3 ms·

Again, it's reasonable to debate Bidens decision, or anyone else's. Hell, I might even agree with you that he could have done better with the negotiations. In t

Again, it's reasonable to debate Bidens decision, or anyone else's. Hell, I might even agree with you that he could have done better with the negotiations. In the end his plan worked, but it's possible a better negotiator could have gotten there more quickly or for less. It's not reasonable to drum up rage about it through bogoted hate speech, which is what Kirk did. Despite Griner being only one of several prisoners Biden advocated for Kirk rambled about her sexual preferences and skin color then made up a fairy tale about how it was being done at these other prisoners expense. It wasn't. Kirks claim that she received special treatment as a black lesbian cannabis enthusiast was just a straight up lie. Griner was part of a larger package that included the other prisoners Kirk was concerned with. Kirk knew that fact, and ignored it in favor of devisive rhetoric. Ultimately Biden got all of them released, and Kirks rhetoric did nothing but give the rightwing bigots and leftwing zealots both more rage fuel along the way. America is in a bad place, and people fabricating lies like Kirk did are one reason for that.

somenameforme 1y ago
I don't think your post here is in accordance with the facts. Biden released arguably the single highest value captive we had in order to solely get one of the lowest value that Russia had, and he started this process almost immediately after she was detained. That is indisputably extremely special treatment. At this point we loop back through. Biden was absolutely obsessed with pandering based on race and deviant sexuality, largely as a means of furthering his own political ambitions which relied heavily on these two demographic, which were expected to (and indeed did) prove critical in the 2024 election. And in this case the completely unprecedented and special treatment he offered was granted to somebody to happened to fill out every checkbox he sought to pander to. And you want to claim it was, instead, because of her alleged "fame" as a WNBA player. Okay, that's fine - and I can't prove you wrong because outside of private conversations it's not like Biden's going to pull an LBJ and openly rant about strategic racebaiting. But what's not fine is you then claiming that anybody who accepts the most probable explanation is suddenly lying or engaged in divisive rhetoric is, itself a lie. And in fact you'd also be pointing to the overwhelming majority of Americans as only 38% of people approved of this action [1], which is obviously going to be disproportionately made up of heavily partisan Democrats who are not exactly being impartial. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356203/approval-brittney-griner-prisoner-swap-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356203/approval-brittne...
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > solely get one of the lowest value that Russia had Again, that is NOT what happened. You have the facts wrong, likely because Kirk and everyone else in right wing media lied to you. The negotiation was for several prisoners, that happened to include Griner among them. In the end Biden didn't get a great deal, but Griner and another named Sarah Krivanek (who hadn't officially been convicted yet and was just listed as "deported") were released in the first round. More importantly the first round opened the door to the later negotiation that allowed for the release of 26 additional prisoners, including Whelan - who you used as an example of someone that would have been worthwhile earlier. Sometimes negotiations take more than a single round. It's probably worth noting that Whelan was booted from the military for larceny, and wasn't exactly an upstanding fellow himself, but it's irrelevant to this conversation in the same way that Griners sexuality and race are. > completely unprecedented and special treatment I have seen no evidence to support this claim. I have seen evidence to the contrary (IE - Biden negotiated for others at the same time). I'm not sure what else there is to discuss if it's become a matter of "faith" rather than one of evidence. > the most probable explanation The most probable explanation is the one supported by the facts, not the inference of Biden's motives based on right-wing talking points. There is no evidence to support the theory that Biden allowed Griner's race or sexual preferences to play a factor in his decision and there IS evidence to the contrary. EDIT - Also, your statistic is misleading at best. If you do the math only 46% disapproved. So it was an 8% difference. The rest, like me, probably just didn't care.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  I think I've had enough of this conversation, but I did want to add one more thing before I call it quits: Thank you for taking the time to engage with me. I know there were more fun things you could have spent this time on. One thing Kirk got right, was that we all need to be more open to engaging with each other in a civil way. He didn't always get it right, but nobody does and he didn't deserve to go out the way he did. I hope that the person responsible faces serious consequences, but more importantly I hope that we all find a way to respectfully disagree with each other and can find the grace to bend enough to meet somewhere in the middle. I think that our conversation here is further proof that it can be done.

somenameforme 1y ago

I don't think your post here is in accordance with the facts. Biden released arguably the single highest value captive we had in order to solely get one of the lowest value that Russia had, and he started this process almost immediately after she was detained. That is indisputably extremely special treatment. At this point we loop back through. Biden was absolutely obsessed with pandering based on race and deviant sexuality, largely as a means of furthering his own political ambitions which relied heavily on these two demographic, which were expected to (and indeed did) prove critical in the 2024 election. And in this case the completely unprecedented and special treatment he offered was granted to somebody to happened to fill out every checkbox he sought to pander to. And you want to claim it was, instead, because of her alleged "fame" as a WNBA player. Okay, that's fine - and I can't prove you wrong because outside of private conversations it's not like Biden's going to pull an LBJ and openly rant about strategic racebaiting. But what's not fine is you then claiming that anybody who accepts the most probable explanation is suddenly lying or engaged in divisive rhetoric is, itself a lie. And in fact you'd also be pointing to the overwhelming majority of Americans as only 38% of people approved of this action [1], which is obviously going to be disproportionately made up of heavily partisan Democrats who are not exactly being impartial. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356203/approval-brittney-griner-prisoner-swap-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1356203/approval-brittne...

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> solely get one of the lowest value that Russia had Again, that is NOT what happened. You have the facts wrong, likely because Kirk and everyone else in right wing media lied to you. The negotiation was for several prisoners, that happened to include Griner among them. In the end Biden didn't get a great deal, but Griner and another named Sarah Krivanek (who hadn't officially been convicted yet and was just listed as "deported") were released in the first round. More importantly the first round opened the door to the later negotiation that allowed for the release of 26 additional prisoners, including Whelan - who you used as an example of someone that would have been worthwhile earlier. Sometimes negotiations take more than a single round. It's probably worth noting that Whelan was booted from the military for larceny, and wasn't exactly an upstanding fellow himself, but it's irrelevant to this conversation in the same way that Griners sexuality and race are. > completely unprecedented and special treatment I have seen no evidence to support this claim. I have seen evidence to the contrary (IE - Biden negotiated for others at the same time). I'm not sure what else there is to discuss if it's become a matter of "faith" rather than one of evidence. > the most probable explanation The most probable explanation is the one supported by the facts, not the inference of Biden's motives based on right-wing talking points. There is no evidence to support the theory that Biden allowed Griner's race or sexual preferences to play a factor in his decision and there IS evidence to the contrary. EDIT - Also, your statistic is misleading at best. If you do the math only 46% disapproved. So it was an 8% difference. The rest, like me, probably just didn't care.
mapontosevenths 1y ago
I think I've had enough of this conversation, but I did want to add one more thing before I call it quits: Thank you for taking the time to engage with me. I know there were more fun things you could have spent this time on. One thing Kirk got right, was that we all need to be more open to engaging with each other in a civil way. He didn't always get it right, but nobody does and he didn't deserve to go out the way he did. I hope that the person responsible faces serious consequences, but more importantly I hope that we all find a way to respectfully disagree with each other and can find the grace to bend enough to meet somewhere in the middle. I think that our conversation here is further proof that it can be done.