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.
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.
> 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.
I think the part that applies is:
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.
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.
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 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.
Your type of tribal thinking is a cancer that will cause much hardship for your country in future.
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!
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. :/
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).