posted by gutLOL....imagine Steyer sitting at home going "hmmmm, there's a lot of room for a candidate to the left". Can't wait to see him in the debates. And I think the person he siphons the most votes away from is probably Warren.
Also, Beto "my great-grandpa had slaves!"....you're doing it wrong.
I can't believe he said that.
posted by O-TrapI can't believe he said that.
Not if you're running for President Wokeness!
posted by gutNot if you're running for President Wokeness!
I'm not saying he can't pull it off. He's attractive, went out of his way to speak a (grammatically clumsy ...) non-English language on the national stage, and is probably in the running for offering the most free stuff. And while he's probably the least "minority" of anyone in the running for the DNC bid not named Biden, he talks a good game of it.
But yeah, I can't think of a single way in which he helped his cause with how he said that.
This is the kind of thing that sheds a light on the enigma that is Trump. Trump said some crazy shit prior to, and during, his campaign. Stuff that would have absolutely torpedoed anyone else's campaign never derailed his. Blows my mind.
no lies told in this article. Including *gasp* gerrymandering
posted by geeblockno lies told in this article. Including *gasp* gerrymandering
Also nothing worth reading. Just your typical identity politics drivel from WokePo.
posted by geeblockno lies told in this article. Including *gasp* gerrymandering
Can you give us the ungerrymandered facts from the article?
It’s an opinion piece but I’m sure u didn’t read it
posted by geeblockIt’s an opinion piece but I’m sure u didn’t read it
I read it. It's a crock of shit. The whole blanket racist labeling is quite offensive.
As for gerrymandering the Democrats love it. As long as they win elections.
posted by geeblockno lies told in this article. Including *gasp* gerrymandering
Eh, he plays fast an loose with the ultimate motive for the "autopsy after the 2012 election. Race was part of that, but it was neither the only part nor even a majority of why that was done. They were still talking about where the party would stand on same-sex marriage back then. Maybe it's not an out-and-out lie to say it was about race, but it's certainly not completely honest, either, as the full truth wouldn't quite fit the narrative of the piece.
The piece is equally coy with the statement that what 2016 Republican primary voters "wanted" was a "xenophobic bigot who wasn’t shy about making explicit appeals to white nationalism." The racial undertones of some of his statements (which weren't as blatant as they are today, as Kelly Ann Conway's husband wrote about a day or two ago) were one of the biggest criticisms against him among Republicans during the primaries. It was his "outsider" and "maverick" personality that had people willing to vote for him thinking he'd be the best net positive.
Make no mistake, the Republican Party HAS laid groundwork for criticism over racial issues before Trump. The unsustainable multiple wars against Middle Eastern countries who had not acted as aggressors will not be viewed well looking back in history. The ridiculous fearmongering about "Sharia Law in the US" is something they should hope gets forgotten as well. But the kind Trump had occasionally alluded to was against more than just 'brown people from the desert'. I don't think anyone would have imagined it would be as overt as it has become.
All that to say that the writer is, at best, being disingenuous with his phrasing.
His little jab about "the help of the Kremlin" and "the backstop of the electoral college" is silly, as well. I've no doubt that Trump would skirt the law and rules to get what he wanted. I think he's corrupt on a level that I've certainly never seen in the Oval Office in my lifetime, but there remains no case that passes muster with regard to him colluding with Russia. Sure, it seems like Russia was active in attempting to influence the US election, but that's something that most world powers, the US probably the BIGGEST offender of which, do all the time. And the electoral college didn't play some special rule for Trump. It's been the agreed-upon rule for a couple centuries now. The reason for its existence has been laid out exhaustively, and its presence and role were no surprise to anyone.
"His voters don’t just tolerate Trump’s racism, they cheer it." Coupled with his previous sentence, he commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.
P1: If RNC voters cheered his racism, then he would receive the nomination.
P2: He received the nomination.
Q1: Thus, his voters cheered his racism.
The author does effectively nothing to argue against the case that many either denied it, dismissed it, or tolerated it, all as opposed to endorsing or cheering it.
Also, as has been stated previously on here, gerrymandering has nothing to do with presidential elections, so his efforts to bring that up in a conversation about the state of the Republican Party in light of the current president is, at best, context-less.
The fact that he decries the Senate system, which give all states the same number of votes, while ignoring the very thing put into place to counterbalance that (the House), is ignorant at best. Deceptive at worst.
Worth noting as well, essentially every structural piece that he treats like a strategic support for the Republican Party predate the Republican Party, which makes his indictment against these structures laughable.
Finally, the author hilariously attempts to paint the entirety of the Republican political sphere with the same brush by saying they "have a hard time seeing past the next election." It's basically an ad hoc statement. It serves the author's purpose to say it, even though it's absurdly unlikely to be true, and even if it were true, he'd have no way of knowing it.
It's an opinion piece, but it's mostly a short-form manifesto from a man who appears to think he knows more than he can know and seems to paint the missing pieces however best suits his sense of superiority.
Some of it he got right, mind you. His teasing out of the missed opportunity on Rubio was pretty accurate, for example, and while gerrymandering doesn't have anything to do with the Executive branch, it is indeed something that happens and is a problematic means for ensuring the maximum retention of seats in the House. But he took too many assumptive liberties for you to be able to say there was "no lies told." If none of the false or deceptive statements were lies, the only alternative would be that he's an idiot or a blindly partisan hack.
"Wokeback Mountain"
There's been a concerted effort by the far left to change the meaning of words and people are slowly starting to conform to it. The mislabeling of fascism, nazism and even nationalism. There's nothing wrong with being a nationalist IMO. But we're slowly being led, as a society, to believe that the very utterance of the word "nationalism" is a dog whistle for racism.
Meanwhile the left is becoming even more authoritarian and violent. I had somebody tell me on Twitter that it's (paraphrasing) ok to be authoritarian if the left does it because it brings about good change lol
posted by geeblockno lies told in this article. Including *gasp* gerrymandering
I see why you like him as neither of you understand what gerrymandering is. You both brought it up with regards to a POTUS election when it only effects the HoR nationally.
Congratulations on finding someone else who doesn’t know how gerrymandering works.
posted by CenterBHSFan"Wokeback Mountain"
There's been a concerted effort by the far left to change the meaning of words and people are slowly starting to conform to it. The mislabeling of fascism, nazism and even nationalism. There's nothing wrong with being a nationalist IMO. But we're slowly being led, as a society, to believe that the very utterance of the word "nationalism" is a dog whistle for racism.
They have been doing this for years. Progressive = Marxist, but they can’t call themselves Marxists and get enough votes. There is a plethora of other examples.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1151172627580497929
1. I have no idea why she felt the need to say she was from Italy and Ireland. Was she trying to say I’m whiter than you? Does she not remember when Italians and Irish were treated poorly by true patriots 150 years ago and had to change their names and assimilate in order to find work and housing. Now all of the sudden they have superior claim to American citizenship and are more loyal to America than those who have ancestors from brown countries?
2. Nationalality and ethnicity are two different things. He asked about what country the president was talking about so ethnicity really has nothing to do with it.
3. We are all not originally from somewhere else. Our ancestors are from somewhere else but I’m not sure what point she is making. People born here are Americans and where your ancestors come from to me is mostly irrelevant in life except for the food served at family holidays
posted by geeblockhttps://mobile.twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1151172627580497929
1. I have no idea why she felt the need to say she was from Italy and Ireland. Was she trying to say I’m whiter than you? Does she not remember when Italians and Irish were treated poorly by true patriots 150 years ago and had to change their names and assimilate in order to find work and housing. Now all of the sudden they have superior claim to American citizenship and are more loyal to America than those who have ancestors from brown countries?
2. Nationalality and ethnicity are two different things. He asked about what country the president was talking about so ethnicity really has nothing to do with it.
3. We are all not originally from somewhere else. Our ancestors are from somewhere else but I’m not sure what point she is making. People born here are Americans and where your ancestors come from to me is mostly irrelevant in life except for the food served at family holidays
I agree with your basic premise that it doesn't or shouldn't matter where your ancestors are from. But it does anyway, which brings me to your second point. Yes, they are different things, but people lump them together all the time, especially identitarians and most particularly those who stringently adhere to political correctness. It's why we are supposed to refer to black people as African Americans; it's the box that they are supposed to click. See how that works? So how do you fix that?
posted by geeblock...are from somewhere else but I’m not sure what point she is making. People born here are Americans and where your ancestors come from to me is mostly irrelevant in life except for the food served at family holidays
Perhaps she meant no one refers to themselves as "Caucasian American"?
posted by CenterBHSFanI agree with your basic premise that it doesn't or shouldn't matter where your ancestors are from. But it does anyway, which brings me to your second point. Yes, they are different things, but people lump them together all the time, especially identitarians and most particularly those who stringently adhere to political correctness. It's why we are supposed to refer to black people as African Americans; it's the box that they are supposed to click. See how that works? So how do you fix that?
I can agree with this. She def doesn’t take into account people like me who have no idea where they are from. Of course I could say Africa but of course that may or not be the case. With no records or way to get a family history I’ll probably never know. I really don’t trust those 23 and me and similar sites and I also don’t want the govt having my dna
posted by geeblockhttps://mobile.twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1151172627580497929
1. I have no idea why she felt the need to say she was from Italy and Ireland. Was she trying to say I’m whiter than you? Does she not remember when Italians and Irish were treated poorly by true patriots 150 years ago and had to change their names and assimilate in order to find work and housing. Now all of the sudden they have superior claim to American citizenship and are more loyal to America than those who have ancestors from brown countries?
2. Nationalality and ethnicity are two different things. He asked about what country the president was talking about so ethnicity really has nothing to do with it.
3. We are all not originally from somewhere else. Our ancestors are from somewhere else but I’m not sure what point she is making. People born here are Americans and where your ancestors come from to me is mostly irrelevant in life except for the food served at family holidays
1. There you go injecting race/racism into everything. She was clarifying what the President meant by ancestry/go back. She stated what hers was, she wasn’t trying to “be more white”. That was an asinine statement.
2. I agree with you, where we are “originally” from doesn’t matter and Trump was stupid for saying anything about it.
posted by jmog1. There you go injecting race/racism into everything. She was clarifying what the President meant by ancestry/go back. She stated what hers was, she wasn’t trying to “be more white”. That was an asinine statement.
2. I agree with you, where we are “originally” from doesn’t matter and Trump was stupid for saying anything about it.
I didn’t “inject” race into it. She literally asked him what his ethnicity was. That injected race into it. I’m trying to understand what her point was. If he answered a country or race was she going to tell him he could go back there if he doesn’t like this country even if he was born here? How is this different than the go back to Africa movement in the 60’s.
posted by geeblockhttps://mobile.twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1151172627580497929
1. I have no idea why she felt the need to say she was from Italy and Ireland. Was she trying to say I’m whiter than you? Does she not remember when Italians and Irish were treated poorly by true patriots 150 years ago and had to change their names and assimilate in order to find work and housing. Now all of the sudden they have superior claim to American citizenship and are more loyal to America than those who have ancestors from brown countries?
2. Nationalality and ethnicity are two different things. He asked about what country the president was talking about so ethnicity really has nothing to do with it.
3. We are all not originally from somewhere else. Our ancestors are from somewhere else but I’m not sure what point she is making. People born here are Americans and where your ancestors come from to me is mostly irrelevant in life except for the food served at family holidays
We're talking about Kellyanne here and she's basically all the stupidity of Trump's Twitter feed in human form. One of those people who really should be ignored a lot more, due to never having anything of substance to add to anything.
I do think the emotion and statement she made at the end is what a lot of people are buying into and it definitely could get trump re elected. They really don’t have to run on policies like giving folks healthcare or worry about the middle class. They can just run a campaign based on fear and as trump said yesterday “many people agree with me” “many people love it”. This election could be a landslide
