Regardless of what you think

[Jeemie]

Actually he's trying to make these four the face of the Democratic Party because he thinks they're so liberal and so different, they will motivate the coalition that came out for him last time to come out again.

It just might work.

I think that's a pretty good take on it.

Actually, I agree. Tho you don't think anyone who voted for him is normal, we who did begrudgingly will remain. The screamy part of the base is just getting riled for good measure. Hopefully he wiil shut the fuck up a bit during actual election season. The crazy left will ensure his reelection.

The bolded is adorably naive.

And you have a choice- you don't have to "begrudgingly remain".

[Beebs52]

I think that's a pretty good take on it.

Actually, I agree. Tho you don't think anyone who voted for him is normal, we who did begrudgingly will remain. The screamy part of the base is just getting riled for good measure. Hopefully he wiil shut the fuck up a bit during actual election season. The crazy left will ensure his reelection.

The bolded is adorably naive.

And you have a choice- you don't have to "begrudgingly remain".

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

[Ritterskoop]

Last time out, Gary Johnson was a valid option for traditional Republicans, I thought.

Don't know that this will be true next season but it's worth a look.

[BackInTex]

Last time out, Gary Johnson was a valid option for traditional Republicans, I thought.

Don't know that this will be true next season but it's worth a look.

No one is an option that assures a Democratic victory. As long as Trump runs he’s the one you have to vote for if you don’t want the Democratic candidate to win.

[Ritterskoop]

ABC reporter just talked about Trump's racist tweets, 5:30 news. Not Trump's tweets. Racist tweets. That is not reporting, it's commenting. And you wonder why some question media?

Just because I am all about words, and hairsplitting, and like that ...

One of my early reactions last week was that if he had told four white Canadians to go back where they came from, no one would see that as racist.

And there was silence, and then someone said but he would never say that to four white Canadians, which is what made it racist.

I do love me some wordsmithing, and agreed that what he said was deeply offensive on many levels:

- it shows he does not understand the respect we owe to each other as citizens and neighbors, and to other elected and appointed members of government

- it shows he is nervous about mouthy women (which I hope I can say it that way, being one)

- it shows he thinks he can say whatever he wants as long as his 35% stick with him

- it shows he does not understand that four (mostly newly elected) Representatives truly do not have that much power, and he just gave them way more than they had

[Beebs52]

ABC reporter just talked about Trump's racist tweets, 5:30 news. Not Trump's tweets. Racist tweets. That is not reporting, it's commenting. And you wonder why some question media?

Just because I am all about words, and hairsplitting, and like that ...

One of my early reactions last week was that if he had told four white Canadians to go back where they came from, no one would see that as racist.

And there was silence, and then someone said but he would never say that to four white Canadians, which is what made it racist.

I do love me some wordsmithing, and agreed that what he said was deeply offensive on many levels:

- it shows he does not understand the respect we owe to each other as citizens and neighbors, and to other elected and appointed members of government

- it shows he is nervous about mouthy women (which I hope I can say it that way, being one)

- it shows he thinks he can say whatever he wants as long as his 35% stick with him

- it shows he does not understand that four (mostly newly elected) Representatives truly do not have that much power, and he just gave them way more than they had

And my only original point was about the reporting qualification. Funny that.

[silverscreenselect]

One of my early reactions last week was that if he had told four white Canadians to go back where they came from, no one would see that as racist.

And there was silence, and then someone said but he would never say that to four white Canadians, which is what made it racist.

A year after the Nuremberg Laws, a company called Günther & Co. released a Parcheesi-style board game; its title was one of the ugliest phrases in human history—Juden Raus! The title is best translated as, “Jews, Get Out” or possibly “Get Rid of the Jews” depending on your conception of agency, and is the most succinct possible expression of the official German attitude towards Jews under the Third Reich.

In the game, young Germans across the Reich were encouraged, in what practically seems a parodic Firesign Theatre-style intervention, to move the six “Jew” game pieces around the board in such a way as to secure them on spots outside the metaphorical “wall” of the German state such that they would be transported “Auf nach Palästina!” (Off to Palestine!). Each game piece came with a conical “dunce”-style cap with a grotesque Jewish caricature on it. On the board itself were two little pieces of doggerel that helped explain the goal of the game: Zeige geschick im Würfelspiel, damit du sammelst der Juden viel! (“Show skill in this dice game, so that you gather up all the Jews!”) and Gelingt es Dir 6 Juden rauszujagen, so bist Du Sieger ohne zu fragen! (“If you succeed in chasing six Jews out, you’re the winner, without a doubt!”)

The linked article has pictures of the game board, which I won't post here. Sadly, if a U.S. company manufactured this same board game today, substituting the facsimiles of the Squad for the Jewish tokens and updating the language, it would probably be a big hit at Trump campaign rallies.

https://dangerousminds.net/comments/jud ... t_the_jews

[Jeemie]

Actually, I agree. Tho you don't think anyone who voted for him is normal, we who did begrudgingly will remain. The screamy part of the base is just getting riled for good measure. Hopefully he wiil shut the fuck up a bit during actual election season. The crazy left will ensure his reelection.

The bolded is adorably naive.

And you have a choice- you don't have to "begrudgingly remain".

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

[Beebs52]

The bolded is adorably naive.

And you have a choice- you don't have to "begrudgingly remain".

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I see few personal differences between him and those whom you extol. You're a fool if you believe that. Bless your heart dude. Welcome to that club.

[Beebs52]

One of my early reactions last week was that if he had told four white Canadians to go back where they came from, no one would see that as racist.

And there was silence, and then someone said but he would never say that to four white Canadians, which is what made it racist.

A year after the Nuremberg Laws, a company called Günther & Co. released a Parcheesi-style board game; its title was one of the ugliest phrases in human history—Juden Raus! The title is best translated as, “Jews, Get Out” or possibly “Get Rid of the Jews” depending on your conception of agency, and is the most succinct possible expression of the official German attitude towards Jews under the Third Reich.

In the game, young Germans across the Reich were encouraged, in what practically seems a parodic Firesign Theatre-style intervention, to move the six “Jew” game pieces around the board in such a way as to secure them on spots outside the metaphorical “wall” of the German state such that they would be transported “Auf nach Palästina!” (Off to Palestine!). Each game piece came with a conical “dunce”-style cap with a grotesque Jewish caricature on it. On the board itself were two little pieces of doggerel that helped explain the goal of the game: Zeige geschick im Würfelspiel, damit du sammelst der Juden viel! (“Show skill in this dice game, so that you gather up all the Jews!”) and Gelingt es Dir 6 Juden rauszujagen, so bist Du Sieger ohne zu fragen! (“If you succeed in chasing six Jews out, you’re the winner, without a doubt!”)

The linked article has pictures of the game board, which I won't post here. Sadly, if a U.S. company manufactured this same board game today, substituting the facsimiles of the Squad for the Jewish tokens and updating the language, it would probably be a big hit at Trump campaign rallies.

https://dangerousminds.net/comments/jud ... t_the_jews

Again, you are vile. Perhaps you could join the prez in a school yard give and take.

[Beebs52]

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I see few personal differences between him and those whom you extol. You're a fool if you believe that. Bless your heart dude. Welcome to that club.

Oh, the dems got that partisan train running a
while back.

[Ritterskoop]

And my only original point was about the reporting qualification. Funny that.

But it wasn't. It was about that you thought that person's evaluation was incorrect.

I love you, and I don't like that we are disagreeing.

But your point was that a journalist was not qualified to make a evaluation of a politician, when in fact most of them are, and many of them agree on this particular evaluation.

Journalism is not unbaised. It never has been. I did an entire semester of graduate work on the premise that in cannot be so, despite anyone's wishes. All we can do is acknowledge our biases and counter them when that is possible.

But it does not mean that someone is wrong because they say something with which you disagree. "Fake News" now means "news with which I disagree" and that is just literally making me cry right here and now.

You know me well enough to know I don't say "literally" unless it is happening.

When you title a post "Regardless of what you think:" it means we are all supposed to think what you think, and that's not fair. Like when that comedian says, "I don't care who you are, that right there is funny." Every time they say that, it is not funny to me, and I feel like they are trying to say there is something wrong with me because I don't agree.

I love you and I love your snark, and I don't want you to be like that comedian that way.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Criticizing a country or political situation or shithole status is not racist just like complimenting a country is not pandering to the race of people.

Shithole status has nothing to do with race. Culture perhaps. A culture generally drives what a country becomes. Not always though. Saying the projects in Chicago is a shithole is just stating fact.

I think what people are considering racist in this case is singling out these particular elected members of Congress as being not American. Why these particular four (who are as American as you or me or him)? He never told Hillary Clinton or John McCain or any reporter he didn't like to go back to where they came from.

Why these particular four? Do they have something in common his myriad other critics don't?

You do know that tweet did not include any names

[Beebs52]

And my only original point was about the reporting qualification. Funny that.

But it wasn't. It was about that you thought that person's evaluation was incorrect.

I love you, and I don't like that we are disagreeing.

But your point was that a journalist was not qualified to make a evaluation of a politician, when in fact most of them are, and many of them agree on this particular evaluation.

Journalism is not unbaised. It never has been. I did an entire semester of graduate work on the premise that in cannot be so, despite anyone's wishes. All we can do is acknowledge our biases and counter them when that is possible.

But it does not mean that someone is wrong because they say something with which you disagree. "Fake News" now means "news with which I disagree" and that is just literally making me cry right here and now.

You know me well enough to know I don't say "literally" unless it is happening.

When you title a post "Regardless of what you think:" it means we are all supposed to think what you think, and that's not fair. Like when that comedian says, "I don't care who you are, that right there is funny." Every time they say that, it is not funny to me, and I feel like they are trying to say there is something wrong with me because I don't agree.

I love you and I love your snark, and I don't want you to be like that comedian that way.

I should have said regardleess what you think of Trump's tweet. I thought it
was obvious. Not r
egardless of w
hat you think in general. I disagree with some of what you said, but please don't cry.
Apologies for muddy topic thread on my part.

[Ritterskoop]

I am all better now after getting my widdle feewings hurt, and have learned to stay away from threads where journalists are being poked at, which I guess in this climate, could be most of them. It feels personal sometimes, and I am going to have to figure out how to deal with that.

I wish we could wrap our heads around the new model, to wit:

When we watch a game, there is one person who says "here is what happened" and then usually a second person who analyzes what it means. Today's journalists are often in that second role rather than the first, and it rankles some folks. But the ways news is relayed now, the initial "here's what happened" is over very quickly, and we need to spend some time, all of us, thinking about what it means.

In a mundane example, my job is to choose and produce sports wire stories, mostly of national interest, and review the headline that came on them from a wire service. Often, they say "because of a good job by Player X, Team A beats Team B". That is all well and good, but by the time our readers see the print paper, they know who won. Our job is to say what it means in that headline, if we can. Someone gets their 500th double, or breaks an ankle, or says an interesting thing. When we rewrite them, those headlines provide context.

I think it's up to news journalists to do the same: Based on their expertise in a particular field, say what they think it means, to people in the place where the news happened, and maybe to people in other places, and maybe even in the context of history. This does require that they have some expertise, and are not just seeing who can shout the loudest or who has the largest platform.

Commentary is still a valid part of the game, in other words. Often, we disagree with the color person's* explanation, but that doesn't mean they aren't qualified to be doing it. Only that we think they got it wrong. We should be able to say, "That person got this wrong, and here are three arguments why I think that." Then we are making arguments rather than impugning someone's qualifications, or as is often the case on this message board, calling someone a name (Beebs you did NOT do that, and I thank you for it). The name-calling by 2-3 people on each extreme on our forum here makes me despair. It is childish and rude. And lazy. Smart people should be able to do better.


*Color, in this usage, has to do with a person who provides insight, rather than anything having to do with the analyst's skin color. I figured this was obvious, but also figured it wouldn't hurt to explain, in case someone wanders by who has never heard a reference to "color commentator".

[Beebs52]

I am all better now after getting my widdle feewings hurt, and have learned to stay away from threads where journalists are being poked at, which I guess in this climate, could be most of them. It feels personal sometimes, and I am going to have to figure out how to deal with that.

I wish we could wrap our heads around the new model, to wit:

When we watch a game, there is one person who says "here is what happened" and then usually a second person who analyzes what it means. Today's journalists are often in that second role rather than the first, and it rankles some folks. But the ways news is relayed now, the initial "here's what happened" is over very quickly, and we need to spend some time, all of us, thinking about what it means.

In a mundane example, my job is to choose and produce sports wire stories, mostly of national interest, and review the headline that came on them from a wire service. Often, they say "because of a good job by Player X, Team A beats Team B". That is all well and good, but by the time our readers see the print paper, they know who won. Our job is to say what it means in that headline, if we can. Someone gets their 500th double, or breaks an ankle, or says an interesting thing. When we rewrite them, those headlines provide context.

I think it's up to news journalists to do the same: Based on their expertise in a particular field, say what they think it means, to people in the place where the news happened, and maybe to people in other places, and maybe even in the context of history. This does require that they have some expertise, and are not just seeing who can shout the loudest or who has the largest platform.

Commentary is still a valid part of the game, in other words. Often, we disagree with the color person's* explanation, but that doesn't mean they aren't qualified to be doing it. Only that we think they got it wrong. We should be able to say, "That person got this wrong, and here are three arguments why I think that." Then we are making arguments rather than impugning someone's qualifications, or as is often the case on this message board, calling someone a name (Beebs you did NOT do that, and I thank you for it). The name-calling by 2-3 people on each extreme on our forum here makes me despair. It is childish and rude. And lazy. Smart people should be able to do better.


*Color, in this usage, has to do with a person who provides insight, rather than anything having to do with the analyst's skin color. I figured this was obvious, but also figured it wouldn't hurt to explain, in case someone wanders by who has never heard a reference to "color commentator".

I have impugned some folkses here, so I own that, tho you're kind to say I haven't.
Actually, the color commentator thing is what I was trying to express, tho very poorly. The reporter in the news cast wasn't a commentator, but straight reporting, unless I missed something. Sort of like everybody's diligent use of "alleged", where nowadays it's just full speed ahead.

[silverscreenselect]

This is from the Facebook site of the Illinois Republican County Chairmen's Association (the image has since been taken down). No racism here.

[Estonut]

This is from the Facebook site of the Illinois Republican County Chairmen's Association (the image has since been taken down). No racism here.

Illinois Republican County Chairman's Association

14 hrs ·
...

A couple of days ago, an image which was not authorized by me was posted on the Facebook page of the Illinois Republican County Chairmen’s Association (“RCCA”). I condemn this unauthorized posting and it has been deleted. I am sorry if anyone who saw the image was offended by the contents.

This unauthorized posting is an unfortunate distraction from the serious debate surrounding the policies advocated by these four socialist members of the United States House of Representatives of which I strongly disagree. Republican opposition to their proposed “Green New Deal”, elimination of all private health insurance, open borders and anti-Semitic posturing has nothing to do with these Representative’s races or religion.

The RCCA has a multi-stage, approval process for all social media posts on any of the RCCA’s social media properties. Nevertheless, the RCCA’s internal review process is being re-evaluated to insure that any content posted in the future represents the “big-tent” nature of the Republican Party.

Mark Shaw, President
Republican County Chairmen’s Association of Illinois

[silverscreenselect]

The RCCA has a multi-stage, approval process for all social media posts on any of the RCCA’s social media properties.

So, several people at the RCCA approved this image before it was posted with their website and logo listed on it. Got it.

[Bob Juch]

People who accuse the Squad of being anti-Semitic don't realize that most Palestinians are Semites and most Israelis are not.

[Beebs52]

People who accuse the Squad of being anti-Semitic don't realize that most Palestinians are Semites and most Israelis are not.

Definition of Semitic. (Entry 1 of 2) 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic. 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites. 3 : jewish.
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › Se...
Semitic | Definition

[tlynn78]

Criticizing Americans because of where their ancestors came from is the textbook definition of a racist comment.

If the inhabitants of these countries are of a single race, then, yes. But, to my knowledge, they're not.

If someone says, "I hate the God-damn British!", is that racist?

Trump's comment about "the countries they came from" seems to focus on Somalia. (I don't know where he thinks the other ladies are from, but the families of two of them have lived in America longer than the Trumps.) So I'd call it racist. If Obama said that about a Somali-American, I'd have to call it prejudice based on national origin rather than race, but it's still bigoted.

\
When you have to use words like "seems" you are insertting your own biases. That's bias, but it's not fact.

[tlynn78]

ABC reporter just talked about Trump's racist tweets, 5:30 news. Not Trump's tweets. Racist tweets. That is not reporting, it's commenting. And you wonder why some question media?

Just because I am all about words, and hairsplitting, and like that ...

One of my early reactions last week was that if he had told four white Canadians to go back where they came from, no one would see that as racist.

And there was silence, and then someone said but he would never say that to four white Canadians, which is what made it racist.

I do love me some wordsmithing, and agreed that what he said was deeply offensive on many levels:

- it shows he does not understand the respect we owe to each other as citizens and neighbors, and to other elected and appointed members of government

- it shows he is nervous about mouthy women (which I hope I can say it that way, being one)

- it shows he thinks he can say whatever he wants as long as his 35% stick with him

- it shows he does not understand that four (mostly newly elected) Representatives truly do not have that much power, and he just gave them way more than they had

And my only original point was about the reporting qualification. Funny that.

I wonder how much respect any of us would show to someone who referred to us as Motherf*$)er right out of the gate?

[tlynn78]

And my only original point was about the reporting qualification. Funny that.

But it wasn't. It was about that you thought that person's evaluation was incorrect.

I love you, and I don't like that we are disagreeing.

But your point was that a journalist was not qualified to make a evaluation of a politician, when in fact most of them are, and many of them agree on this particular evaluation.

Journalism is not unbaised. It never has been. I did an entire semester of graduate work on the premise that in cannot be so, despite anyone's wishes. All we can do is acknowledge our biases and counter them when that is possible.

But it does not mean that someone is wrong because they say something with which you disagree. "Fake News" now means "news with which I disagree" and that is just literally making me cry right here and now.

You know me well enough to know I don't say "literally" unless it is happening.

When you title a post "Regardless of what you think:" it means we are all supposed to think what you think, and that's not fair. Like when that comedian says, "I don't care who you are, that right there is funny." Every time they say that, it is not funny to me, and I feel like they are trying to say there is something wrong with me because I don't agree.

I love you and I love your snark, and I don't want you to be like that comedian that way.

I can remember when newspeople did not 'evaluate' during their broadcast, but reported. The level of media 'bias' has reached never-before-seen proportions, and I believe it's disengenuous to claim otherwise. There are multiple examples if one cares to look (and no, I will not list them for the usual suspects) It's interesting that you (Skoopy) state that "...most of them are..." It would seem to indicate that you believe some reporters are NOT "qualified" to 'evaluate." So does that mean only left-leaning 'evaluators' are qualified? Only the ones you agree with?

[tlynn78]

The bolded is adorably naive.

And you have a choice- you don't have to "begrudgingly remain".

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I think what she's saying is a flawed businessman who is accomplishing things that are important to her is a better bet than anything/everything the Dems are offering. Partisanship, my ass. I wish they'd take his Twitter away, but for now, he's got my vote. I'm sure many Democrats thought, well, yeah, good ol' Teddy killed a woman, but hey, he's still my guy for the senate! High horse much?