Remember folks, Sammy wasn’t lying. He made an error. One he’d easily be able to notice if he’d read his cite. Oh wait, he didn’t even give a cite. Must have just heard it from some right-wing propaganda talking points lie machine, but surely him repeating the lie of others and being caught doing it will now cause him to never repeat the lie again, just like he has every other time he’s been caught lying. Err, making factual errors.
Oh who am I kidding.
I actually mentioned exactly that as part of a PM to Puzzlegal.
You can go all the way back to post 443, over two years ago where he said “In Canada I’'d never buy an EV with less than 250 miles of range, because I’d assume that in winter it might more like 150.”
And his most recent post where he segued his reply to you into a discussion about why PHEVs won’t work in Canada.
My main complaint is that it’s getting old. A drive by (no pun intended) threadshit here and there is almost expected in a long running thread and is generally ignored. But this, this just goes on and on and on.
He said it right in the first Democratic debate. He said it pretty clearly:
Bolding mine. I just noticed for the first time that he said ‘black woman’ for the court pick, but onlly ‘woman’ for VP. So I’ll retract that part of it.
There was no other part.
There was the woman part. But you kmow that.
I will give you that, that part is accurate.
Those Democrats pushing women that aren’t qualified is horrible! Republicans would never do that. They only bring very qualified women like Sarah Palin to the VP portion of the ticket.
Of course the Republicans would do it if they thought it would help, and with Palin they did. I never said anything about the integrity of Republicans.
Yeah, how dare we infer what you imply,
Democrats go out of their way to promote women and minorities in office. It’s the only reason Kamala Harris is there.
Minorities and women are treated like anyone else in the Republican party.
Modern Republicans love female and minority candidates, so long as they espouse the right values, because they are tired of being accused of being racistsexistmisogynist and would love to disarm that issue.
To be fair, in that quote Sam is acknowledging that Republicans will sometimes nominate token women and minorities because it makes them look better.
It’s part of the political process in general. Optics are one of the most important things to establish. That’s just reality.
Yeah, but…
Given the source, I can’t not read that as,
Democrats only nominate minorities because they love woke, affirmative action, and tokenism.
While,
Republicans nominate minorities because they’re attempting to disprove the lies the woke Democrat liberals spread about conservatives.
Sure, that’s likely the perspective through which this is viewed, given the viewer.
When he made the statement that he was going to pick a women (or a Black woman for that matter), is it possible he had already chosen her? That is, maybe the statement didn’t force him to choose from a specific demographic, but rather was him hinting at who he had picked.
Brushing off my old high school algebra, I believe we can reduce that statement to “You’re nominating minorities as tokens, but we’re also nominating them as tokens”. Then all we need to do is factor out “nominating minorities as tokens” which gives us (Nominating minorities as tokens)(Every accusation is a confession).
∴Every accusation is a confession.
(I have a high school aged kid and I’ve been brushing off a lot of my old pre-calc for the last few weeks).
You forgot IOKWARDI in your calculations.
I think my method is more elegant because it doesn’t lean so heavily on the “fuck you, I got mine” postulate.
Actually, the big claim you made was that
That’s what you should retract, because this claim has two implicit parts:
You’ve given some support for the first half of the first proposition and retracted the second half of the first proposition, but completely ignored the second proposition. It’s a pernicious idea that speaks of racist bias on your part, a very common sort of racist bias, and you’d do well to address it.
I don’t expect you address this funny bit:
“Anyone else” is a great phrase here. Minorities are treated like anyone else (by which you mean white people?), and women are treated like anyone else (by which you mean men?)? “Anyone else” means, as near as I can tell, straight white men.
There’s an idea in bias, the invisible default, in which the group with relative power is presumed to be natural and just the default state of humanity, and everyone else is a deviation from that default. Try rephrasing what you said to make it less invisible:
Does that sound true to you?
Which rather contradicts the “treated like anyone else” part.
This is true. But it’s bipartisan; it’s not a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
FUCK OFF TROLL @Sam_Stone
I had no idea you were my secret santa! I asked for a Fuck Off Troll!
You asked for that and a sock.