I think his rage over covid is partly due to knowing that he'll be fucked up by the disease, whereas most normal, healthy/somewhat physically active, non-obese people are perfectly fine having caught it. I may get covid and if it's the sniffles, a cough, and anosmia, as it likely would be, I would still say the pandemic scaremongering is bullshit. The only people who
need the scaremongering are those looking to be scared, especially if their risk comes entirely from the fact that they're a physically despondent obese troll living off of "small" fast food meals in a dank basement cave.
Basically, the consumerist fatty is mad because covid could actually kill him due to his poor lifestyle, so he wants everyone else to be just as panicked.
Jesus Christ these people are retarded. They really think they're all so smart pontificating how to best interfere with and ruin other people's lives just because they vote differently.
But that central tweet Robert is agreeing with...I don't even understand. Give me my puzzle pieces for trying to exegete this tweet.
The first part calls for Reconstruction—but not the parts pre-1876 which may have been working (like what allowed Hiram Revels to be the first black congressman, as Senator, in 1870 for Mississippi—Obama has
nothing on his predecessor Senator Revels, who's way more interesting and successful). Rather, they seem to call for a Reconstruction in the vein of carpetbagging yankees reforming society in their image, destroying local economies and historic cultures in the pursuit of making a lot of money and exploiting their fellow countrymen. So, in other words, just the bad parts. Has this fuck ever read Southern Gothic fiction before? Go read Faulkner and tell me what he's suggesting didn't clearly traumatize a whole generation. Here's a
link to a short story by him, Barn Burning, to see what I mean.
The second part is more confusing. Grant's Overland Campaign? Also called his Wilderness Campaign? It just consisted of Grant forcing bloody stalemates while advancing into Virginia to pin down General Lee, with each disengagement followed by a maneuver aimed to decouple Lee's army from Richmond, disrupt supplies to the theater, or, at worst, attrition the South's troops by engaging in another battle deeper into Virginia territory. Since Grant had a lot of reserves and available equipment, he was basically assured eventual victory if didn't get crushed decisively during an engagement. He failed to force decisive battles in his favour, so Grant ended up maneuvering past Lee to Petersberg, a supply town for Richmond, besieging it and Lee for 10 months until Lee retreated. Lee surrendered later that month at Appomattox.
So what's the suggestion here? Seriously? It's not Sherman's March to the Sea being referenced, which would suggest the wholesale destruction of cities and communities. Rather it's Grant's Wilderness Campaign. So...the US military invade certain states and besiege key regional cities to cause...what? I'm really grasping here. Robert's boyish confidence in approving of such a plan thus really confuses me. He wants in the long term military occupation of the "wrong" states? Sieges of towns and cities which don't agree? I mean, really, what the fuck is he trying to say?