this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
7 points (56.6% liked)
White People Twitter
138 readers
1 users here now
We are a community that posts tweets and have a good laugh. We allow tweets from anyone. We welcome anyone who follows the rules to participate here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually kind of came here to say hey, this is actually pushing the Democrats to the left, fair play. But apparently Chris Swanson was sworn in in January 2021 and it looks like the deal and the money happened in 2018. Do I have that right?
So this is summarized as "admitted ... that he did it to make money." It sounds like the policy was around before he was there, and he said that it was wrong and he'd end it. No?
What exactly is the full statement that he said, that's being summarized as that he did it to make money?
I have not looked into this. I just want to vent a bit. If indeed this dude is corrupt, I wish I had a party to vote for that I didn't have to compromise my morals. I want a society where corruption is low and every decision we make is to make the world better for all people.
Progress doesn't work that way, though. You don't hear Ukrainians say "I wish I had a peacetime so I didn't have to fight; fighting is wrong" or Germans in 1932 saying "I wish I had a really good government so I didn't have to compromise my morals and vote for the SPD" (oh wait...).
Or... I mean, they might wish it, but it's not like it becomes a reason why all of a sudden the better outcome and the worse outcome become indistinguishable and we should let the worse one happen. One, this post is actually pretty dishonest and the guy's actually by far one of the better sheriffs in the country and has actually made this specific reform already (see my longer post). But two, even if he hasn't, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's okay to have the sheriff who wants to shoot all the Mexicans instead.
If you want change, vote for the Democrats in this election, so that Trump doesn't make change illegal. Keep protesting for Gaza, keep trying to ditch FPTP, keep trying to push the Democrats to the left, absolutely. The sooner we can get a third party, the better; on that I definitely agree. Definitely you're gonna be able to find some Democrats who are corrupt as fuck within the system. But I wouldn't really use "this outcome isn't what I want" as a reason not to try to figure out how to get the outcome you want, or to get discouraged away from participating in the system at all. That happened after 1968, and that's how we got Reagan and the modern economic nightmare in the whole first place -- was "I don't want to compromise my morals and interact with the system and what's the worst that could happen."
For sure I know what system we are in and I vote.
I get that we have to fight for what we believe in, but I disagree that it is analogous to war.
Remember... ACAB
So you have no idea what the full statement was, that they’re summarizing? I mean what I’m asking is, is this true, or spinning up some expansive bullshit from a little nugget of approximate truth combined with a heavy sprinkling of lies.
Also “American Fourth Reich Convention” is a little bit of a red flag 🙂
Kinda silly calling it that when the actual A4RC happened already and they called it the RNC. Both sides are garbage, but there's only one fascist party. Democrats are absolute shit for always siding with and trying to appeal to conservatives, but this feels very similar to how tankies literally only ever have problems with and try to stop democrats when there's very obviously a bigger threat in republicans
Explain how kamala will end elections and genocide everyone who isn't a WASP
She, like all liberals, is a massive piece of shit. But comparing them to actual nazis just makes you look like an edgy 13 year old dumbass with very little at stake if trump wins. Republicans will always be fascists, and liberals will always work closely with them. That doesn't mean you're not stupid for saying they're the same, because you very much are
More info
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/many-us-jails-video-calls-are-only-way-detainees-can-see-loved-ones-rcna158048
There's also this
I particularly like the artful construction of that he said he would end the ban, but his lawyers (i.e. the county's lawyers, presumably) are arguing in court something different (maybe as part of the effort to get the suit dismissed). So they're implying that he hasn't actually ended the policy, but wording it in such a way that it's clear they're dodging around the fact that he has, now that (a) he's the boss and is fully in charge of it (b) he's changed his mind after having seen 10+ years of criminal justice system misconduct getting the spotlight.
So yeah TL;DR it's some bullshit; they're taking a good guy and trying to make him into a bad guy, so that you'll let the actual bad guys come to power, and derail the effort to continue reforming the system and making it better. I sorta knew it but it was worth looking into the details a little bit.
Nah, he's still a POS. Gets elected and now is "oops my bad!" Meanwhile the policies are still in place. ACAB
Disclosure: Still vote for Harris to stop Trump blah blah blah etc etc. Just vote Harris in November.
Personally, I'd prefer if people voted in all available races, and not focus on one that has the smallest effect on their every day lives and has the least likelihood of effecting long term systemic change.
That's why the original twitter post is so dishonest -- the policies are not still in place. That was the whole point of my post. And they clearly know that, since they artfully constructed it (he said that he would end the ban, and yet blah blah something which isn't "he hasn't ended the ban" but sounds enough like it to fool the reader).