It would be a dereliction of duty
No, it would be precisely his duty to try to bring a whole country together. This isn't a zero sum game. No one wins if it's a game of hurting each other each election cycle.
9 Matching Annotations
- Nov 2020
-
-
-
While that might sound angry, choosing what’s right is supposed to upset people who choose evil, even if it means stabbing them in the throat.
Yet more hyperbolic thinking. The world is not so clear cut. Neither side is choosing evil, the author just needs to be this way in order to push an agenda.
-
“[W]ith firmness in the right.”
If you come to the table with a genuine desire to compromise, you'll get compromise. Don't come to the table with demands, but come with hopes of reconciliation.
-
Ignore Trump supporters and the GOP.
That would only serve to further separate people, which appears to be what the author wants here.
-
These people don’t want unity.They want to kill us.
More hyperbolic language. This is untrue, as I do not want to hurt anyone as such a voter.
-
Good cannot unite with evil. Right cannot unite with wrong.
This is putting a complex issue in very "black and white" terms (pun intended.) Honestly the author is trying to stoke racial divisions here. The world is not so simple, and this sort of rhetoric is exactly how we arrived at our present situation of polarization.
-
As usual, white people believe we are the ones who should shoulder the burden of their failures.
That's racist and presumptive.
-
but if we succeed, it is also our responsibility to make them feel like they won.
You don't have to do anything. However, it would behoove you to do so as you have to live and work with the other 49% on a daily basis.
So, it ask you -- do you really what to demonize 49% of the country so easily?
-
-
hypothes.is hypothes.is
-
Annotation Types
Test
-