Bunny Trails: Politics

[temporal1]

i’ve had a change of heart for 2024.

Prior, i’ve thought, “i’m not afraid of Trump in a second term.”
Now, after reading a little about biden’s start for 2024, i’m hoping Trump will win 2024.

The message i see from biden is:

Jan 5 2024 / SBS News / Australia / Biden warns 'we nearly lost America' on anniversary of 6 January attack / 4min
https://www.youtube

Description:
President Joe Biden warned Friday that Donald Trump's efforts to retake the White House in 2024 pose a grave threat to the country,
the day before the third anniversary of the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol by then-President Trump’s supporters aiming to keep him in power.

Speaking near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where George Washington and the Continental Army spent a bleak winter nearly 250 years ago, Biden said that Jan. 6 2021, marked a moment where “we nearly lost America — lost it all.”

He said the presidential race — a likely rematch with Trump, who is the far and away GOP frontrunner — is “all about” whether American democracy will survive.

i now look forward to Trump’s return, i wouldn’t want to miss witnessing Trump single handedly “lose America.”
what a spectacular show that would be.

i must have been wrong. Trump must be God. what a fool i’ve been.

[Grace]

What is your perspective about these two tweets?

I am not surprised. I do not agree with violence or aggression. I think both are inevitable with today's politics. I expect it to get worse. That is why I started the thread. I suspect, like the Canada thread, for things to get much crazier.

I agree. And yes it will get crazier. People are tired and fed up at the lawless circus this country is turning into, and will take the law in their own hands, something that usually does not end well. Last week parents were very angry when their kids had to stay home from school so that 2000 migrants could be housed at their school. Some even threatening violence.

[Szdfan]

I agree. And yes it will get crazier. People are tired and fed up at the lawless circus this country is turning into, and will take the law in their own hands, something that usually does not end well.

Or perhaps some politicians and influential voices are encouraging an atmosphere of political violence.

[Grace]

I agree. And yes it will get crazier. People are tired and fed up at the lawless circus this country is turning into, and will take the law in their own hands, something that usually does not end well.

Or perhaps some politicians and influential voices are encouraging an atmosphere of political violence.

It is actions that creates outrage. Like closing a school to students, to accommodate people who broke the law to get here. I am not saying that the illegal migrants should not be humanely, but this goes all the way up to the president, when he incentivized the illegal migrants to come by overturning the prior administration's "Stay in Mexico" policies.

[MaxPC]

Actions, yes. It does not help when liberal comediennes hold up a severed head covered in blood made to resemble Trump. Or Dem politicians encouraging the assassination of Republicans. That pro Palestinian protestor was a part of a wider organised effort to gain attention. It happened on the same day as the Pro-Palestinians trying to pull down the fence around the White House.

[Josh]

An obvious question - if schools must be shut down and children sent home to accommodate the floods of migrants... how are the migrant children going to have any schools to go to?

[ohio jones]

An obvious question - if schools must be shut down and children sent home to accommodate the floods of migrants... how are the migrant children going to have any schools to go to?

The migrant children can do home schooling from their school home.

[Szdfan]

It is actions that creates outrage. Like closing a school to students, to accommodate people who broke the law to get here. I am not saying that the illegal migrants should not be humanely, but this goes all the way up to the president, when he incentivized the illegal migrants to come by overturning the prior administration's "Stay in Mexico" policies.

That pro Palestinian protestor was a part of a wider organised effort to gain attention. It happened on the same day as the Pro-Palestinians trying to pull down the fence around the White House.

Violent responses in both of these instances seem to me to be significant overreactions. The migrants were housed in the school auditorium for one day because of concerns that the tent city that housed them would collapse in a storm. The students at the school had remote learning for the day and the the migrants were bussed back to the tent city by 4:30 am. Obviously, the pro-Palestinian protestor was trying to get attention. Doesn't he have a constitutional right to be obnoxious? Doesn't Abbot have security that could have escorted the protester out without violence?

Feelings of outrage are one thing, but aren't violent actions in response to outrage also a form of lawlessness?

[Szdfan]

Feelings of outrage do not justify violence. It is to be expected that feelings of outrage will often be expressed through violence.

Not always. Feelings of outrage can be expressed through violence, but people can choose to express their outrage in other, more constructive ways.

That's right, and they should choose to do that. But if you act in ways that fuel feelings of outrage in others, don't be surprised if they react in violence. It's not a right response, but my observation of the world is that it is a common response.

So Grace gave the example where migrants were temporarily housed in a Brooklyn school were because a storm threatened the encampment where they were staying. As Grace pointed out, there was outrage over this, including threats of violence. Was the City acting in a way that fueled the feelings of outrage in others?

[ken_sylvania]

Not always. Feelings of outrage can be expressed through violence, but people can choose to express their outrage in other, more constructive ways.

That's right, and they should choose to do that. But if you act in ways that fuel feelings of outrage in others, don't be surprised if they react in violence. It's not a right response, but my observation of the world is that it is a common response.

So Grace gave the example where migrants were temporarily housed in a Brooklyn school were because a storm threatened the encampment where they were staying. As Grace pointed out, there was outrage over this, including threats of violence. Was the City acting in a way that fueled the feelings of outrage in others?

That action alone hardly seems like it should fuel feelings of outrage. I have no idea what the surrounding details are, how it came about that there was an encampment of migrants there to begin with, or how the city handled the messaging surrounding the situation. I could imagine a situation where an action that would be otherwise benign could be a triggering event due to previous policies and actions that caused the action to become necessary.

As a rather lame example - if my generally diligent hardworking, trustworthy, careful neighbor has had a crop failure, and subsequently is unable to pay me for a load of hay as promised because one of his customers bounced a check on him, while I may be somewhat frustrated by the situation I likely won't be frustrated with him, specifically. If, on the other hand, I happen to know that he recently spent $20,000 on an extended vacation through Europe, depleting his savings such that a single bounced check leaves him unable to pay me for product I supplied, I would feel upset toward him. Even though the specific triggering event in both cases is identical and hardly a cause for anger, the background and then subsequent actions are informative as to whether reasonable prudence on my neighbor's part would have prevented the problem.

I simply have no idea what the situation was with migrants being housed in the Brooklyn school.