The plausible deniability is there, I admit. But not apologizing is what makes me think he was always like this. The stroke just made it so he no longer had the capacity to hide it.
He was very against murder in his town, it was his whole thing. If I offer him the benefit of the doubt I can see him pulling that for at least a good reason, and unlike so many other incidents with mega racists he didn’t shoot the guy even though he had the capacity to.
I don’t think Fetterman was ever a genius, to be fair. In fact with more research into him I might even go so far as to use him as an example that you don’t have to be Einstein to be a good person, and that conservatives being stupid is only part of it; they are stupid and hateful. Whatever happened here seems to have pushed him over the edge he was already teetering on.
Damn…not a dig at you, Soup, but “He was against murder” and “At least he didn’t shoot the black guy” as defences really shows us where we are at for our country’s representatives, huh?
I didn’t say he was bad for his constituents. I just gave a publicly available reason that could have contributed to his turn to the right. For me personally, not apologizing after he made a very clear mistake, especially as we saw the increasing reports of black people getting profiled in white neighborhoods, is a yellow flag at the very least.
We have people in this thread asking why Democrats always have at least one guy who turns out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The fact of the matter is, we all have prejudicial biases, no matter how liberal or left leaning our politics are. It’s not bad to acknowledge and confront them. A lot of privileged Democrat voters though are afraid to look that in the eye, and then they’re surprised when people they elect suddenly turn out to be unpalatable to them.
What I was getting at is that his being against murder(along with the rest of the context provided, mind) means that as someone who was maybe seeing that trouble in more places than necessary he may have assumed that the gunshots he thought he heard were because a murder had taken place. Even with all that he still didn’t try to exact his own justice and detained instead of injured/killed.
I’m trying to point at that we can’t necessarily just say “oh he was evil the whole time” and write it off like good people can’t turn rotten for various reasons. The Democrats have a lot of problems and their centrism is a huge fucking problem, but the party is not left enough to constitute “sheep’s clothing”. It’s relativistic politics to make that assumption.
In 2013, John Fetterman chased a black jogger around his neighbourhood because he though fireworks were gunshots. More importantly, he never apologized.
The plausible deniability is there, I admit. But not apologizing is what makes me think he was always like this. The stroke just made it so he no longer had the capacity to hide it.
He was very against murder in his town, it was his whole thing. If I offer him the benefit of the doubt I can see him pulling that for at least a good reason, and unlike so many other incidents with mega racists he didn’t shoot the guy even though he had the capacity to.
I don’t think Fetterman was ever a genius, to be fair. In fact with more research into him I might even go so far as to use him as an example that you don’t have to be Einstein to be a good person, and that conservatives being stupid is only part of it; they are stupid and hateful. Whatever happened here seems to have pushed him over the edge he was already teetering on.
Damn…not a dig at you, Soup, but “He was against murder” and “At least he didn’t shoot the black guy” as defences really shows us where we are at for our country’s representatives, huh?
I didn’t say he was bad for his constituents. I just gave a publicly available reason that could have contributed to his turn to the right. For me personally, not apologizing after he made a very clear mistake, especially as we saw the increasing reports of black people getting profiled in white neighborhoods, is a yellow flag at the very least.
We have people in this thread asking why Democrats always have at least one guy who turns out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The fact of the matter is, we all have prejudicial biases, no matter how liberal or left leaning our politics are. It’s not bad to acknowledge and confront them. A lot of privileged Democrat voters though are afraid to look that in the eye, and then they’re surprised when people they elect suddenly turn out to be unpalatable to them.
What I was getting at is that his being against murder(along with the rest of the context provided, mind) means that as someone who was maybe seeing that trouble in more places than necessary he may have assumed that the gunshots he thought he heard were because a murder had taken place. Even with all that he still didn’t try to exact his own justice and detained instead of injured/killed.
I’m trying to point at that we can’t necessarily just say “oh he was evil the whole time” and write it off like good people can’t turn rotten for various reasons. The Democrats have a lot of problems and their centrism is a huge fucking problem, but the party is not left enough to constitute “sheep’s clothing”. It’s relativistic politics to make that assumption.
deleted by creator