Możesz dodawać lokalizację do Twoich Tweetów, jak miasto czy konkretne miejsce, z sieci lub innych aplikacji. W każdej chwili możesz usunąć historię lokalizacji swoich Tweetów. Dowiedz się więcej
Here’s an unpopular prediction (so make note of it so you can use it against me in the event that I’m wrong):
Like most things pushed by either major party, the #MarchForOurLivesLA #MarchForOurLives gun-control push is *only* about helping one party defeat the other.
Not guns.
The rhetoric surrounding guns - again, on both “sides” - is *designed* to be polarizing, not inclusive. Because polarization is what both parties rely on in order to gain and maintain power. Look at how both “sides” speak about the other. It’s by design.
The rhetoric is *designed* to shut people down. This polarization is the primary method of dividing people along partisan lines, putting Democrats or Republicans into power despite the fact that they vote *together* on all of the stuff that impacts the most people.
Together, they deregulate banks (which will soon harm everybody but the banks, again), push for endless war, extend domestic-surveillance powers to our Toddler-In-Chief, increase his military budget, block the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada, etc.
This entire thing is manipulation, because once they get into power - *if* they get into power - they will *not* pass *any* meaningful gun legislation unless it’s bipartisan. They might expand background checks or ban bump stocks, but Republicans are on board with those anyway.
They won’t pass another #AssaultWeaponsBan, for example. If they followed through there, they’d lose that issue as a bargaining chip for the following election.
And, folks, that’s *all* they care about - gaining & maintaining money and power. That’s it. They don’t care about us.
That’s also why both parties are okay with leaving the senate rules where they require 60 votes on anything the two parties disagree about. It’s unlikely either party will have that kind of control, so it allows them to shrug and blame the other party for their own failures.
Democrats absolutely *could* have passed #UniversalHealthcare (even #SinglePayer) in 2009-2010. They didn’t because *they* didn’t really want to. They left healthcare badly damaged so that they could continue to use it as a tool to win elections in the future.
If they actually passed the reform we need and deserve, they’d no longer be able to use healthcare to win elections or demonize the other party. This is the game: Polarize people on certain issues using fear, then while they’re fighting each other, do what Wall Street wants.
So, pardon me if you find my skepticism at these marches - and their overwhelming coverage on every left-leaning network - to be offensive. But it’s offensive to *me* that this tactic is still working. Wake up. Rep and Dem voters are being loyal to parties who aren’t loyal back
And they don’t intend to be. Ever.
#ThePartiesAreTheProblem
No. It's not rhetoric when you take to the street to demand safety and justice. It is rhetoric to demand rights that were already interpreted by the Supreme Court to not exist. There is no right to a military-grade weapon that allows rapid murder.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
