Stop making this about anybody’s character. This is about due process and what passes as evidence.
Republicans control the narrative here and have already painted him as a gang member. No amount of opposition to this point from the Democrats will convince Republicans otherwise.
When Democrats try to counter by pointing to Garcia’s positive character traits, they are preaching to the choir. Whether you believe his a “gang banger” or a “family man” is irrelevant because the Republicans have the stage.
We need to demand evidence of all claims made by those in power… we need to do this relentlessly towards both sides. Do not accept any statement without evidence, and refuse to move on to a different point until the requirement for evidence has been satisfied.
When they say, “Garcia is an MS-13 terrorist,” we need to say, “What do you offer as proof?” and keep asking until they provide said proof, concede defeat, or resort to force towards their questioners. Like it or not, we need to do the same for Democrat’s claims that he is a “family man”. You will not win a propaganda war against the party that controls all branches of government.
Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Yes, but ask a question often enough, it becomes unavoidable.
When they say, “Garcia is an MS-13 terrorist,” we need to say, “What do you offer as proof?” and keep asking until they provide said proof, concede defeat, or resort to force towards their questioners. Like it or not, we need to do the same for Democrat’s claims that he is a “family man”.
We absolutely do not need to demand proof that he is a “family man”. That is the “innocent” part of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. The onus is on the state to prove he committed a crime. End of story.
In a court of law, yes, presumed innocence is the neutral state. In the court of public opinion, though, presuming innocence flips an “out-group = enemy” switch in their heads. Everything you say from that point is heard through their lizard brain telling them that you are a threat.
We do not have the luxury of holding the people currently in power to the rules. We don’t have the luxury of ignoring the crazy person in the room, either. We have to engage on their terms, else they flip the table and walk away still in power, still on the war path.
They do, however, have the capacity for rational thought. The calmer you can keep them, the sooner their rationality will tell them that human rights apply to everyone or none at all.
Stop making this about anybody’s character. This is about due process and what passes as evidence.
Republicans control the narrative here and have already painted him as a gang member. No amount of opposition to this point from the Democrats will convince Republicans otherwise.
When Democrats try to counter by pointing to Garcia’s positive character traits, they are preaching to the choir. Whether you believe his a “gang banger” or a “family man” is irrelevant because the Republicans have the stage.
We need to demand evidence of all claims made by those in power… we need to do this relentlessly towards both sides. Do not accept any statement without evidence, and refuse to move on to a different point until the requirement for evidence has been satisfied.
When they say, “Garcia is an MS-13 terrorist,” we need to say, “What do you offer as proof?” and keep asking until they provide said proof, concede defeat, or resort to force towards their questioners. Like it or not, we need to do the same for Democrat’s claims that he is a “family man”. You will not win a propaganda war against the party that controls all branches of government.
Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Yes, but ask a question often enough, it becomes unavoidable.
They have all the evidence they need, they have his skin color.
The south finally got their greatest dream, Jim crow back.
We absolutely do not need to demand proof that he is a “family man”. That is the “innocent” part of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. The onus is on the state to prove he committed a crime. End of story.
In a court of law, yes, presumed innocence is the neutral state. In the court of public opinion, though, presuming innocence flips an “out-group = enemy” switch in their heads. Everything you say from that point is heard through their lizard brain telling them that you are a threat.
We do not have the luxury of holding the people currently in power to the rules. We don’t have the luxury of ignoring the crazy person in the room, either. We have to engage on their terms, else they flip the table and walk away still in power, still on the war path.
They do, however, have the capacity for rational thought. The calmer you can keep them, the sooner their rationality will tell them that human rights apply to everyone or none at all.