Tucker Carlson starts presidential campaign by appealing to moderate Republicans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:58:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Tucker Carlson starts presidential campaign by appealing to moderate Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Tucker Carlson starts presidential campaign by appealing to moderate Republicans  (Read 2906 times)
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2020, 08:05:20 AM »
« edited: July 09, 2020, 08:40:14 AM by Antifacist Ghost of Ruin »

Did anyone see the full clip? Duckworth was asked in an interview whether or not statues of George Washington should be taken down, and her answer was "We should have a conversation about that." Aside from the fact that this is my most-hated political platitude, how f**king hard is it for Democrats to say "Hey, there's a difference between a person who became critical of slavery later in life and freed his slaves upon his death, and a person who actively fought for the preservation of slavery"?? And maybe there's also a distinction to be made based on the fact that George Washington had, you know, a few notable accomplishments in his life outside of fighting for slavery-- something the Confederates can't say for themselves?

I used to like Duckworth; I thought she was a decent Democrat and a good VP choice for Biden. But this is an unforced error that is clearly the result of influence from the internet activist left. Either Duckworth actually believes that #cancelling Washington is worth discussing, or she is too scared of reprisal from dumb millennial Twitter twits to actually speak her mind. Either way, this whole thing is disheartening and it has made me lose even more faith in the Democratic Party's ability to restrain its worst elements.

Either you're a hack using a false dilemma as a cheap rhetorical trick, or you're a prime example of Dunning-Kruger, unable to contemplate that someone might have a reason for saying something that you don't understand. Either way, I doubt you were ever actually going to support any Democratic candidate.

As for why we should have a conversation about Washington, maybe because it would bring up some things we don't talk about in the history books. Like his genocidal campaign against the Iroquois during the Revolution (because they had sided with the British and were opposed to expansion of the Colonies/United States).
Quote
Command of the expedition then settled upon Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, a truculent onetime New Hampshire lawyer whom Washington instructed in a detailed May 31, 1779, letter to move “against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.” The immediate object of the campaign, Washington said, was “the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible.” Sullivan was told to carry out his mission “in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” The “total ruin” of the Indian settlements, Washington wrote, would guarantee America’s future security by inspiring the Indians with terror through “the severity of the chastisement they receive.”
Quote
On September 15 Sullivan destroyed one last Iroquois settlement near present-day Geneseo, N.Y., and—considering his mission accomplished—turned for home. His army left a path of devastation that deserved the term “scorched earth.” Although it hadn’t carried the war to Niagara, as Washington had hoped, the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign had fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of its orders. “The army had brought a whirlwind of destruction,” according to historian Joseph R. Fischer. “Their torches had reduced 40 Iroquois towns and villages to ashes and destroyed 160,000 bushels of corn.” Sullivan reported to Washington and Congress there was “not a single village left in the country of the five nations.” By burning the Iroquois’ homes, crops and food stores, his army ensured the deaths of thousands by freezing and starvation during what would be the coldest winter on record at the time.

I don't think we should damn Washington's memory because of the above. But we absolutely should be aware that he ordered it. (And somehow, all those statues of him don't seem to have managed to keep it in the history curriculum.)
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,321
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2020, 02:30:41 PM »
« Edited: July 09, 2020, 02:35:04 PM by Honest Johnny Dule »

Did anyone see the full clip? Duckworth was asked in an interview whether or not statues of George Washington should be taken down, and her answer was "We should have a conversation about that." Aside from the fact that this is my most-hated political platitude, how f**king hard is it for Democrats to say "Hey, there's a difference between a person who became critical of slavery later in life and freed his slaves upon his death, and a person who actively fought for the preservation of slavery"?? And maybe there's also a distinction to be made based on the fact that George Washington had, you know, a few notable accomplishments in his life outside of fighting for slavery-- something the Confederates can't say for themselves?

I used to like Duckworth; I thought she was a decent Democrat and a good VP choice for Biden. But this is an unforced error that is clearly the result of influence from the internet activist left. Either Duckworth actually believes that #cancelling Washington is worth discussing, or she is too scared of reprisal from dumb millennial Twitter twits to actually speak her mind. Either way, this whole thing is disheartening and it has made me lose even more faith in the Democratic Party's ability to restrain its worst elements.

Either you're a hack using a false dilemma as a cheap rhetorical trick, or you're a prime example of Dunning-Kruger, unable to contemplate that someone might have a reason for saying something that you don't understand. Either way, I doubt you were ever actually going to support any Democratic candidate.

As for why we should have a conversation about Washington, maybe because it would bring up some things we don't talk about in the history books. Like his genocidal campaign against the Iroquois during the Revolution (because they had sided with the British and were opposed to expansion of the Colonies/United States).

Quote
Command of the expedition then settled upon Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, a truculent onetime New Hampshire lawyer whom Washington instructed in a detailed May 31, 1779, letter to move “against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.” The immediate object of the campaign, Washington said, was “the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible.” Sullivan was told to carry out his mission “in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” The “total ruin” of the Indian settlements, Washington wrote, would guarantee America’s future security by inspiring the Indians with terror through “the severity of the chastisement they receive.”
Quote
On September 15 Sullivan destroyed one last Iroquois settlement near present-day Geneseo, N.Y., and—considering his mission accomplished—turned for home. His army left a path of devastation that deserved the term “scorched earth.” Although it hadn’t carried the war to Niagara, as Washington had hoped, the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign had fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of its orders. “The army had brought a whirlwind of destruction,” according to historian Joseph R. Fischer. “Their torches had reduced 40 Iroquois towns and villages to ashes and destroyed 160,000 bushels of corn.” Sullivan reported to Washington and Congress there was “not a single village left in the country of the five nations.” By burning the Iroquois’ homes, crops and food stores, his army ensured the deaths of thousands by freezing and starvation during what would be the coldest winter on record at the time.

I don't think we should damn Washington's memory because of the above. But we absolutely should be aware that he ordered it. (And somehow, all those statues of him don't seem to have managed to keep it in the history curriculum.)

Overlooking your personal attacks towards me (none of which are accurate by the way; I've said before on this site that I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), you are at the very least engaging on the subject of who Washington was and how we should view him. You must see that your well-researched post on the historicity of Washington's mythos is different from a noncommittal remark like "We need to have a conversation about this." Duckworth dodged the question because she was afraid of reprisal from the activist left. If she actually wanted Washington's statues taken down because of his actions taken against the Iroquois, or because he held slaves, or for any other reason, she should have come out and said it. If she didn't want his statues taken down, she should have said that. Now, the former opinion is extremely stupid, but at least stating it openly would be honest and forthright. As it is, she has avoided taking any position on the issue whatsoever-- which was her intent.

Altogether, you're seriously misplacing your anger and at the same time willfully misunderstanding what I said.

And for the record, the statues of Lee and the Confederates were erected because they were racists. The statues of Washington and Jefferson were erected despite the fact that they were racists. There is an enormous difference between the two, and the people who do not understand that are far, far more ignorant than the conservatives they condemn.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2020, 02:35:58 PM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.
Except people like you also want whites to feel guilty about what their ancestors did.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2020, 09:05:38 AM »

Tammy Duckworth is the last person who Tucker Carlson should be attacking. While in the past, I've agreed with some of what he has said, and think that his economic positions are much more populist (and thus, more in line with the majority of Americans) than most other Republicans, I think he's crossed a line here.

To be fair, Tammy Duckworth's criticism of Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore was flat-out dishonest.  She portrayed it as Trump talking about statues of "Dead Traitors".

Trump did no such thing.  There was not a single reference to a single Confederate figure in his speech.  Not one.  There were references to the Presidents on Mount Rushmore and a wide litany of important American historical figures of all races.  Duckworth's comments were (at best) from a speech written before Trump's speech without her listening to it; at worst, they were a deliberate attempt to deceive and feed into a poisonous narrative that our President is a Neo-Confederate.  (He's not, and that's silly beyond words.)

Tammy Duckworth isn't sacred; she's a politician who may well be Biden's running mate, and may be the 47th President of the United States.  If it matters when Donald Trump lies, misspeaks, or deliberatly omits key facts (and he has done all of that and it does matter), does it not matter when Tammy Duckworth does the same?  She's hardly a nobody, and she's way beyond Ilhan Omar in terms of importance.  (Ilhan isn't gong to be Biden's running mate.)  How is it out of line to call her on such a misrepresentation? 
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2020, 09:07:51 AM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.
Except people like you also want whites to feel guilty about what their ancestors did.
If the past was never theirs, the blame is not theirs, either.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,930
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2020, 09:44:03 AM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.
Except people like you also want whites to feel guilty about what their ancestors did.

Honestly it doesn't matter what you feel guilty over. The point is that you need to stop trying to turn back the clock history and make everything as it was 60-70 years ago or even earlier. If someone says "racism is bad" people like you take it as an attack on white people.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2020, 01:37:47 PM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.
Except people like you also want whites to feel guilty about what their ancestors did.

Honestly it doesn't matter what you feel guilty over. The point is that you need to stop trying to turn back the clock history and make everything as it was 60-70 years ago or even earlier. If someone says "racism is bad" people like you take it as an attack on white people.
Well if you believe that only whites can be racist and you can't be racist against whites, then it is an attack in white people.  Context matters.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2020, 05:59:01 PM »

"Heritage" - ie, the nation we were passed down. A nation where free speech was absolute, our founding fathers were respected, and our ideals were upheld.

You know that this has never really been the case at any point in American history, yes? Tongue

Anyway, I know we've had and have our differences and disagreements, but the attacks on you in this thread are rather outrageous and ridiculous IMO.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2020, 06:48:10 PM »

In related news...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2020, 09:18:17 PM »


Probably deserves it's own thread or just convert this to the Tucker Carlson is a racist POS thread.
Logged
Illiniwek
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,865
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 10, 2020, 10:43:07 PM »


When I saw the headline, I nearly dropped my phone because I was trying to click so fast to see if the "online forum" in question was that website formerly known as Atlas Forum.
Logged
GP270watch
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,558


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2020, 10:53:30 PM »


When I saw the headline, I nearly dropped my phone because I was trying to click so fast to see if the "online forum" in question was that website formerly known as Atlas Forum.

 A writer for Tucker Carlson is racist, shocker!

 And also repetitive news, this keeps happening.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2020, 11:53:42 PM »

Tammy Duckworth is the last person who Tucker Carlson should be attacking. While in the past, I've agreed with some of what he has said, and think that his economic positions are much more populist (and thus, more in line with the majority of Americans) than most other Republicans, I think he's crossed a line here.

To be fair, Tammy Duckworth's criticism of Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore was flat-out dishonest.  She portrayed it as Trump talking about statues of "Dead Traitors".

Trump did no such thing.  There was not a single reference to a single Confederate figure in his speech.  Not one.  There were references to the Presidents on Mount Rushmore and a wide litany of important American historical figures of all races.  Duckworth's comments were (at best) from a speech written before Trump's speech without her listening to it; at worst, they were a deliberate attempt to deceive and feed into a poisonous narrative that our President is a Neo-Confederate.  (He's not, and that's silly beyond words.)

Tammy Duckworth isn't sacred; she's a politician who may well be Biden's running mate, and may be the 47th President of the United States.  If it matters when Donald Trump lies, misspeaks, or deliberatly omits key facts (and he has done all of that and it does matter), does it not matter when Tammy Duckworth does the same?  She's hardly a nobody, and she's way beyond Ilhan Omar in terms of importance.  (Ilhan isn't gong to be Biden's running mate.)  How is it out of line to call her on such a misrepresentation?  

I certainly don't think that Duckworth should be above criticism. Just because she is a military veteran (and an amputee at that), does not mean that she can't be criticized for her policy views or the comments that she makes. However, what Tucker Carlson did here was to discredit her military service and challenge her patriotism, a personal attack that goes far beyond the realm of legitimate criticism. This is almost an analogue to the Gold Star family that Trump attacked back in 2016.

He was within his rights to criticize them for their political positions, but he went beyond that, and personally defamed them (i.e. saying that Khizr Khan's wife was "silent" and implying that she was under her husband's control; downplaying the military service of their son). I also see a similarity between this and Trump's birtherism attacks against Obama, which went far beyond the legitimate criticism directed by Republicans at Obamacare and other policies of his.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,623
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2020, 03:23:10 AM »


When I saw the headline, I nearly dropped my phone because I was trying to click so fast to see if the "online forum" in question was that website formerly known as Atlas Forum.

I could see krazey, Sanchez, or Yellowhammer working as Carlson's writers.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2020, 06:05:31 PM »

Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,558
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2020, 06:18:38 PM »


When I saw the headline, I nearly dropped my phone because I was trying to click so fast to see if the "online forum" in question was that website formerly known as Atlas Forum.

 A writer for Tucker Carlson is racist, shocker!

 And also repetitive news, this keeps happening.

Honestly, it is kind of shocking that Carlson needed someone else to articulate what are already believed. So not only is he is a reactionary bigot, but he is also a talent-less one that can't communicate those ideals for s***. 
Logged
Flyersfan232
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,794


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2020, 11:46:24 AM »

Did anyone see the full clip? Duckworth was asked in an interview whether or not statues of George Washington should be taken down, and her answer was "We should have a conversation about that." Aside from the fact that this is my most-hated political platitude, how f**king hard is it for Democrats to say "Hey, there's a difference between a person who became critical of slavery later in life and freed his slaves upon his death, and a person who actively fought for the preservation of slavery"?? And maybe there's also a distinction to be made based on the fact that George Washington had, you know, a few notable accomplishments in his life outside of fighting for slavery-- something the Confederates can't say for themselves?

I used to like Duckworth; I thought she was a decent Democrat and a good VP choice for Biden. But this is an unforced error that is clearly the result of influence from the internet activist left. Either Duckworth actually believes that #cancelling Washington is worth discussing, or she is too scared of reprisal from dumb millennial Twitter twits to actually speak her mind. Either way, this whole thing is disheartening and it has made me lose even more faith in the Democratic Party's ability to restrain its worst elements.

Well she's simple.
She wants to be the VP pick so gotta act woke in order to look good.
she overrated
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2020, 09:57:08 PM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.

Okay, this is out there.  Not defending Carlson, but people aren’t worse than you for finding pride in their heritage.  Nations all throughout history have had founding myths that help form a cohesive social fabric ... there’s nothing wrong with that, in my view.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2020, 10:03:54 PM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.

Okay, this is out there.  Not defending Carlson, but people aren’t worse than you for finding pride in their heritage.  Nations all throughout history have had founding myths that help form a cohesive social fabric ... there’s nothing wrong with that, in my view.

Except when it's wrong like the Third Reich, which was like myth-making on steroids and meth.  AmIrite?

Or like how Antebellum South was happy times for whitey and slaves alike
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2020, 10:25:21 PM »

Heritage is for people with nothing to offer the present desperately trying to cling on to a past that was never theirs.

Okay, this is out there.  Not defending Carlson, but people aren’t worse than you for finding pride in their heritage.  Nations all throughout history have had founding myths that help form a cohesive social fabric ... there’s nothing wrong with that, in my view.

I don't think it's that "out there." We have historic unemployment, a virus ravaging the nation at an exponential rate, people (especially minorities) getting killed by the government that is supposed to protect them, children who aren't getting the education they deserve (college students as well), and there is no end in sight. If someone can look at what is going in this nation and legitimately say that the problem is that our heritage is under attack, well, I find that pretty disturbing. In fact, I wouldn't even know what "our heritage" is supposed to mean.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2020, 11:15:31 PM »

Did anyone see the full clip? Duckworth was asked in an interview whether or not statues of George Washington should be taken down, and her answer was "We should have a conversation about that." Aside from the fact that this is my most-hated political platitude, how f**king hard is it for Democrats to say "Hey, there's a difference between a person who became critical of slavery later in life and freed his slaves upon his death, and a person who actively fought for the preservation of slavery"?? And maybe there's also a distinction to be made based on the fact that George Washington had, you know, a few notable accomplishments in his life outside of fighting for slavery-- something the Confederates can't say for themselves?

I used to like Duckworth; I thought she was a decent Democrat and a good VP choice for Biden. But this is an unforced error that is clearly the result of influence from the internet activist left. Either Duckworth actually believes that #cancelling Washington is worth discussing, or she is too scared of reprisal from dumb millennial Twitter twits to actually speak her mind. Either way, this whole thing is disheartening and it has made me lose even more faith in the Democratic Party's ability to restrain its worst elements.

Either you're a hack using a false dilemma as a cheap rhetorical trick, or you're a prime example of Dunning-Kruger, unable to contemplate that someone might have a reason for saying something that you don't understand. Either way, I doubt you were ever actually going to support any Democratic candidate.

As for why we should have a conversation about Washington, maybe because it would bring up some things we don't talk about in the history books. Like his genocidal campaign against the Iroquois during the Revolution (because they had sided with the British and were opposed to expansion of the Colonies/United States).

Quote
Command of the expedition then settled upon Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, a truculent onetime New Hampshire lawyer whom Washington instructed in a detailed May 31, 1779, letter to move “against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.” The immediate object of the campaign, Washington said, was “the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible.” Sullivan was told to carry out his mission “in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” The “total ruin” of the Indian settlements, Washington wrote, would guarantee America’s future security by inspiring the Indians with terror through “the severity of the chastisement they receive.”
Quote
On September 15 Sullivan destroyed one last Iroquois settlement near present-day Geneseo, N.Y., and—considering his mission accomplished—turned for home. His army left a path of devastation that deserved the term “scorched earth.” Although it hadn’t carried the war to Niagara, as Washington had hoped, the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign had fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of its orders. “The army had brought a whirlwind of destruction,” according to historian Joseph R. Fischer. “Their torches had reduced 40 Iroquois towns and villages to ashes and destroyed 160,000 bushels of corn.” Sullivan reported to Washington and Congress there was “not a single village left in the country of the five nations.” By burning the Iroquois’ homes, crops and food stores, his army ensured the deaths of thousands by freezing and starvation during what would be the coldest winter on record at the time.

I don't think we should damn Washington's memory because of the above. But we absolutely should be aware that he ordered it. (And somehow, all those statues of him don't seem to have managed to keep it in the history curriculum.)

Overlooking your personal attacks towards me (none of which are accurate by the way; I've said before on this site that I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), you are at the very least engaging on the subject of who Washington was and how we should view him. You must see that your well-researched post on the historicity of Washington's mythos is different from a noncommittal remark like "We need to have a conversation about this." Duckworth dodged the question because she was afraid of reprisal from the activist left. If she actually wanted Washington's statues taken down because of his actions taken against the Iroquois, or because he held slaves, or for any other reason, she should have come out and said it. If she didn't want his statues taken down, she should have said that. Now, the former opinion is extremely stupid, but at least stating it openly would be honest and forthright. As it is, she has avoided taking any position on the issue whatsoever-- which was her intent.

Altogether, you're seriously misplacing your anger and at the same time willfully misunderstanding what I said.

And for the record, the statues of Lee and the Confederates were erected because they were racists. The statues of Washington and Jefferson were erected despite the fact that they were racists. There is an enormous difference between the two, and the people who do not understand that are far, far more ignorant than the conservatives they condemn.


My reply to you was intended to mirror how you are commenting on Senator Baldwin. You are presenting only two possible reasons, and demanding that it be one or the other - a false dilemma.  It is, for example, entirely possible that Sen. Baldwin knew whatever she said would get turned into an inaccurae soundbyte and simply played defense. (That tendency towards politics by soundbyte is a whole massive problem in itself.) You're inventing motivations, and then using your inventions as a basis for criticism.

And you're doing it again, when you flat-out state her intent as absolute fact. You seem to understand that this is wrong when its applied to you, and yet apparently see no problem in doing to Senator Baldwin, even as you take my doubt about your future choices as a personal attack.

Don't judge people from soundbytes. Judge them for what they do, what they accomplish, and the picture they paint of themselves over time. Donald Trump, for example, has demonstrated a pattern of acting in Russia's interests, and vice-versa. Mr. Carlson has practiced support for racism and white nationalism for some time. (For the record, my skepticism for anyone who identifies as a Libertarian comes from years of watching them, and a party-wide pattern of departure from their ideals rather than adherence to them, although I am generally sympathetic to some libertarian points of view.)

I do agree with you about the difference between the statues of Founding Fathers and the Confederates.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,321
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2020, 12:47:12 AM »

My reply to you was intended to mirror how you are commenting on Senator Baldwin. You are presenting only two possible reasons, and demanding that it be one or the other - a false dilemma.  It is, for example, entirely possible that Sen. Baldwin knew whatever she said would get turned into an inaccurate soundbite and simply played defense. (That tendency towards politics by soundbite is a whole massive problem in itself.) You're inventing motivations, and then using your inventions as a basis for criticism.

And you're doing it again, when you flat-out state her intent as absolute fact. You seem to understand that this is wrong when its applied to you, and yet apparently see no problem in doing to Senator Baldwin, even as you take my doubt about your future choices as a personal attack.

Don't judge people from soundbites. Judge them for what they do, what they accomplish, and the picture they paint of themselves over time. Donald Trump, for example, has demonstrated a pattern of acting in Russia's interests, and vice-versa. Mr. Carlson has practiced support for racism and white nationalism for some time. (For the record, my skepticism for anyone who identifies as a Libertarian comes from years of watching them, and a party-wide pattern of departure from their ideals rather than adherence to them, although I am generally sympathetic to some libertarian points of view.)

I do agree with you about the difference between the statues of Founding Fathers and the Confederates.

I'm not going to comment on your explanation for that ad hominem other than to say that I don't find it plausible that this was your actual thought process at the time. Also, you may have your Tammys mixed up here.

As for the alternative hypothesis you gave to explain Duckworth's motivation for giving that answer, I don't see how that is any different from the argument I presented. I said that Duckworth was either making that comment out of genuine conviction or due to political considerations. You said that she may have been motivated to avoid creating a soundbite, which falls into the category of political considerations. How exactly would this soundbite have been "taken out of context," anyway? If someone asks you "Do you think statues of George Washington should be taken down," and you say "No," who exactly are you trying to appease? If you think Duckworth was really just trying to avoid being taken out of context or turned into a soundbite, please tell me how that might have happened if she'd given a straightforward answer.

In any case, I'm not "judging" Duckworth for this. It was a missed opportunity and I'm disappointed that she didn't take the chance to give a subtle F-you to the activist left. But I still much prefer her to Kamala Harris as a VP for Biden, and I would vote for that ticket. I hate Trump. So this is not distracting me from the bigger picture, if that's what you're worried about.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2020, 11:27:56 PM »

Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2020, 12:10:48 AM »

Tucker Carlson announces 'long-planned' vacation minutes after addressing former writer's racist remarks
Quote
Tucker Carlson announced that he will be taking the rest of the week off to go trout fishing.

The host of Tucker Carlson Tonight told viewers Monday that he would be taking some vacation time for the "next four days." The announcement came just minutes after the Fox News host addressed the resignation of his lead writer. Blake Neff left the network last week after reports emerged that he had been secretly posting racist and sexist remarks on an online forum.

Carlson said that the vacation has been "long-planned" and assured viewers that he would return to the show early if any major news broke
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 11 queries.