|
Post by michaelw on Aug 10, 2019 9:25:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2019 21:02:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2019 20:49:38 GMT -5
Yes, it sounds like the reasoning from Twitter basically amounts to a kind of saving McConnell from his own Tweets, which doesn't sound like a good-faith argument in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 7, 2019 7:46:14 GMT -5
I might take them over Trump, too. But again, I don't need to, if there's another choice. Which was the point here: I don't and won't support Trump, but that doesn't mean I have to support one of the Dem candidates. And their--and their supporters--actions aren't pulling me in, they're pushing me away. For sure. And I think that's totally fine. A lot of people seem to think voting third party, or not voting at all, are somehow invalid choices, but I've never felt that way, especially when the main candidates are merely bad and worse. But none of this stuff really surprises me, unfortunately. US politics seems to be going in an ugly direction, and the election cycle is only going to make it worse, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 7, 2019 7:17:13 GMT -5
But he was saying the right things--for once--after these shootings (even as he mixed up his Ohio cities; in his defense, every city in Ohio does look the same). Even the NYT allowed this was the case to some extent (the meat of the story I referenced was hardly praising Trump, after all), at least for those moments before political pressure forced them to "correct" a perfectly reasonable and accurate headline. It was better than Charlottesville. But I think it was actually a step back, compared w/ some of his previous statements on similar events. I agree w/ Jay Nordlinger's comments, which I'll quote a brief part of: That seems completely reasonable. It sends a message of solidarity to the targeted group, and it's the decent thing to do, IMO. And that's exactly what Trump did after the synagogue shootings in Poway and Pittsburgh. Here's the very first part of his Poway statement: And here's the very first part of his Pittsburgh statement:
In both cases, Trump acknowledges straight away that the shootings were targeting a specific group. But unless I missed it, Trump seems to have left out that particular detail in his comments on El Paso. Would it be too crude to say, sarcastically, I wonder why? I don't disagree. I expected that to happen and sure enough, that's exactly what happened. But I'd still take any one of them over Trump, any day of the week. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 6, 2019 19:46:57 GMT -5
And this issue lead right into the next one: people--including media people--have been (rightly) calling on Trump to denounce white supremacy for a while now. So he does. And damned if he's not catching more flak for doing so. It's not that I think simply denouncing the ideology is enough; actions speak louder than words, after all. But still, taking a necessary first step is always better than not taking it, imo. Well, Trump has so much baggage on this issue at this point, I personally find it hard to cut him much slack. I mean, if someone condemns neo-Nazis out of one side of his mouth, and then promotes them by re-tweeting their stuff on Twitter, it's not unreasonable--IMO-to think they might be full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 6, 2019 5:33:56 GMT -5
Yes, I do. For two reasons: 1. It's a serious problem and getting worse. Politicians can't ignore it for ever. 2. The newest generation of voters care about this issue deeply, and hey, they need to be pandered too as well, right?! Yeah, I'm interested to see how this plays out in future elections, because I think you're right that younger people are more interested in this issue, even young Republicans, to a large degree.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 3, 2019 19:49:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 19, 2019 19:59:55 GMT -5
Just curious: do you guys think Trump was aware that AOC, Pressley, and Tlaib are not immigrants?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 17, 2019 5:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 12, 2019 6:07:27 GMT -5
Good article. www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/welcome-to-the-hellfire-club/Michael Warren Davis, who notes in the above piece that he voted for Trump in 2016, comes out and says what a lot of partisans probably know (or suspect) to be true but don't want to admit: that Trump and Clinton both probably knew this whole time that Epstein was a predator. But really, who could be surprised?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 10, 2019 6:16:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 20, 2019 23:38:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 20, 2019 21:13:17 GMT -5
- The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Sanders. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Warren, third party, or stay home?
Damn. I have to choose between Trump, Warren, and third party, even when Sanders is actually the nominee. (Just kidding, I know what you meant. ) In any case, I certainly prefer any of the Dems over Trump. But I don't think I would drag myself over broken glass to vote for any of them. My home state always votes Dem, so I think I'd just be fooling myself into a certain degree of self-importance. In the hypothetical scenario where one votes decides everything, sure. I'll go for the Dem. But in reality, we all know how likely that is.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on May 10, 2019 20:12:26 GMT -5
Apparently, Trump wanted Don McGahn to say that Trump didn't obstruct justice. McGahn said he wouldn't do it. Link.
|
|