They let people in desperate need of mental healthcare get it.
Maybe you shouldn't have closed the mental institutions and let the mentally ill rot in the streets.
You said the left believed the right wing would go unchecked if Trump was elected. So did the far right.
Until they quickly did an about-face and started denouncing him as a Jewish puppet.
This rally was a result of them being emboldened by Trump
The rally was a response to proposals to bring down a statue of Robert E. Lee, and in attempt to unite the various factions of the alt-right, as its name indicates.
Trump wins only if you exclude working class minorities,
So, the people brainwashed by literal generations of propaganda.
returning refugees to places they are likely to be murdered
That your country has a high crime rate is not the USG's problem. The USG is not the world government nor should it be.
he idea that conservative groups might have to actually explain their book keeping to retain tax exempt status is definitely straining at a gnat.
It was wrong when Nixon targeted the IRS at his political enemies and it was wrong when Obama did it.
You are right that the Democrats have failed the Black community.
What I disagree with you on is the notion that the Republicans would be better rather than worse.
Well, one-party democrat rule has led to literally no improvement and the situation in some metrics (rates of single parenthood, for instance) has gotten worse.
While I doubt Biden will do anything significant about police murders of black men
The vast majority of these incidents were criminals assaulting officers of the law, sometimes with deadly weapons. They weren't murders, but killings in self-defence. And I mean, the very idea that the President should directly involve himself in these incidents is a farce. The media blows each one of them up specifically because they're rare - and unjustified police shootings are even more rare than justified ones.
he won't signal support for police violence as Trump has.
Violence is sometimes a necessity in police work, especially in a country where lots of people are walking around packing heat. Now, there are some people who go a bit too far with it, and who are to quick to jump the gun, and there are folks who view their job as a sadistic power-tripping exercise, but the solution to this is better training, less sale of surplus military equipment to the cops, on-the-beat policing to build rapports to local communities, and body cams to make sure the truth can be known about what incidents do occur.
Not abolishing the police to go back to the hue-and-cry of the dark ages.
The Democrats did fail the Black community, by fighting de jure racism and segregation in the south, while leaving a lot of de facto segregation and racism in the north untouched,
Which explains why recent immigrants from Africa have done statistically significantly better? Or can these hypothetical racists in complete control of black people's destinies tell at a glance whether a black person he sees is a recent immigrant from Africa or a descendant of African slaves brought over centuries ago?
as well as doing far to little about economic inequality.
"Throwing money into the ghettos hasn't fixed the problems the black community faces - we just need to throw in
even more money, and call it reparations for slavery this time!"
Of course, this doesn't work because:
A. There are a lot more problems facing the black community than a lack of money.
B. Money which isn't earned by work (and that includes the often very difficult and risky work of running and/or starting a business) tends to be spent frivolously and hence have no net effect on an individual's well-being. See the behaviour of lottery winners, oil states, and society heiresses for an example.
But then, when your stupid ideals inevitably fail, socialists like you always say it was because you weren't socialist enough. No surprise. And of course, the more money that gets thrown into these deep blue cities, the more money
mysteriously comes into possession of the people in charge of them.
But I don't think the Republicans are going to step in and fix that, and neither do Black voters who, even more strongly than the working class, rejected Trump and his party.
I mean, Trump made gains among black voters (as well as Hispanics, LGBTs, and even Muslims) in 2020 from 2016. He certainly picked up less than amongst Hispanics (especially among escapees from socialism who've seen what socialists do when they take over a country) but "rejection" would imply that they supported him even less in 2020 than they did in 2016. In fact, as exit polls show, Trump gained amongst all minorities and amongst women. His losses were among ... dun dun dun ... white males.
The police are going to be harmed by not being given carte blanche to commit murder?
As I noted, the majority of "police murders" were lawful killings in self-defence. Now, power-tripping assholes and loose cannons amongst the police do exist, but their numbers will only increase with lowered budgets and an increase in rhetoric that sees the police as an enemy.
And small business owners will be hurt by not being allowed to force their employees to expose themselves to a deadly disease?
In some cities up to a third of small businesses are shuttered already. But of course, socialists like you don't actually care about whose livelihoods these policies destroy (which not only includes the business owners and their employees, but the wider communities in which these businesses exist in general).
This last bit is probably going to sound rude, but I think it needs to be said. You say Biden will help the CCP and the Iranian government, I am presuming by not engaging with trade wars with China and backing the nuclear deal with Iran.
The CCP are expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian ethno-nationalists. That our industrial civilisation and its supply chains is so heavily reliant on them is a moral shame and a strategic theat. They are enemies and should be treated as such.
The Iranian Mullahs are millenarian religious fanatics who have sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond and want to bring about a nuclear war which they believe will spark the arrival of the 13th Imam, who serves as a Messianic figure in their religion. The deal is a pinkie-pie promise not to develop nuclear weapons, which they already broke before Trump entered office as Mossad has confirmed and even has an explicit sunset clause (making it even more worthless). They are enemies and should be treated as such.
But what's really surprising is that you side with the literal theocrats and fascists. They're contrary to all of your stated political positions, but you instinctively side with these immoral regimes that not only act as enemies to the US, but oppress and terrorise their own people. We should not be acting to contain and weaken them you say - better prostrate ourselves and kowtow!
I think those are good policies
Why? Opening China made a degree of sense in the context of the Cold War to split the communist bloc, as did the weakening of American industry in general, but the Cold War is over. Russia is a has-been with no power projection capability and an economy the size of Italy's. We don't need to support Beijing any more. Neither has the PRC shifted towards liberalism as a result of our favourable policies towards them - indeed, the opposite has happened, and the CCP touts its economic success to justify the regime to the Chinese populace even as they persecute the Uyghurs and Chinese Christians along with the people of Hong Kong.
And the Mullahs who run Iran are a millenarian cult (the "Iranian government" you talk about has no real power). Imagine Scandinavia was ruled by hardcore adherents of the old Norse religion, who wanted dearly to start a nuclear war so they could die in an atom bomb blast and go straight to Valhalla, and as a sidenote were obsessed with destroying England and gaining hegemony over Europe as a stepping-stone to their nuclear war, and to do this were causing terrorist attacks all over the continent.
But then you're so breathtakingly naive so as to think "governments shouldn't be a thing". Geopolitics is far beyond you.
Like deciding criticisms of video games is a reason to send people death threats. It is utterly absurd if you think people just have thoughts and opinions they want to share, but makes (a little) more sense if you believe that they are saying these things out of a direct hostility to you and your identity.
I mean, the games media of the time did directly assault the 'gamer' identity with "gamers are dead" and other such statements. The ultimate inciting incident was not even those articles, which were themselves in response to an otherwise forgettable accusation of domestic abuse after the end of a failed relationship.
And the FBI literally did a full investigation (under Obama, no less) and found nothing worth taking seriously.
This just isn't how people on the left mostly think.
Yeah, right. You obsess constantly about how evil you are and how we stand in the way of your fantasyland socialist utopia.
The historian has a view of history that makes the hearer feel sad or bad and rather than moving on or arguing it isn't true, the immediate response is that the point of the analysis was to make them feel bad, and the historian is an enemy.
The historian engages in a propagandistic, slanted reading of history which inflames tension and attacks the legitimacy of America and its institutions, going so far as the very Constitution itself. Now, the 1619 project certainly has a right to exist and be published - but it's so hilariously easily refutable (the South was a backwater and economic growth actually picked up after slavery was abolished, which doesn't make sense if it was the great secret of American success) that it shouln't be taken seriously. But it insists, not on having the right to have its voice heard, which it does, but on becoming the new historiographical orthodoxy - the prism through which America views its own history, and that all other positions are immoral and holding them makes you evil.
The point of requiring the nuns to offer health insurance with a full range of coverage is a belief that your employer shouldn't get to decide what sort of medical treatment you should receive.
Requiring nuns to provide abortificients ... you're asking them to commit a grave sin in the Catholic religion, one which is deemed worthy of one of the most severe punishments, excommunication. You're asking them to, at least in their minds,
damn themselves to Hell rather than accept that they have a right to live by their own self-chosen moral standards.
And even if you really believe in the stated cause ...
"The point of making the Christians offer a sacrifice to the Emperor isn't to make them transgress their most cherished beliefs about there only being one god, it's about making them give a show of support to the institutions and customs of the Empire."
The point of not allowing the baker to turn away a gay couple is that we don't want businesses to be able to refuse business to minorities and go back to the days of green books.
And now you're outright lying about the facts of the matter. It wasn't a case of "turning away a gay couple" but of forcing a baker to make a public display of support for something which contradicts his religious beliefs. The gays could happily have brought any number of cakes and stuck a pin with two men in suits on the top of them - but they chose to force him to bake a custom work of art promoting gay marriage. There was even an exact parallel case in the UK, where the court ultimately made the same decision.
Because ultimately both cases were not even about restricting what may be expressed in public but about forcing people to express values they disagree with. And you wholeheartedly support that.
But then, that's what you anarchists did in Catalonia. Because ultimately anarchists aren't "anarchists" at all but totalitarian socialists (repeating myself here) who think they can skip Marx's "transitional phase" of total state domination and get straight to the fairyland socialist utopia (which is based, literally, on an 18th century French philosopher's romanticised beliefs about tribal and prehistoric peoples, which have been empirically debunked by historical and ethnographic study).
expanded healthcare benefits
Creating a bloated centralised healthcare system with endless waiting lists.
addressing economic inequality.
Looting the productive elements of society until there's no more to loot, i.e. all socialist "economic policy" ever.