The whole "it's so ridiculous that anyone would ever imply Trump supporters should be punished"! Is playing dumb and you know it. It has been suggested, all along, during the entire administration. I have not forgotten how it was fashionable to label all Trump supporters as nazis, and there were open questions about whether physically assaulting "nazis" in public was justified. This game isn't as clever as some seem to think it is. Maybe you forgot this ever happened, but when and if it is ever your turn to be falsely labeled, and then singled out as uniquely deserving of violence, you won't forget it.
I mean, given the entire Trump Administration's core governing philosophy was not just punishing liberals, but indeed the ENTIRE population of blue states up to and including disaster relief, even if I were to grant you the courtesy of assuming everything you think about AOC is true, the worst that it could be described as is "turnabout is fair play". Lucky for conservatives (if this is indeed the fear), it's Joe Biden who is walking into the big role. And his entire campaign was basically based on being magnanimous to people who don't vote for him. But I'll reiterate again, do you REALLY deny that the operating principle of Trumpism was anything other than "causing liberal tears"?? I think you know better than that.
Yes, I know very well that making liberals mad online is one of the things that attracts people to Trumpism. In fact, I would say that being against the liberal consensus and power structure is the one thing that unites different ideological wings of Trump supporters.
I don't in any way see anti liberal memes and mean comments online as morally equivalent to the targeting of Trump supporters personally for harassment or violence. You can log off or block people from Twitter. When you go after peoples actual lives there is a far greater moral difference.
As least tell me this, and i'm interested in @semiticgod's opinion too. Do you see how it can be interpreted in the way I am interpreting it?
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
How many Olympic-level leaps does it take to interpret the statement "Punish Trump sycophants for their tweets, photos, and writings" to mean "The GOP is going to pretend they weren't complicit during the Trump administration"? At the very least, I can see a few.
You would have to believe AOC isn't concerned with laws or any material actions out of the Trump administration or the GOP, merely their "tweets, photos, and writings". Funnily enough, the only visible things that voters contribute to politics outside of their vote. If this alone isn't invalidating, I don't know what is. Why wouldn't she just say "GOP is complicit"? Why wouldn't she name one law or one thing the GOP, rather than mere voters, did? Because it wasn't about the GOP.
You would have to believe AOC refuses to call out GOP lawmakers directly, as she has done before, out of newfound cowardice, and instead uses the term "sycophant" that is vague enough to easily describe Trump supporters rather than politicians, and has been often used for exactly that reason before.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, as it is in this case. It means exactly what it says.
The whole "it's so ridiculous that anyone would ever imply Trump supporters should be punished"! Is playing dumb and you know it. It has been suggested, all along, during the entire administration. I have not forgotten how it was fashionable to label all Trump supporters as nazis, and there were open questions about whether physically assaulting "nazis" in public was justified. This game isn't as clever as some seem to think it is. Maybe you forgot this ever happened, but when and if it is ever your turn to be falsely labeled, and then singled out as uniquely deserving of violence, you won't forget it.
I mean, given the entire Trump Administration's core governing philosophy was not just punishing liberals, but indeed the ENTIRE population of blue states up to and including disaster relief, even if I were to grant you the courtesy of assuming everything you think about AOC is true, the worst that it could be described as is "turnabout is fair play". Lucky for conservatives (if this is indeed the fear), it's Joe Biden who is walking into the big role. And his entire campaign was basically based on being magnanimous to people who don't vote for him. But I'll reiterate again, do you REALLY deny that the operating principle of Trumpism was anything other than "causing liberal tears"?? I think you know better than that.
Yes, I know very well that making liberals mad online is one of the things that attracts people to Trumpism. In fact, I would say that being against the liberal consensus and power structure is the one thing that unites different ideological wings of Trump supporters.
I don't in any way see anti liberal memes and mean comments online as morally equivalent to the targeting of Trump supporters personally for harassment or violence. You can log off or block people from Twitter. When you go after peoples actual lives there is a far greater moral difference.
As least tell me this, and i'm interested in @semiticgod's opinion too. Do you see how it can be interpreted in the way I am interpreting it?
I can understand why you would see it that way, I'm pretty sure she is talking about people like Kayleigh Mcenany (I believe she scrubbed some tweets earlier and that is what brought this on) and the "consequences", so to speak, are where these people get hired after this is all over. And to be perfectly honest, they aren't going to be lacking for work. CNN will hire them within 6 months for political panels, or they'll end up on Dancing with the Stars. Do I believe she is targeting run of the mill Trump voters. I do not. Do I believe she thinks people who worked in this Administration shouldn't be given high profile jobs that whitewash them?? Yes.
It has long been speculated that the Trump family as a whole will not be accepted back into the New York high society social circles they used to run in, and that is also likely accurate. Their punishment won't likely be legal (though it probably should be). Their punishment is to be pariahs. They'll have to reconstitute their empire in Florida.
I don't think it's unreasonable to equate "sycophant" with "supporter". It seems to me likely that AOC would be scathing about people, beyond legislators, who've supported Trump - through working for the administration or providing financial support for instance.
I do though think it's a stretch too far to suggest that means "voter". I don't think that makes sense in relation to the meaning of either "sycophant" or "complicit". Nor does the reference to scrubbing social media history fit with the idea of voters. Finally the use of "responsible for their behavior over last four years" implies far more than voting a couple of times.
It's a stretch to think that AOC is running around and making notes of all the voters who supported Trump. It's far (far, far) more likely that she means the elected officials who tied themselves to Trump and will now cut him free like they were never trumpers.
Nor does the reference to scrubbing social media history fit with the idea of voters. Finally the use of "responsible for their behavior over last four years" implies far more than voting a couple of times.
In that I have to disagree. To me, that's the biggest red flag that the whole thing has the subtext that you should target supporters. There is a pretty toxic undercurrent of political social media that basically involves revealing peoples addresses, places of employment, etc. based on searching years of their social media history. It's called doxing and it's become sadly rather commonplace in the past several years.
But if people can see where i'm coming from, that's enough for me. I don't expect complete agreement.
I know this thread isn't exactly full of fans, but Kamala Harris is going to be the first woman to occupy one of the two official positions of the Executive Branch, and that's a pretty stunning achievement in and of itself considering it's taken 250 years to happen. She certainly was not a detriment to the ticket in any way (unlike Sarah Palin who completely sunk John McCain).
I still have legitimate questions about Biden running again in 2024 (he proved over the course of the campaign the "senile" stuff was a bunch of crap, but he will be 82 when he's up again). And she would then be the only logical choice. Name recognition and visibility is half the battle.
I know this thread isn't exactly full of fans, but Kamala Harris is going to be the first woman to occupy one of the two official positions of the Executive Branch, and that's a pretty stunning achievement in and of itself considering it's taken 250 years to happen. She certainly was not a detriment to the ticket in any way (unlike Sarah Palin who completely sunk John McCain).
I still have legitimate questions about Biden running again in 2024 (he proved over the course of the campaign the "senile" stuff was a bunch of crap, but he will be 82 when he's up again). And she would then be the only logical choice. Name recognition and visibility is half the battle.
In a year or two she'll probably be our first female president... ?
Nor does the reference to scrubbing social media history fit with the idea of voters. Finally the use of "responsible for their behavior over last four years" implies far more than voting a couple of times.
In that I have to disagree. To me, that's the biggest red flag that the whole thing has the subtext that you should target supporters. There is a pretty toxic undercurrent of political social media that basically involves revealing peoples addresses, places of employment, etc. based on searching years of their social media history. It's called doxing and it's become sadly rather commonplace in the past several years.
But if people can see where i'm coming from, that's enough for me. I don't expect complete agreement.
I look at this and I just see a lot of projection. The GOP has no problem using these kind of threats so obviously the "other side" MUST do the same. So of course "subtext" must be applied to justify the mental gymnastics of a politician somehow threatening voters where voters are nowhere mentioned.
I know this thread isn't exactly full of fans, but Kamala Harris is going to be the first woman to occupy one of the two official positions of the Executive Branch, and that's a pretty stunning achievement in and of itself considering it's taken 250 years to happen. She certainly was not a detriment to the ticket in any way (unlike Sarah Palin who completely sunk John McCain).
I still have legitimate questions about Biden running again in 2024 (he proved over the course of the campaign the "senile" stuff was a bunch of crap, but he will be 82 when he's up again). And she would then be the only logical choice. Name recognition and visibility is half the battle.
In a year or two she'll probably be our first female president... ?
All it would take is Biden catching COVID-19 and not responding well. He's in good shape, but he's 78. It's probably more statistically likely than at any other moment in a LONG time.
All it would take is Biden catching COVID-19 and not responding well. He's in good shape, but he's 78. It's probably more statistically likely than at any other moment in a LONG time.
Well there will certainly be plenty of new cases. 132k yesterday, so around double in the last few weeks. Given the lag in deaths, that means you will be seeing deaths of over 2k a day going forward even if there's no further growth in numbers of cases - and with all the election related activity that's a pretty big if ...
If Biden does get elected and completes his term and doesn't run again, I'm hoping Kamala is not the Democratic nominee.
She could change my mind if she embraced the left and not the right so much but it's unlikely that she does based on her history as a police and moderate.
At any rate my biggest thing I'd like is universal healthcare for my kids and future generations.
It's disturbing to know the virus is just going to run rampant for the next 2 months. I have no hope at all that the Trump administration will try to contain the virus with the time it has left. Tens of thousands will die before Biden even has a chance to take action. Trump will have wiped out a quarter of a million people through sheer incompetence before he's forced out of the White House.
Even then, it'll be a while before we see a slowdown in the death toll, unless we see a game-changing vaccine come out really fast.
It's disturbing to know the virus is just going to run rampant for the next 2 months. I have no hope at all that the Trump administration will try to contain the virus with the time it has left. Tens of thousands will die before Biden even has a chance to take action. Trump will have wiped out a quarter of a million people through sheer incompetence before he's forced out of the White House.
Even then, it'll be a while before we see a slowdown in the death toll, unless we see a game-changing vaccine come out really fast.
He will likely do that as well as go on a criminal GOP pardon spree and burn down everything he can just to be an asshole.
Supposedly he's got several officials to fire like Fauci and Defense Secretary Esper among others.
It would fit everything else he's done.
Anyway, 70ish million people thought this guy was a good idea. Amazing.
I'm sorry, but Biden's speech just now was pretty phenomenal. Alot of people are REALLY frustrated the networks won't call what is obvious, and he came out and explained why it's probably a GOOD thing. This is why Joe Biden should be President and people like myself shouldn't be.
Kamala Harris is going to have a strong opportunity to win over people to her side. She shouldnt take it for granted. Biden was a pretty good VP (as much as one can be, I suppose). I think Biden's real strength out of being VP was that he was seen to be very well liked and had a very positive connection to Obama.
Harris probably wont have much to bank on in that regard, since I dont think Biden is going to ever be viewed as positively as Obama was. She'll have to chart her own path.
and though I know I'm banging a drum for the 100th time, she was one of the most progressive senators in the senate, signing onto the GND and MFA in the early days.
Comments
I wonder why people don't tell pollsters who they vote for.
When the inevitable violence does happen, and it will, as it already has, will anyone in power hold people like this to any accountability? Nah. They are on the "good" side.
Basically this. He found a way to fail historically at a once in a lifetime opportunity to do unequivocal good for the nation by saving lives, and even validating his own ideology by making border control a part of it. Instead he leaned into denial and conspiracy and made us one of the worst of the first world countries at tackling the virus.
If anything, it's amazing his support is so resilient.
I'm also not convinced COVID-19 even ended up playing a significant role in this, which is kind terrifying to think about. Because it's coming hard for us right now.
Another way that buying into conspiracies can hurt you in the end.
No, it isn't the Trump voters, it's the elected officials who crawled up Trump's ass the last 4 years who she is saying needs to be held accountable.
When Lindsey Graham comes out in six months time saying he was a never trumper, and never backed any of the Donald's pet spending projects which added greatly to the deficit he needs to be called out.
I think you're just seeing another specter of a threat to freedom of speech here, because you've been afraid of that for a long time--and it doesn't gel with either AOC's history or Democratic discourse.
The notion that AOC of all people--whose attention has always been on concentrated on politicians and lobbyists--is focused on what random yahoos on Twitter said about Trump is paranoid fearmongering. No, AOC isn't going to ask people to stay up late at night cataloging the average Trump voter's tweets.
I'm going to point out the obvious: AOC is talking about the same thing other Democrats have been talking about for years, the GOP lawmakers who have been covering for Trump and keeping him from being held accountable by providing him with excuses.
I MYSELF have been predicting that the GOP will suddenly turn around and pretend to have opposed Trumpism the whole time, instead of sucking up to him for the past 4 years. I'm not the only one who has said, in this very thread, that we need to remember that Republican lawmakers have served as Trump's sycophants and defenders his entire term.
Was I trying to crack down on voters when I said the same thing as AOC? Was @jjstraka34 suggesting we hunt down millions of people who tweeted stuff we didn't like? No, they're not on our radar. We're furious with the GOP leadership and its cowardice.
AOC is saying exactly what I've been saying for weeks: the GOP is going to pretend that they weren't complicit during the Trump administration, and we can't let people forget that.
I don't see the term "elected representative" anywhere in there. Probably because it's not there. I *do* see the term "Trump sycophant", which as a term of disparagement applies just as easily to supporters as politicians.
And punishing folks for tweets and photos, rather than making laws, or their behavior within the halls of power? No mention of that at all? Yeah, I think it's pretty clear this isn't about elected representatives and their Trump photos but voters.
It doesn't take sophisticated reading comprehension to see the subtext.
I honestly think Trump is going to be the exception to this though.
Most of what NY is looking into are things that happened prior to Trump becoming president.
I can also see them doing a full audit of Trump's business dealings over the last 4 years and if there is any corruption to be found (I am expecting mountains). Anyone who brought up Hillary's Charity as being corrupt but not the actual president's family profiting off of his position this is extremely hypocritical.
I don't see charges coming from the full audit though, just laws that will prevent it from happening in the future.
"Sycophant" has always referred to people who work in your orbit; not distant fans tweeting a thousand miles away.
The average trump supporter wasn't supporting him to gain an advantage. They were supporting him for what he actually represents. Spineless politicians who were afraid of being mean tweeted at, or kicked from the party for standing up for what they believe in, like Amash, are people who were gaining advantage while Trump wrecked havoc.
the second tweet actually references elected officials since it is talking about 'the party of personal responsibility.'
How many Olympic-level leaps does it take to interpret the statement "Punish Trump sycophants for their tweets, photos, and writings" to mean "The GOP is going to pretend they weren't complicit during the Trump administration"? At the very least, I can see a few.
You would have to believe AOC isn't concerned with laws or any material actions out of the Trump administration or the GOP, merely their "tweets, photos, and writings". Funnily enough, the only visible things that voters contribute to politics outside of their vote. If this alone isn't invalidating, I don't know what is. Why wouldn't she just say "GOP is complicit"? Why wouldn't she name one law or one thing the GOP, rather than mere voters, did? Because it wasn't about the GOP.
You would have to believe AOC refuses to call out GOP lawmakers directly, as she has done before, out of newfound cowardice, and instead uses the term "sycophant" that is vague enough to easily describe Trump supporters rather than politicians, and has been often used for exactly that reason before.
The simplest explanation is often the correct one, as it is in this case. It means exactly what it says.
The whole "it's so ridiculous that anyone would ever imply Trump supporters should be punished"! Is playing dumb and you know it. It has been suggested, all along, during the entire administration. I have not forgotten how it was fashionable to label all Trump supporters as nazis, and there were open questions about whether physically assaulting "nazis" in public was justified. This game isn't as clever as some seem to think it is. Maybe you forgot this ever happened, but when and if it is ever your turn to be falsely labeled, and then singled out as uniquely deserving of violence, you won't forget it.
I mean, given the entire Trump Administration's core governing philosophy was not just punishing liberals, but indeed the ENTIRE population of blue states up to and including disaster relief, even if I were to grant you the courtesy of assuming everything you think about AOC is true, the worst that it could be described as is "turnabout is fair play". Lucky for conservatives (if this is indeed the fear), it's Joe Biden who is walking into the big role. And his entire campaign was basically based on being magnanimous to people who don't vote for him. But I'll reiterate again, do you REALLY deny that the operating principle of Trumpism was anything other than "causing liberal tears"?? I think you know better than that.
Even average conservative family members these last four years (at least in my experience) have been pretty explicit in rubbing this guy's success in our faces for 4 years in a row, and to think they aren't going to get blowback for that now is just a denial of human emotions. Joe Biden may be above it. Your average liberal isn't going to be. The Democrats aren't going to use vengeance as a governing philosophy like this Administration has, but they are gonna gloat.
Yes, I know very well that making liberals mad online is one of the things that attracts people to Trumpism. In fact, I would say that being against the liberal consensus and power structure is the one thing that unites different ideological wings of Trump supporters.
I don't in any way see anti liberal memes and mean comments online as morally equivalent to the targeting of Trump supporters personally for harassment or violence. You can log off or block people from Twitter. When you go after peoples actual lives there is a far greater moral difference.
As least tell me this, and i'm interested in @semiticgod's opinion too. Do you see how it can be interpreted in the way I am interpreting it?
I can understand why you would see it that way, I'm pretty sure she is talking about people like Kayleigh Mcenany (I believe she scrubbed some tweets earlier and that is what brought this on) and the "consequences", so to speak, are where these people get hired after this is all over. And to be perfectly honest, they aren't going to be lacking for work. CNN will hire them within 6 months for political panels, or they'll end up on Dancing with the Stars. Do I believe she is targeting run of the mill Trump voters. I do not. Do I believe she thinks people who worked in this Administration shouldn't be given high profile jobs that whitewash them?? Yes.
It has long been speculated that the Trump family as a whole will not be accepted back into the New York high society social circles they used to run in, and that is also likely accurate. Their punishment won't likely be legal (though it probably should be). Their punishment is to be pariahs. They'll have to reconstitute their empire in Florida.
I do though think it's a stretch too far to suggest that means "voter". I don't think that makes sense in relation to the meaning of either "sycophant" or "complicit". Nor does the reference to scrubbing social media history fit with the idea of voters. Finally the use of "responsible for their behavior over last four years" implies far more than voting a couple of times.
In that I have to disagree. To me, that's the biggest red flag that the whole thing has the subtext that you should target supporters. There is a pretty toxic undercurrent of political social media that basically involves revealing peoples addresses, places of employment, etc. based on searching years of their social media history. It's called doxing and it's become sadly rather commonplace in the past several years.
But if people can see where i'm coming from, that's enough for me. I don't expect complete agreement.
I still have legitimate questions about Biden running again in 2024 (he proved over the course of the campaign the "senile" stuff was a bunch of crap, but he will be 82 when he's up again). And she would then be the only logical choice. Name recognition and visibility is half the battle.
In a year or two she'll probably be our first female president... ?
I look at this and I just see a lot of projection. The GOP has no problem using these kind of threats so obviously the "other side" MUST do the same. So of course "subtext" must be applied to justify the mental gymnastics of a politician somehow threatening voters where voters are nowhere mentioned.
All it would take is Biden catching COVID-19 and not responding well. He's in good shape, but he's 78. It's probably more statistically likely than at any other moment in a LONG time.
Well there will certainly be plenty of new cases. 132k yesterday, so around double in the last few weeks. Given the lag in deaths, that means you will be seeing deaths of over 2k a day going forward even if there's no further growth in numbers of cases - and with all the election related activity that's a pretty big if ...
She could change my mind if she embraced the left and not the right so much but it's unlikely that she does based on her history as a police and moderate.
At any rate my biggest thing I'd like is universal healthcare for my kids and future generations.
Even then, it'll be a while before we see a slowdown in the death toll, unless we see a game-changing vaccine come out really fast.
He will likely do that as well as go on a criminal GOP pardon spree and burn down everything he can just to be an asshole.
Supposedly he's got several officials to fire like Fauci and Defense Secretary Esper among others.
It would fit everything else he's done.
Anyway, 70ish million people thought this guy was a good idea. Amazing.
Harris probably wont have much to bank on in that regard, since I dont think Biden is going to ever be viewed as positively as Obama was. She'll have to chart her own path.
and though I know I'm banging a drum for the 100th time, she was one of the most progressive senators in the senate, signing onto the GND and MFA in the early days.