Ironically, a judge of elections using his first act to call for impeachment of a candidate likely running in an election he will preside over is extremely inappropriate.
Although when the same sentence ends with "... and also now every Tuesday in Manayunk is officially Taco Tuesday." it's easy to interpret it as in jest, which I think was the point.
Depending on your views, you might also think it's inappropriate for this position to even joke about that, which I can sort of see. I don't think it was a serious suggestion though.
I would bet that he was indeed serious about the call for impeachment. If anything, it represents the current state of the public's awareness of appropriateness in politics.
"I would definitely bet he's serious because it totally fulfills my preconceived notions about how he behaves, and I don't have to do anymore work to justify that." The tweet before the quoted one, made less than 10 minutes before the impeachment one, is:
> Please move to Manayunk, where I now rule and now plan to secede from the United States.
There are also nearly a dozen tweets following that of the same form (e.g. "The weird thing is, I demanded people always call me Judge Garcia, way before this even happened!")
It's also quite laughable to chatter about "appropriateness in politics" referring to America, considering a bunch of idiot republicans drafted a tax bill in the middle of the night with scribbles in margins and passed it as law in our country without reading it, less than 24 hours ago (as of the time of writing this comment.)
"Appropriateness" is a code word for "it's ok to make things measurably worse, if you just smile while doing it." But if you make a stupid joke about the Sex Crime President on Twitter, apparently -- that's just not cool, maaaaan, and it like, you know, like, tells us tons about the lame politics of the people, maaaaaaaaaan, it's soooooooo obvious, so easy to see. That's why I'm a genius of political analysis.
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
So I guess "idiot republicans" is a bit uncivil; but on the other hand rushing the approval of an important bill drafted under the influence of sleep deprivation is pretty idiotic. Whenever a political committee or similar announces that they will discuss until agreement, even if that means working through the night, I take it to mean "We are going to get drunk until we're too sick to care and just sign that stupid paper to get home.", since the result is functionally equivalent.
This site is hilariously partisan, so while "idiot democrats" certainly does violate the comment guidelines, "idiot republicans" does not. I've seen a few banned comments to that effect.
As someone who isn't American, I find it very disturbing and it makes me doubt both this whole site and YC itself. Has YC become some sort of political activist foundation recently? It was not this way a few years ago.
Of course both of those violate the guidelines, which ask us not to call names. Neither are acceptable because they degrade the quality of the discussions, and quality is the only thing that matters.
Hacker News can't escape the broader climate of political divisiveness, but we can do our utmost to preserve this site as one that gratifies our intellectual curiosity. The best way for the community to help is to 1) comment according to the guidelines, 2) flag those that violate them (and don't say that you did—this also breaks the guidelines and leads us off topic).
I know this sounds like a meme at this point, but when the "partisan" dividing line is science denial and twitter flame wars with foreign leaders... "reality has a well-known liberal bias” - Stephen Colbert
You do know you're quoting an American left-wing comedy show host, right? It's a great quote, but it's not exactly a good argument.
I think you can definitely get correct and incorrect facts, but doesn't it break down when insults at one group are allowed, but insults at the other group aren't? That seems like just being an asshole.
And from what I can tell, both of your political parties are in full science denial. Republicans deny climate change, and Democrats deny XY chromosomes determining sex. Well, "not all Democrats" and "not all Republicans", obviously.
That is a gross false equivalence. Gender, not sex. No democrat will deny that your XX/XY chromosome differentiates you for sexual reproduction. Gender on the other hand, which is what you're referring to, refers specifically to social roles. Also even if somehow that was the case, how would the superficial incorrect labeling of sex be comparable to the denial of human caused catastrophic destruction of the environment?
It's not really about equivalence. It's about insulting some other political affiliation for something your political affiliation is guilty of. And the key word is insulting: you're not trying to change anyone's mind. You're just out to condemn and belittle. It's very ugly as seen from my perspective, and the downvotes for pointing it out are ugly too. Especially when you can't downvote away people with disagree with you and expect it to help your cause. And even more so when I don't even disagree with your politics, just the broken partisanship involved.
Your type of tribal thinking is a cancer that will cause much hardship for your country in future.
You drew the insane equivalence! You can’t turn around after being called out and say it’s not about that.
People don’t dunk on you because you have a different political affiliation — they do it because you regularly deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and then blame conspiracy theories and tribalism for the completely predictable responses you receive.
> Your type of tribal thinking is a cancer that will cause much hardship for your country in future.
You wrote this same thing in reply to another poster before realized he’s not from the States and deleting it. Glad you found another spot to dump it!
> I would bet that he was indeed serious about the call for impeachment. If anything, it represents the current state of the public's awareness of appropriateness in politics.
Would you also bet he's serious about Taco Tuesday? Because you have exactly as much evidence for one as the other.
Although I do take your comment and apparent inability to extend the benefit of a doubt as fairly negative indicator of the public's ability to work through the current political divide productively. :/
Sure there is. That's precisely why so many people keep polling with disapproval at the Trump Presidency (~62%-67% disapproval per the latest Gallup polls, exceptionally high numbers).
I don't mean that in snark in the least. I mean it factually, the polls keep coming back with record disapproval. There's a reason for that. More people would prefer a higher degree of civility in politics, rather than lower.
A lot of people disagreed with George W Bush for example, but he had to launch a catastrophic, protracted, pointless war that lasted for years, to erode his approval numbers to where Trump is at during his first year. Bush was far more civil and respected as a politician (and he wasn't regarded as all that great at it).
