US Politics: Turkeys Available Here

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

Why?  I don't even want to talk about it.  Let those with something to say about it define their terms.

Why posit that criticism or disagreement of anything can’t be racist?

 

27 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Lol.  It's a secret message.  But you can't tell me what that message is.  I guess it is a secret.

How would you if President Xing said that it is integral for the Chinese to not allow petty distractions to get in the way of making China a better place? A statement not especially disagreeable. For context’s sake he does this outside a concentration camp for Uygurs.

 

[Week]

8 hours ago, Week said:

Using the words of a grieving father to swipe at anyone, for any reason, is an extremely cynical. He was expressing a positive sentiment which is quite magnanimous considering a bunch of racist thugs lynched his son. To instead tack on a thinly veiled* swipe at the Left, is to epitomize the opposite of the positive, collectivist sentiment that he's purportedly for. 

It's the same move has cherry picking MLK quotes. We can all see what's happening here.

We never got this answer -- just some goal post moving while catching fish and balancing a ball on his nose.

8 hours ago, Week said:

To wit:

Did you not read the bold or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Hit. I sunk your battleship. 

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Now, what @Week should be admonished for is feeding one troll and thereby attracting another.

You're the man* now, dog.

*Throwing sardines to the sea lion. Arf, arf!

[Mister Smikes]

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why posit that criticism or disagreement of anything can’t be racist?

I don't remember positing such a statement.  Is McBigski being called a racist?  Because if he is, that was not clear to me before.  And if he is being called a racist, I'm still not sure why.

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How would you if President Xing said that it is integral for the Chinese to not allow petty distractions to get in the way of making China a better place? A statement not especially disagreeable. For context’s sake he does this outside a concentration camp for Uygurs.

What does this have to do with McBigski saying that people should not cynically stoke political divisions for political gain?  First Willie Horton, and now President Xi and the Uygurs.  Anything except explaining why y'all are so mad at Mcbigski for saying one should not stoke racial divisions for political gain.

[Varysblackfyre321]

24 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

What does this have to do with McBigski saying that people should not cynically stoke political divisions for political gain? 

How would you interpret President Xing saying the same thing or as benign in a vaccum in front of a Uygur concentration camp?

Can you not see any sort of implication being pushed with this aesthetically non-disagreeable statement.

24 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I don't remember positing such a statement

Then why complain about people crying about CRT getting called racist?

[Mister Smikes]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How would you interpret President Xing saying the same thing or as benign in a vaccum in front of a Uygur concentration camp?  Can you not see any sort of implication in this aesthetically non-disagreeable statement.

I see no implications that have anything to do with Mcbigski

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Then why complain about people crying about CRT getting called racist?

I don't remember Mcbigski mentioning CRT at all.

[Varysblackfyre321]

46 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I see no implications that have anything to do with Mcbigski

I didn’t claim it must. Can you not just give an answer?

46 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I don't remember Mcbigski mentioning CRT at all

Where did I say he did?

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn’t claim it must. Can you not just give an answer?

Not sure why.  It is a random question.  

But okay fine.  I'll be a sport.  I despise President Xi and the CCP for their massive human rights violations.  I don't give two hoots that he made a relatively innocuous statement.  To the extent there is a distant connection between his massive human rights violations and his relatively innocuous statement, I would say that the statement is part of a cover-up; and not that it is a massive dog whistle to the genocidal people of China or wherever.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Where did I say he did?

Okay.  Why, then, are you asking me random questions about President Xi?   Can you answer me that?  I was a good sport.  Now it is your turn.

I just want to know why everyone is so mad at Mcbigski for saying that people should not cynically exploit racial division for political gain.  Nobody answers me.  Instead they start talking about CRT, Willie Horton, and now President Xi.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

43 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

To the extent there is a distant connection between his massive human rights violations and his relatively innocuous statement, I would say that the statement is part of a cover-up; and not that it is a massive dog whistle to the genocidal people of China or wherever.

How is it a cover up? He’s not denying anything. He’s just saying political actors should not exploit racial tension for political gain in a certain setting.  

43 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Okay.  Why, then, are you asking me random questions about President Xi? 

What does this have to do with CRT?

[Varysblackfyre321]

42 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Can you answer me that?  I was a good sport.  Now it is your turn.

Yes. I think you’re an intelligent man and it’d be good to hear your thoughts on a thought experiment. 

[sologdin]

I just want to know why everyone is so mad at Mcbigski for saying that people should not cynically exploit racial division for political gain.

obviously not everyone.  mcbig has a historical tendency to drunkpost unironic trumpisms, such as the item under discussion, which is a good example of authoritarian antiphrasis.  he's well-liked however, so please be advised that your relative inexperience here may mislead you away from the forum's nuances.

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How is it a cover up? He’s not denying anything. He’s just saying political actors should not exploit racial tension for political gain in a certain setting.  

Again.  I oppose Xi for his massive human rights atrocities.  He is also, of course, guilty of a massive coverup of those human rights atrocities, but that it entirely secondary.  That, in the context of such cover up (or justification), he may have made a statement that is on its face entirely innocuous is completely irrelevant and stands no-where on my hierarchy of sins.  And I really don't understand the point of these questions you are asking me.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What does this have to do with CRT?

You tell me.  I have absolutely no interest in discussing CRT.  I have no idea why you and others want to discuss CRT with me so much.  

I want to know why folks are so mad at Mcbigski for saying it is morally wrong to cynically promote and exploit racial divisions for political gain.  And again, Mcbigski never mentioned CRT.  And again, I don't want to talk about CRT either, unless it somehow explains why folks have issues with Mcbigski, who, again, never mentioned CRT.

 

[Week]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. I think you’re an intelligent man and it’d be good to hear your thoughts on a thought experiment. 

 

23 minutes ago, sologdin said:

he's well-liked

...YMMV x2

[Mister Smikes]

52 minutes ago, sologdin said:

obviously not everyone.  mcbig has a historical tendency to drunkpost unironic trumpisms, such as the item under discussion, which is a good example of authoritarian antiphrasis.  

This is Greek to me, except for the suggestion that mcbig is distantly associated with trump in people's minds, which further suggests the possibility that the otherwise inexplicable rage at his facially innocuous statement might possibly have something to do with kneejerk tribalism.

The word "antiphrasis" suggests you are trying to say that mcbig meant the opposite of what he actually said, for which I see no evidence at all.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think it's bad when people claim that the act of pointing out racism is more divisive than actual racism.

[Week]

24 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

I think it's bad when people claim that the act of pointing out racism is more divisive than actual racism.

Especially when the related racist act was [checks notes] a murder where the initial DA did not prosecute and has since been charged with violating her oath of office and obstruction of justice. A very clear example of systemic racism of a government and judicial system that was foiled due to persistent advocacy by the Arbery's family and idiocy by the murderers' defense team.

But yes, *spooky voice* those that use race to divide and maintain power are the REAL evil. Smmfh.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, 1066 Larry said:

I think it's bad when people claim that the act of pointing out racism is more divisive than actual racism.

C'mon now, we all know the R-word is way more hurtful than the N-word.* 

*Stupid disclaimer because it's the internet: That was sarcasm.

[sologdin]

This is Greek to me, except for the suggestion that mcbig is distantly associated with trump in people's minds, which further suggests the possibility that the otherwise inexplicable rage at his facially innocuous statement might possibly have something to do with kneejerk tribalism.

not tribalism, not distant.  it's only inexplicable if the analysis is ahistoricist.  he has shown a tendency to re-urge unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable trumpisms--things trump actually said and are of course dreadfully wrong. that definition may be pleonastic at this point, but am being thorough in an abundance of caution, as your posting demonstrates a deliberately obtuse tendency.  both are examples of the historicist rationale behind habitual offender statutes, as it happens.

The word "antiphrasis" suggests you are trying to say that mcbig meant the opposite of what he actually said, for which I see no evidence at all.

not quite. the antiphrasis arises from cynically exploiting racial difference by decrying cynical exploitation of racial difference.

[Zorral]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/28/historian-joanne-freeman-congressional-violence-paul-gosar

Quote

 

And there was a lot of deployment of threats and intimidation. Most of these were offered by southerners and usually were deployed against people who had anything to say against slavery. Obviously the goal of that was to silence people or intimidate people so they wouldn’t even stand up to say anything that was not going to be to the liking of southerners.

What effect did those threats have on public debate over slavery in Congress?

There’s a diary entry from a very prominent, very aggressive anti-slavery advocate, named Joshua Giddings from Ohio. And when he first gets to Congress, he reports something like, “Our northern friends are afraid.” They’re afraid to stand up against the southerners. So there’s clearly evidence that people were afraid to stand up.

 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I have flagged all the Santana hater posts!

Really this is a bridge too far!

[DMC]

Piece out today that's basically a follow up to the OP in this thread - Trump’s Senate picks stumble out of the gate:

Quote

Donald Trump’s favorite in the Alabama Senate race is treading water. His pick in Pennsylvania just bowed out of the GOP primary after losing custody of his children. In Alaska and North Carolina, two other Trump-endorsed Senate candidates are behind in primary election polls.

Trump may still have an iron grip on the Republican Party, but the limits of his powers are being exposed in 2022 Senate primaries. A number of his preferred Senate candidates are discovering that the former president’s endorsement is no guarantee of success in a crowded primary, leaving Trump to decide just how much political capital to further expend on their behalf. [...]

Trump has endorsed in 15 Senate contests to date. While roughly half are for incumbents who are expected to cruise to the GOP nomination, he’s also waded into other nomination fights where his imprimatur was once thought to be determinative. So far, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Outside of the Parnell debacle in Pennsylvania, the two races that are most likely to help Dems are in North Carolina and Arizona.  In NC, former governor Pat McCroy is manifestly a better general election candidate than the Trump-endorsed Ted Budd.  Budd has closed the gap since the endorsement, but McCroy still leads in the most recent polls and is still outraising Budd.  In Arizona, Trump has yet to endorse a candidate but the clear frontrunner (and best general election candidate) is Mark Brnovich.  The problem?  Brnovich is Arizona's AG, and thus Trump's sworn enemy for not trying to overturn the election for him.

Even in Alabama, Trump-endorsed Freedom Caucus charter member Mo Brooks is running neck-and-neck with Richard Shelby's former CoS Katie Britt to replace Shelby.  Obviously that's not much of a pickup opportunity for the Dems, but still.  And of course there's Alaska where Trump-endorsed Kelly Tshibaka isn't making a dent in Lisa Murkowski's lead and advantage - even though it doesn't really matter given Alaska's new jungle primary system.

As far as I'm aware, the only non-incumbent Trump-endorsed candidate that's going to cruise to nomination is Herschel Walker in Georgia, who has a number of clear red (yellow?) flags as a general election candidate.