American Politics Discussion

[Harry]

Speaking of powerful stuff this statement from Liz Cheney is

"There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of his office and his oath. I will vote to impeach"

 

[Harry]

Reporting now that McConnell is FOR impeachment. 

If he were to vote for that, almost certainly 16 others in the GOP would follow suit.

I think it's gone from unlikely removal to possible removal in the last few hours.

 

[Harry]

Next stage of the Mitch rhetoric. Leans toward convicting him

 

[Burning Gold]

17 hours ago, Harry said:

Reporting now that McConnell is FOR impeachment. 

If he were to vote for that, almost certainly 16 others in the GOP would follow suit.

I think it's gone from unlikely removal to possible removal in the last few hours.

 

Do you think they'll move the Senate vote forward? I understand the logic behind pushing it, and there is a point to convicting him after he leaves office, but I think it would be quite a powerful statement to remove him from office even at the 11th hour

[Stan]

2nd impeachment vote happening right now...

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Burning Gold said:

Do you think they'll move the Senate vote forward? I understand the logic behind pushing it, and there is a point to convicting him after he leaves office, but I think it would be quite a powerful statement to remove him from office even at the 11th hour

It's hard to know as it requires trusting Mitch McConnell. 

His relationship with Biden is meant to be quite positive but I still wouldn't put it past him to hold the trial up and make it drag through Biden's first days, slowing his cabinet appointments etc.

My guess is he doesn't bring forward the trial/vote

[Stan]

By my maths, they've voted to impeach Trump...

[RandoEFC+]

Shambolic graphics. Looks like when you flick through the news channels and BBC Parliament are showing an election from 1968 and the best they can do with updated results is project some plain typewriter text over the broadcast.

[Stan]

14 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Shambolic graphics. Looks like when you flick through the news channels and BBC Parliament are showing an election from 1968 and the best they can do with updated results is project some plain typewriter text over the broadcast.

Sorry, I'll do better when the next impeachment happens.

[Dr. Gonzo]

30 minutes ago, Stan said:

By my maths, they've voted to impeach Trump...

Yeah he's been impeached a second time...

but Mitch McConnell has said that the senate won't be having an emergency session to vote on conviction/removal until after the inauguration. So it seems to mostly be a symbolic impeachment vote - there's never been a president that has ever been removed by the senate. But there's no real indication of what it would mean for the Senate to convict and remove a President that is no longer in office - the idea is to prevent him from having office again, collecting a pension, and having a lifetime security detail... but it's something that would probably be challenged in court and make it's way up into their Supreme Court.

If anything, I think the GOP will use this as a time-waster for Biden getting important things done quickly, like getting his cabinet appointed, appointing ambassadors, and appointing new agency heads. With the State department, in particular, the GOP and Trump have been really destructive in the way they have "reinvented" the inner workings of that agency... so a lot has to be done to rebuild America's framework for diplomacy.

And they'll do this all the while probably playing out a trial that doesn't actually need to play out because we all have the news and saw that Trump incited a riot into the American house of government... just so they can wash themselves of the stench of Trump and pretend they are heroes for standing up to him when he is out of office and banned from twitter. Meanwhile a year ago, they all had the chance to hear a real trial regarding impeachable conduct from the President... and they chose to have a witness-less summary trial to vote along party lines.

America would do well to remember all of Trump's enablers, because it does seem to me like enough time made America forget how shit Bush was (and Reagan and... the other Bush before them)... and someone shittier than the last shit republican comes along and sort of whitewashes how utterly terrible the last GOP president was. The current US President makes George W. Bush look like a well spoken philosopher that really thought out his actions when you compare them. That isn't good, because that is not an accurate reflection of Bush - no matter how you want to slice it.

Josh Hawley & Tom Cotton are going to try to go for the GOP nomination in 2024... and they're both terrifying because they're fascists like Trump but they can string words together in a coherent sentence.

[Stan]

 

[RandoEFC+]

13 minutes ago, Stan said:

Sorry, I'll do better when the next impeachment happens.

Not yours unless you work for whoever does the live footage on Capitol Hill .

[Stan]

9 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Not yours unless you work for whoever does the live footage on Capitol Hill .

I know

 

It reminded me of those old school World Cup highlights with the overlay of the squads and lineups.

[Harry]

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah he's been impeached a second time...

but Mitch McConnell has said that the senate won't be having an emergency session to vote on conviction/removal until after the inauguration. So it seems to mostly be a symbolic impeachment vote - there's never been a president that has ever been removed by the senate. But there's no real indication of what it would mean for the Senate to convict and remove a President that is no longer in office - the idea is to prevent him from having office again, collecting a pension, and having a lifetime security detail... but it's something that would probably be challenged in court and make it's way up into their Supreme Court.

If anything, I think the GOP will use this as a time-waster for Biden getting important things done quickly, like getting his cabinet appointed, appointing ambassadors, and appointing new agency heads. With the State department, in particular, the GOP and Trump have been really destructive in the way they have "reinvented" the inner workings of that agency... so a lot has to be done to rebuild America's framework for diplomacy.

And they'll do this all the while probably playing out a trial that doesn't actually need to play out because we all have the news and saw that Trump incited a riot into the American house of government... just so they can wash themselves of the stench of Trump and pretend they are heroes for standing up to him when he is out of office and banned from twitter. Meanwhile a year ago, they all had the chance to hear a real trial regarding impeachable conduct from the President... and they chose to have a witness-less summary trial to vote along party lines.

America would do well to remember all of Trump's enablers, because it does seem to me like enough time made America forget how shit Bush was (and Reagan and... the other Bush before them)... and someone shittier than the last shit republican comes along and sort of whitewashes how utterly terrible the last GOP president was. The current US President makes George W. Bush look like a well spoken philosopher that really thought out his actions when you compare them. That isn't good, because that is not an accurate reflection of Bush - no matter how you want to slice it.

Josh Hawley & Tom Cotton are going to try to go for the GOP nomination in 2024... and they're both terrifying because they're fascists like Trump but they can string words together in a coherent sentence.

The significant thing to remember is it won't be Mitch McConnell making the decisions if the Dems wait to send the articles over to the senate. Will be Schumer holding all the cards.

[Viva la FCB+]

This is taken from a twitter chain and a reddit user made it a little easier to read. Basically the guy compiled and timelined alot of the events and players involved, If you have some time it places alot of pieces of the puzzle together that you might have heard before. It doesnt get into the information side of things or the slow response time theres even more to dig into but it paints a real good picture.

 

THREAD) Over the past week, this feed has compiled over 250 major-media reports about the January 6 insurrection Trump incited. Evidence of a four-pronged seditious conspiracy has emerged. I summarize this evidence—all previously posted—here. I hope you will read on and RETWEET. Image1 Image2 Image3 Image4

1/ The main players in this thread (please note the recurrence of actors from Arizona and Alabama as well as the White House):

Trump
Giuliani
Rep. Biggs (R-AZ)
Rep. Gosar (R-AZ)
Rep. Brooks (R-AL)
Sen. Tuberville (R-AL)
Arizona Proud Boys
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall

2/ The picture I discuss here is an emerging picture. All individuals discussed in this thread are innocent until proven guilty. This thread is a compilation/curation of evidence already publicly reported by major-media—not an attempt to imply a final portrait has been developed.

3/ In addition to the men listed in Tweet #1, the following men are also relevant to this account:

Ali Alexander, far-right activist
Roger Stone, friend and advisor to the president
Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager
Donald Trump Jr., son of the president

4/ As I mentioned, all pieces of evidence discussed in this thread were previously posted (with links, images, and videos, as appropriate) on this feed within the last week. Scroll through my feed since January 6 (inclusive) if you wish to find any or all of this key information.

5/ The phrase "Stop the Steal" was developed by Trump friend and adviser Roger Stone, a convicted criminal and self-described "political dirty trickster" who Trump rewarded with a corrupt presidential pardon during the possible seditious conspiracy described in this thread.

6/ In addition to being an associate of the Proud Boys as well as Trump, Stone was implicated in the Russia scandal—including not just contact with Kremlin cutout WikiLeaks in 2016, but contact with Israeli officials pre-election to get political intel via Trump's Turkish allies.

7/ Stone is a longtime associate of former Trump campaign manager Manafort, who the Mueller Report found colluded with a known Russian intel agent and who was recently rewarded with a corrupt pardon by the president. Trump has told friends Manafort could hurt him if he "flipped."

8/ Ali Alexander, a far-right activist, has confessed that he organized a "Stop the Steal" rally for January 6 as part of a "scheme" to stop Biden's November 2020 election landslide from being certified in Congress. He identifies Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks as his co-conspirators.

9/ After being developed using Stone's tagline ("Stop the Steal"), Alexander's event quickly merged with a "Save America March" being orchestrated by several "dark money" pro-Trump groups. Alexander's event—with a new name—ended up being the event Trump appeared at on January 6.

10/ One of Alexander's co-conspirators, Brooks, spoke alongside Trump and Jr. at the rally associated with the Save America March. At the rally, Trump, Jr., and Brooks all incited insurrection—Brooks, who'd already promised to challenge Biden's electors, most stridently of all.

11/ The Save America March got its name from Trump's Save America PAC—which raised $300+ million post-election on the false claim the cash was for "election defense"; instead, it went to (besides the RNC) Trump and Giuliani—and was planned by a Manafort company, Event Strategies.

12/ So the rally Trump incited insurrection at:
Took its tagline from Roger Stone;
was planned by a company Stone's associate Manafort worked for;
was allegedly part of a plot hatched by Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks;
featured Brooks, Trump, and Jr. inciting insurrection.

13/ At the January 6 rally, Giuliani told the crowd that Trump desperately needed the January 6 election certification delayed—and not delayed for a few hours, but for days. He promised the gathered mob that that delay would lead to conclusive proof Trump had won in November.

14/ If indeed there was a seditious conspiracy on January 6, it involved Trump allies inside the Capitol on January 6 artificially delaying Biden's certification long enough for the mob incited by Trump and his allies outside the Capitol to shut down the joint session completely.

15/ The key figures inside the Capitol on January 6 were Trump allies Gosar and Biggs, whose job was to object to the certification of Arizona's electors—leading to two hours of useless debate in the House—and Brooks' Alabama peer Sen. Tuberville, who would support the objection.

16/ While Trump and Giuliani could be sure Gosar and Biggs would—with the aid of Tuberville—force the joint session into a 2-hour debate, less clear was how to ensure the "Save America March" disrupted the joint session as Ali Alexander (and Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks) had planned.

17/ The alleged conspirators needed militants outside the Capitol who'd "spark" an assault on the Capitol once enough of the mob incited by Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue had arrived at the Capitol. This is where the Proud Boys came to be of great utility to Trump.

18/ Trump had falsely said at a pre-election debate that he didn't know who the Proud Boys were; he did know, from his friendship with Stone, a major Proud Boys booster and mascot. That's why he told the group to "stand back and stand by"—which soon became the Boys' rallying cry.

19/ On December 12, the leader of the Proud Boys went to the White House, saying in advance of his trip (on social media) he had been "invited" there. Team Trump claimed that he had merely been on a Christmas tour of the White House. The truth of the matter still remains unknown.

20/ 7 days after the Proud Boy leader visited the White House by invitation, a Trump rally scheduled by a pro-Trump dark money group was moved to January 6. Within minutes, Trump was promoting it, saying that it'd be "wild." It had Proud Boy ally Stone's "tagline" attached to it.

21/ At the time a random Trump rally suddenly became the January 6 "march"—intended to coincidence with Congress' joint session—Trump was looking for a Representative to challenge electors during the session. He found Brooks, who then planned the January 6 rally with Alexander.

22/ At around this time, the Arizona GOP—with two of its most prominent leaders being apparent Alexander co-conspirators Gosar and Biggs—tweeted out one of the most bizarre/horrifying tweets of 2020: the party formally asked readers if they were willing to "die for" Donald Trump.

23/ Different states have different "Proud Boy" chapters. As Arizonans Gosar and Biggs were plotting with Trump a rally intended to lead to disruptive violence; and as the Arizona GOP the two men led was asking people to "die for" Trump; the Arizona Proud Boys became important.

24/ As noted, Trump and his allies needed a group of militants who'd be willing to spark the invasion of the Capitol. Trump ally Stone was close with the Proud Boys; the Proud Boys advocate using of violence; Trump had told them to "Stand by"; they'd adopted it as a rallying cry.

25/ An hour before the invasion began, a USCP officer now tells Buzzfeed News that he was unnerved by seeing a menacing social media message shown to him by a fellow officer. In the message, the Proud Boys use one of their usual online channels to promise to "breach the Capitol."

26/ According to the WSJ, the attack on the Capitol was launched when a group of men "in blaze orange hats" suddenly attacked a barricade. CNN later identified the use of "blaze orange hats" as connected to the Proud Boys, which the aforementioned Proud Boy leader angrily denied.

27/ Unfortunately for the Proud Boys, they decided to livestream their participation in the events of January 6. The early part of a 100-minute livestream shows Proud Boys in tactical gear with "blaze orange" arm bands and blaze orange strips of duct tape on at least one helmet.

28/ But the most damning moment in the livestream comes nearly an hour in, when the group of Proud Boys doing the filming encounters a group of their fellow Proud Boys on the street—all of whom are wearing blaze orange hats.

The men identify themselves as the Arizona Proud Boys.

29/ This same group—the Arizona Proud Boys—was separately photographed and tweeted about by Will Sommer of THE DAILY BEAST. It's unknown why both the leader of the Proud Boys and its founder falsely claimed on Parler that no Proud Boys were wearing blaze orange hats on January 6.

30/ In order to ensure that the sizable mob from Trump's rally would have an open path to the Capitol, the way had to be opened just before Trump's speech ended. A recent NYT timeline includes a picture of the Arizona Proud Boys—in blaze orange hats—at the Capitol at 11:50AM ET.

31/ Trump's speech at the Ellipse was very, very well attended. One reason it was so well attended is that Brooks' and Tubervillle's peers in the Alabama GOP had apparently been just as busy as Biggs' and Gosar's peers in the Arizona GOP had been. And they had a key role to play.

32/ The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA)—run by the Alabama Attorney General—was secretly running "robocalls" urging people across the country to go to Trump's Save America March. The Alabama Attorney General now claims that he had no idea what his group was up to.

33/ But the two most important Alabama Republicans were—without question—Brooks and Tuberville. The Alabaman Brooks was the first House member to say he'd contest Biden's win, and the Alabaman Tuberville the first senator to say he'd do so. (You need one of each to make it work.)

34/ During a speech at a rally he'd set up with Alexander, Biggs, and Gosar—using Stone's tagline and Manafort's event-planning company—Brooks explicitly told the mob to go to the Capitol and "kick ass." His full speech is absolutely terrifying. It is seditious, and incitement.

35/ So Trump and Giuliani had the Arizona Proud Boys at the Capitol barricade at 12, and the Arizona Congressmen inside the Capitol with objections ready; they had Alabama's Mo Brooks inciting insurrection at the rally and Alabama's Tuberville aiding the Arizonans in the Capitol.

36/ The problem was timing. How to time the rally, the march, an invasion of the Capitol, and the objections during the joint session in such a way that each event began at ended—or as the case may be, was violently interrupted—at the right moment. In the end, the timing was off.

37/ We now know that both Giuliani and Trump desperately tried to call Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville during the joint session—in each case calling the wrong man by mistake. And Giuliani was stupid enough to leave a voicemail message on the phone of Utah senator Mike Lee.

38/ Giuliani, in inciting the crowd at the rally—he demanded "trial by combat!"—had promised them he had up to five states he and Team Trump could legitimately challenge. But when he called Tuberville, he said that Trump needed Tuberville to object to a stunning "ten" states.

39/ Trump likewise called Tuberville to try to get the joint session extended. Let's be clear: there was no benefit legally, politically, or constitutionally to Trump or Giuliani to getting the joint session extended by a few hours unless they believed the mob would aid them.

40/ In speaking to Tuberville Giuliani made little sense. Team Trump had never challenged "10" states before—and Giuliani saying that such challenges would give Team Trump time to get "more evidence" was nonsense, as the joint session was going to end on January 6 no matter what.

41/ In the event, the Capitol was breached with substantial assistance—per WSJ—of the men in "blaze orange hats." And of those who breached the Capitol, the ones in tactical gear appear to have been most interested in either (a) accessing the House chamber or (b) taking hostages.

42/ The quickest ways to make it impossible for the joint session to conclude on January 6 would've been 1) for the electoral ballots—which were on the House floor—to be destroyed/stolen; 2) for a member of Congress to be taken hostage—as it'd preclude a full vote on Biden's win.

43/ But a third possibility was simply chaos—chaos that lasted so long the Congress lost the will or the logistics to continue their work on January 6. Team Trump could then set about litigating and lobbying over when Congress would meet to finish its work certifying Biden's win.

44/ Top Trump adviser Peter Navarro had already told Fox News that Trump had the power to "move inauguration day" if events demanded it—as sufficient chaos on January 6 might have done. So evidence of Donald Trump's reaction to the insurrection on that date becomes critical, now.

45/ According to half a dozen major-media reports, Trump's reactions to the insurrection included being "pleased," "excited," "delighted," "borderline enthusiastic," and having no interest in doing anything but "watching the show."

He "repeatedly" refused to call out the Guard.

46/ Ali Alexander articulates the plan he and Trump allies Biggs, Gosar and Brooks had in identical terms: he wanted the action outside the Capitol to directly and viscerally influence what was happening inside the Capitol, which is clearly what Trump wanted as events unfolded.

47/ The connections—and mutual interests—of the Proud Boys, RAGA, Tuberville, Brooks, Biggs, Gosar, Alexander, Giuliani, Trump, and Don Jr. (whose January 6 speech was the second-most inciting after Brooks') seem to be inarguable. The primary question is what contacts there were.

48/ An investigation must look to any key post-election contacts within Arizona (between Biggs, Gosar, the Arizona Proud Boys, the Arizona GOP and Alexander) and Alabama (Brooks, Tuberville and RAGA) and then if these entities communicated with the White House or with Giuliani.

49/ What is inarguable is that all of these men and entities—including Stone and Manafort—present a mass of interconnections, but an identical goal: using an "inside/outside" conspiracy (politicians in the Capitol, inciters outside it) to ensure Biden's win couldn't be certified.

50/ If sufficient additional evidence is developed—see my caveat atop this thread—the picture of a seditious conspiracy begins to emerge. And of course I haven't focused on the Pentagon, USCP or Guard piece much, except to note Trump wanted the end to the siege delayed maximally.

CONCLUSION/ The Trumps and Giuliani are undoubtedly capable of an anti-democratic plot—they did the same with Russia, Ukraine, China, and Trump's Middle East allies. Brooks is a maniac, and Gosar, Biggs, and Tuberville lack principles. So we'll see what the evidence reveals. /end

PS/ Please consider retweeting the first tweet in this thread (my pinned tweet), if you haven't done so already. Many journalists and politicians follow this feed—thousands, in total—but I'd love for this picture of the current state of the evidence to reach even more folks ASAP.

(UPDATE) Apropos of this thread, Maddow notes that the DC U.S. Attorney says he's using public corruption prosecutors—among others—to pursue "seditious conspiracy" charges.

This seems to suggest public officials are being criminally investigated. Perhaps ones I mentioned here.

 

heres the guys twitter as well for reference if youd prefer

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1349142068061478912?s=07

Edited January 14, 2021 by Viva la FCB

[Guest]

@Dr. Gonzo @Eco @Spike On furlough again so like to educate myself on these things.

I get the impression that one of the reasons americans are so worried about socialism is that they are picturing China, the Soviet union etc? Where as in reality hardly any left wingers actually want that. (Dont think I've ever met one)A lot left wingers want is a Norway, Sweden kind of version. Great public service, low poverty act. Social democracy is the term I think 

Now some may like the idea of  virtually all public services being nationalised. If the state owns the farms, the land ect, in theory this could eliminate poverty. However I dont think this is very common and even amoung people who do think this the reason they want it is to eliminate poverty and a other issues. Virtually no one wants a country like China most so called socialists are very pro human rights.

Am I right that this is a big misconception among americans?

Edited January 15, 2021 by Guest

[Spike]

17 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Dr. Gonzo @Eco @Spike On furlough again so like to educate myself on these things.

I get the impression that one of the reasons americans are so worried about socialism is that they are picturing China, the Soviet union etc? Where as in reality hardly any left wingers actually want that. (Dont think I've ever met one) What most left wingers want is a Norway, Sweden kind of version. Great public service, low poverty act. Am I right that this is a big misconception among americans?

They don't think it's the government's job to help people, that is what charity is for; they think wealth distribution is unethical because you and only you should benefit from the fruit of their labour, and the Soviet Union was demonised through McCarthy-ism and portrayed as completely  anti-American and the greatest existential threat for their way of life. You can't just undo fifty years of red scare culture overnight.

The Scandinavian model of social support works for Scandinavia because of their cultural expectations of what a government does and the homogenous and smaller population; it's ultimately unrealistic for a country like the USA because of many factors and using it as a standard would only double down the beliefs of American individualism because they dislike the idea that other countries could possibly be doing something better. There is a reason the Law of Jante exists as a sort of barometre for Scandinavian culture and it's completely antitypical of American culture. That being said I haven't said social programs can't work in American but they have to be tailored and sold in a way that is appetising to the typical American, for instance they think a single-payer medicare program would lead to higher taxes and that is true but most people would be paying less in that tax increase than their current private insurance premiums.

[Guest]

@Spike just so you know I have edited the post after reading abit more information 

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Spike just so you know I have edited the post after reading abit more information 

They don't believe that the government should interfere in the market much, they think laissez-faire market = free people. They are so obsessed with resisting government tyranny they are openly bootlicking corporate tyranny. Which is ironic because they elected a business man because he '[isn't a politician]' and will '[run the country like a business]'. They worship the entrepreneur to the point of money being enough for fame. An American would be mortified if their high fructose corn syrup beverage was farmed at a government facility (it's okay that the government subsidises corn farming though), it would be stigmatised for not being a fancy 'designer brand name'.

[Guest]

@Spike I think both the left and right misunderstand each other at times. It seems some people on the right think left wingers want to take away all their individual freedom and money and give it to other people.  Where as I think some people on the left think some right wingers don't want to help anyone else and they want to make as much money as possible and dont care who they hurt.

In reality it seems that some people on the right dont mind giving to charity. They just dont want to be forced to. 

And in reality generally people on the left dont want to take all their money. They just feel that some people are significantly richer than others because of better  opportunities and because of a capitalistic system that allows people at the top to controll the percentage they take. Which some feel is to many. 

Those are two examples of how we may be misunderstanding each other I'm sure there are many more.

For me personally it is about what is motivating those views. For example I wouldn't mind so nobody who wanted to have private health care instead of public if he or she felt it was better and more efficient. I would mind if they wanted it of they only cared about their own health and didn't care if  a homeless person died because they didn't have health care.

In reality I expect neither side is completely right. I expect as humanity continues to develop we take parts from both views and hopefully find better systems 

[Guest]

@Spikeso if you were to say to someone who didn't support public health care that if they payed taxes towards it they would be getting that health care themselves so they wouldn't really be paying for other people,essentially everybody is paying for it,what would be their most likely response?

 Would it largely depend in what their income ? The reason I ask that is because say health insurance is 50 dollars a month. If you are on a high income they could argue that they are paying more for it because the higher the income the more you will be paying. So say 2 percent of your taxes goes to health care if 2 percent is more than 50 dollars you would be paying more. Where as if 2 percent is less than that you are paying less and better of.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Dr. Gonzo @Eco @Spike On furlough again so like to educate myself on these things.

I get the impression that one of the reasons americans are so worried about socialism is that they are picturing China, the Soviet union etc? Where as in reality hardly any left wingers actually want that. (Dont think I've ever met one)A lot left wingers want is a Norway, Sweden kind of version. Great public service, low poverty act. Social democracy is the term I think 

Now some may like the idea of  virtually all public services being nationalised. If the state owns the farms, the land ect, in theory this could eliminate poverty. However I dont think this is very common and even amoung people who do think this the reason they want it is to eliminate poverty and a other issues. Virtually no one wants a country like China most so called socialists are very pro human rights.

Am I right that this is a big misconception among americans?

I live here but I’m probably a bad person to ask “why do Americans think ____________” - your guess is as good as mine

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I live here but I’m probably a bad person to ask “why do Americans think ____________” - your guess is as good as mine

Wouldn't agree with that mate. Living there would give you a good idea. Its just interesting to see different moral perspectives. 

[Danny]

Ever look back at a post and think “I cba today, I’ll edit that”? 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Danny

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Wouldn't agree with that mate. Living there would give you a good idea. Its just interesting to see different moral perspectives. 

You’d think so, but it’s a country where the biggest reason for financial trouble is medical bills, pretty much everyone I know here is in support of some sort of USA equivalent of NHS, yet in national politics... getting Americans on-board with a state provided healthcare system seems nearly impossible.

I can tell you how some coastal Californians think. But if I drive an hour or 2 out East, it’s basically a very different California. Same with Northern California vs Southern California - some pretty big differences, although I’d say that’s less different than the whole city v rural thing.

And thats just one of the 50 states. If you asked me to explain how people from the Deep South think... I wouldn’t be able to tell you at all.

And even then, the terrorist bitch who got shot during the insurrection that out to be a San Diego resident at Ocean Beach (weirdly, because that’s a hippy-hub... and she was a US Air Force veteran that was a virulent racist). So even then, she was pretty different from her neighbors I’d say.

It’s a ridiculously diverse country. There’s so many differences between people in this one state alone, I have to assume other states (at least the populated ones) are similar. The empty ones too though probably. I’d say it’s hard to get a pulse on Americans because of that diversity