Comments by "KesArt" (@kesart8378) on "Pelosi says "there's an agreement to be reached" with Manchin on Build Back Better" video.

  1. With respect, matters are more complicated than you view them: Several Republican controlled states have already passed legislation that makes the electoral process in their states subject to partisan scrutiny and abuse, and that increases the hurdles to be overcome by People of Color and the disabled. The possible reform--or abolition--of the Electoral College would not address many of the antidemocratic measures already voted into law in the states in question. As for bipartisanship, in an ideal world-or in the America pre-Nixon- one would expect that country before party would rule the day. But in our time bipartisanship seems a quaint relic, something to look back at with nostalgia, but not something that any serious observer of the American political scene-- particularly over the past five years-- would reasonably expect. Cheers
    2
  2.  @tcjohnson3437  With respect, mate, when your tone shifted to the accusatory--"It's about you directly violating the civil rights of Americans."--your position declined severely. Any scrap of rationality fled the premises when you leveled an indictment--"...you directly violating..."--against another individual. Do you seriously believe that "Nonya Bizness" possesses the power necessary to violate the civil rights of Americans? And which civil rights in particular? And how many Americans have had their civil rights violated? You indict others with the charge that they are immune to the truth, the real facts, yet you present no facts to bolster your case. All you offer is a highly subjective interpretation of matters that you claim is supported by creditable accounts in as yet unnamed news outlets in every American city and town. Were positions reversed, would you be persuaded by such flimsy argumentation? Cheers
    2
  3.  @mariar2651  Thank you for the civil manner in which you presented your thesis. However, your points have been thoroughly debunked in so many venues that I find myself a bit embarrassed that you are banging a drum long broken and discarded. The changes in voting methodology were inarguably necessary given that America--and the world--was in the throes of the first wave of the pandemic and a failure to make healthful accommodations to how Americans vote would have constituted criminal negligence. Health concerns, not darkly sinister political machinations, prompted the changes. As for the legality of said changes, sixty plus court challenges found no merit to any of the allegations that you raise. That reality, in addition to the fact that the Supervisors of Elections in all fifty American states--a goodly number dominated by Republican legislatures--certified their states' elections should have put this matter to bed...but apparently not for some doggedly persistent folk. As for the issue of Russian interference--are we really still litigating the 2016 election?--all components of America's alphabet soup intelligence community--FBI, CIA, NSA--as well as the Director of National Intelligence, agreed that Russian agents had succeeded in intruding electronically into the American 2016 election--and for the purpose of tilting the election to Trump. Regarding the fantasy that then Vice President Joe Biden interfered in Ukrainian politics in order to secure a position with Burisma for his son, Hunter, this matter, too, has been exhaustively investigated, both by the press, foreign and domestic, and by the U.S. intelligence agencies, and found to be without merit. Yes, Hunter Biden is an opportunistic charlatan and all-round gobsh**e, but those self evident facts aside, Biden forced the firing of a corrupt, pro-Putin, Ukrainian prosecutor with the full support--and urging--of America's UK and European allies, none of whom gave a tinker's damn about Hunter Biden's job prospects. So while I very much appreciate your civility and decency, I must admit to a measure of disappointment at the dredging up of tired, meritless talking points that are rooted in a belief in grand conspiracies, conspiracies that sprang from the minds of partisan political operatives, only to wither in the light of day. Cheers
    2
  4.  @tcjohnson3437  With respect, you do your assertions no service when you seek to support them with wildly sweeping generalizations that lack any citations, or fact-based accounts to support them...And when you presume to speak on behalf of the American nation, yet lack the bona fides of a social scientist and respected pollster, you further weaken your stance. No one succeeds at convincing a party that is philosophically opposed to one's position by declaring, "Everyone knows this is true." Given how deeply divided the American citizenry is at this moment in time, everyone obviously does not agree on what is true. Cheers
    1
  5.  @tcjohnson3437  Again, with respect, America, at present, has two distinctly different information eco- systems and supporters/partisans exist in grand numbers for both. Unfortunately, the two systems diverge considerably in what they present as reality and what they consider to be the truth. And, regrettably, far too many of their partisans lack the skills necessary to apply analytical and critical thinking to the data that they receive--and passively consume--from their favoured news purveyor. While I appreciate passion, your posts exude a good deal of anger, anger that prohibits lucid reasoning and disdains rational debate. But it does have an affection for baseless accusations and dismissiveness toward those not of your faith, or political stripe...and it raises the question of why you choose to engage with those whom you disagree profoundly when you come to the debate with closed ears (and mind?). So thanks for the kind closing; I, in return, wish that you and those dear to you will weather these parlous times in safety and good health. Cheers
    1
  6.  @Semper_Iratus  How terribly articulate (read: puerile, juvenile, scatological and repellant).
    1
  7.  @tcjohnson3437  Take care and stay safe, mate. Cheers
    1
  8. A two-fer: You covered misogyny and ageism, but didn't stop there for you still had a head of steam and felt it necessary to attack her integrity and honesty. Congratulations, mate, on a bile-fueled mini-rant/character assassination built on pure speculation.
    1