Hate speech against conservatives should be treated the same as any other hate speech.
It's exactly the same thing as calling someone the N word.
Nixon talked on secret tapes about putting loyalists on Ted Kennedy’s Secret Service detail, said to aide, "Plant two guys on him.” Nixon also discussed revoking Kennedy’s protection, saying, "If he gets shot, it's too damn bad.”
Anyone think Trump wouldn’t descend to this level?
BREAKING: Harvard's Institute of Politics asked
to leave its advisory committee bc she "made public assertions about voter fraud in November’s presidential election that have no basis in evidence." Stefanik declined to step down. Harvard will now remove her.
“I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country and it’s causing tremendous anger.”
In October, 2019, the first Global Health Security Index appeared, a sober report of a world largely unprepared to deal with a pandemic. “Unfortunately, political will for accelerating health security is caught in a perpetual cycle of panic and neglect,” the authors observed. “No country is fully prepared.” Yet one country stood above all others in terms of readiness: the United States.
During the transition to the Trump Administration, the Obama White House handed off a sixty-nine-page document called the Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents. A meticulous guide for combatting a “pathogen of pandemic potential,” it contains a directory of government resources to consult the moment things start going haywire.
Among the most dangerous pathogens are the respiratory viruses, including orthopoxviruses (such as smallpox), novel influenzas, and coronaviruses. With domestic outbreaks, the playbook specifies that, “while States hold significant power and responsibility related to public-health response outside of a declared Public Health Emergency, the American public will look to the U.S. Government for action.” The playbook outlines the conditions under which various federal agencies should become involved. Questions about the severity and the contagiousness of a disease should be directed to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency. How robust is contact tracing? Is clinical care in the region scalable if cases explode? There are many such questions, with decisions proposed and agencies assigned. Appendices describe such entities as the Pentagon’s Military Aeromedical Evacuation team, which can be assembled to transport patients. Health and Human Services can call upon a Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team, which includes medical examiners, pathologists, and dental assistants.
The Trump Administration jettisoned the Obama playbook.In 2019, H.H.S. conducted Crimson Contagion, a simulation examining the government’s ability to contain a pandemic. Among the participants were the Pentagon, the N.S.C., hospitals, local and regional health-care departments, the American Red Cross, and twelve state governments. The scenario envisioned an international group of tourists visiting China who become infected with a novel influenza and spread it worldwide. There’s no vaccine; antiviral drugs are ineffective.
The Crimson Contagion exercise inspired little confidence that the government was prepared to handle such a crisis. Federal agencies couldn’t tell who was in charge; states grew frustrated in their attempts to secure enough resources. During the simulation, some cities defied a C.D.C. recommendation to close schools. Government policies, the report concluded, were inadequate and “often in conflict.” The Public Health Emergency Fund and the Strategic National Stockpile were dangerously depleted; N95 masks and other medical essentials were in short supply, and domestic manufacturing capacity was insufficient. Congress was briefed on the findings but they were never made public. By the time COVID arrived, no meaningful changes had been made to address these shortcomings.
You never did understand hyperbole.
It’s true, ‘ fight to the death what you do' was hyperbolic paraphrasing for ‘I may disagree with you'. That’s how I roll sometimes. Sorry if you had a problem with it.
As Trump falls, rightwing figures such as Fraser Nelson and Douglas Murray have suddenly discovered their consciences
As smoke billowed out of the Capitol, some of Donald Trump’s US apologists – the appeasers, the opportunistic cheerleaders, even some true believers – suddenly discovered consciences. In Britain, rightwing commentators had even less reason to embrace the man who remains US president: domestic support for him here has always been negligible. Cheerleading for Trump in Britain has always been a conscious choice, and it is all the more striking because it comes without the excuse of external pressure or cynical self-interest: indeed, it carries the price of damaging the cheerleaders’ credibility even among many Conservative voters.
Those who made that choice in Britain are now attempting to walk away whistling from the crime scene, but apologism for the figurehead of the international far right – including the self-confessed Nazis who stormed the US legislature – should come with accountability. Fraser Nelson is editor of the Spectator, which presents itself as a respectable centre-right publication – its summer party is attended by senior Tory and Labour figures and BBC journalists alike – even as it publishes columns bemoaning there is “not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party”.
Last week, Nelson joined the ranks of British conservatives abandoning their fallen hero, writing a column entitled “Trump’s final act was a betrayal of the people who voted for him” – itself a questionable claim, given one YouGov poll showed more Republican voters backed the storming of the Capitol than opposed it. It stands in stark contrast to another of his columns from three years ago, headlined “A new, more reasonable Donald Trump presidency might just be on the way”, endorsing suggestions the president would “gravitate to the middle”.
The Spectator is chaired by former flagship BBC interviewer Andrew Neil, who can now be found beating his chest and declaring: “There is one name responsible for what is happening on Capitol Hill tonight and that name is TRUMP.” And yet no British publication gave such generous space to Trump and Trumpism as the Spectator, publishing articles with headlines such as “The intelligent case for voting Trump” and “Trump will be much, much better for Britain”, or crowing “Donald Trump’s victory marks the death of liberalism”. There is a broad consensus that what paved the way for Wednesday’s insurrection in Washington DC was the deliberate (and baseless) delegitimising of the presidential election, and in November, the Spectator was publishing articles such as “Trump is right not to concede” and “Can you really blame Trump for refusing to accept the election result?”
The U-turns are suddenly coming thick and fast. Former Tory MEP Daniel Hannan often positions himself as a genteel rightwing Brexiteer: polite, well-read, thoughtful, eschewing demagoguery. This weekend, he did not hold back, penning a fiery polemic entitled: “Donald Trump is guilty of treason: political violence in a democracy is never justifiable”. Let’s reflect, then, on another of his pieces, written less than four months ago, headlined: “Trump’s flaws are many, but he’d be better for Britain than Biden”. Hannan also repeated the phoney narrative that it was a uniquely violent left who were the real threat. “God knows I’m no fan of Trump,” he tweeted the day before the election, “but is it really disgruntled Republicans that people are boarding up their shops against?”
... ... ...
I know all will be deeply saddened by today's announcement that Sheldon Adelson is dead.
The problem Builder, is that A2K used to have intelligent conversations on topics with people who were willing to have a good-faith discussion on the 500 shades of grey.