I have to say your take seems like blackmailing to me. Take your stance. But stop blaming people. Start blaming the story they tell, when it is flawed. Bring up, whatever you are not ok with. But when I bring up whatever note of nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyp52cre8cp29xalvde79ee4294h032s7mtwx4rp0lt5wmgrly6hlc9syr7p, it is far from fair, to discredit his words for whatever other thing he should have said.
Please respont to the statements, not to the person, which sais it. A statement is not dependent of who is saying it. A statement is true or false depending on what facts and feelings say about the statement. Not about the sender of the statement.
Do you agree or disagree, that Trump is dismanteling checks and balances? This is a quiet factual statement, independent in what party you are.
To explain to you what I mean by factual: When I say that water evaporates at about 100°C at sea level, this is factual. If this statement is true does not depend on my religion, my sex or having certain age. It is a fact whatever person can test by experiment. The same way, one can check, if Trump supports checks and balances or not. This does not depend on political preference.
Replies (2)
Gaslighting? I definitely was not trying to gaslight you, but otherwise I actually agree with you on most of this.
My only reason for focusing on Reich in this case was that you seemed to be using him as your source of information about US news, so the most relevant thing was to point out how poor a source of information he is.
Trump supporting checks and balances is not verifiable data like the other facts you mentioned. I would say that Trump supports checks and balances probably about as much as other US presidents have supported checks and balances. Both of the last two administrations (Trump and Biden) have weaponized the justice dept against political opponents, and Obama's administration created a false case against Trump (Russiagate); both of the last two administrations have violated the first amendment by trying to control speech that they didn't like; both of the last two administrations have used executive orders as if they could just bypass Congress's responsibility for writing laws. It's a really long list.
If Reich were actually opposed to unconstitutional actions, he would have been criticizing all of this regardless of what party is behind it. If I'm mistaken on that count, please let me know, but I don't recall him being a strong voice against the Biden admin coercion of the media, for instance, or any of the other anti-constitutional actions of that administration.
Look. I really think it does not have any importance at all what he said before this.
Why would it matter, when other presidents did violate the law and dismiss checks and balances as well?
It is a part of the current political lendscape, that Trump is investing hardly in taking over powers, where he has no say.
Reich is pushing against this. Stop about this whataboutism. Eighter you support Trump in what he is doing or not. It really is of no importance what other governments did. The US has one government and that is trumps government.
All the competition you try to build up is nonexisting and does not pose a problem nor solve a problem.