105
Why aren't all the people Biden has killed and hurt real to them? What the hell is happening in their minds?
(hexbear.net)
I cannot get over this. Biden has destroyed an incomprehensible number of lives between the Crime bill, college debt and medical bills, the violence on the border, the extrajudicial assassinations and renditions, the genocides in Yemen and Gaza. What the fuck are liberals? What are they? Why don't they care about any of this? What the fuck? 
My brain i s just making whatever noise this picture of Matt is and it's been mkaing that noise for years. How can they just not care? How is this not real to them?
liberals absolve their candidates of all their crimes, because the alternative, the Bizarro World conservative candidate that won in the parallel universe, would have done something worse.
all throughout Obama's 8 years, anytime someone brought up a failed promise, the eternal wars, or the deportations or anything, what we were told was, "Bush would have made it worse." even when people brought up statistics about drone strikes or deportations and how Obama was harsher than Bush, the libs would short-circuit and say that Bush, if allowed to preside over the precise historical moment that Obama did, would have been worse. and this is implied to absolve Obama.
it turns out you can take a simple message, a complete false statement even, and broadcast it over and over again from every speaker and screen... and other people will believe it and repeat it to be a part of what they perceive as the popular in-group and assume a feeling of safety from the illusion of numbers.
my latest favorite example of that was when, when biden killed the railroad strike before it could start by using congress to force a deal favoring the owners and conceding nothing for workers (0 safety considerations, 0 sick days, etc), the phrase, "most pro union president since FDR" entered the public consciousness. and then that ultra-long, no brakes train derailed in ohio and poisoned a town. and these fucking lib bozos kept repeating the lie and claiming Build Back Better was the retroactive solution which fixed the problems happening after it.
a lib president could admit to dropping a biological weapon on china that specifically targets children and every paper would declare him the greatest and most loving humanitarian since Jesus.
I did a whole ass thing about the train derailment. And you're right about everything.,
We were? I mean, that's not what I remember being told. Not because libs were above that (obviously), but rather it doesn't make any sense. Bush got his 2 terms. Bush already succeeded in being the greater evil and was out of the picture regardless of who took the reins in the white house in 2008. I know what you're saying doesn't necessarily mean this, but a few times now I've seen hexbears talk as though Bush was voted out in favor of Obama. This is not what happened. Bush was never voted out, and Obama never ran against Bush. John McCain was the Republican nominee (and a big argument of the libs at the time was that he was unfit for office because he was too old and frail, lmao, the irony right?). And after McCain lost to Obama, the liberal response still wasn't even that McCain would have been worse. You really only see that kind of talk (at least in my experience) directed at potential future threats, which obviously Bush no longer was after he won his 2nd term in 2004. It was simply taken as a given that Bush had been worse because it was his fault that poor Obama had to clean up his mess.
No, the way the liberals, especially Democrats defended against people pointing out the reality that Obama's increased drone strikes, continued use of torture, and especially the neverending wars, was not to say Bush would have been worse but simply to say "Well Bush started it, which was unjust, but now that we're in it, we have to win it." There wasn't even a pretense at "Bush would have been worse" because all they had to do was blame it all on Bush to begin with. "Obama inherited a terrible situation, a quagmire we're in thanks to Bush. But what are we supposed to do now, just give Afghanistan to the Taliban? What, do you side with the terrorists?"
And about drone strikes, the defense I remember seeing all the time, was that they were more humane than what Bush did. "Drone strikes don't risk American troops the way Bush did, and really they're so much more effective at getting the baddies who never even see them coming! It's 'unfortunate' that there has been innocent children hit, but that's just 'collateral damage.'" It was shocking (to me, being more naive at the time) how freely and without reflection the Democrats took up the exact same rhetoric that they had correctly railed against when the Republicans used it. The Republican neocons having practically invented "collateral damage" as a popular euphemism was embraced by the Democrats immediately after they came to power.
Totally. Remember that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize after ramping up so many of Bush's warcrimes.
Didn't he win the prize before taking office? I might be remembering wrong.
Edit: Nah, it was 8 months in. Still wildly early, considering.
Their only fig leaf in retrospect is that the full scope of his crimes was not yet known, although some were.
It's their fault for naming their town East Palestine. They should be happy Biden didn't authorise Israel to bomb them yet.
You don't understand, yes Hitler isn't perfect but MechaHitler would open yet another front and also develop a way to kill each person twice probably