If I want to talk about people that don’t have great life, I’d talk about a guy I met on the subway yesterday,
He was panhandling. Obviously homeless, dressed in clothes that were little more than rags, obviously undernourished. And he exhibited the telltale signs of moderate to severe of cerebral palsy and moderate retardation. He seemed in fairly good spirits considering his condition and the fact that my fellow citizens were treating him like he was disgusting and/or contagious.
I think he appreciated my kind words more than the few bucks I was able to spare. But as a society we should be able to do better. And it mades me disgusted with my fellow citizens that were born into prosperity with the advantages of health that think the answers for people like this man lie in personal responsibility and bootstrapping.
Cuomo’s statement assumes the truth that Trump’s great" America was the white-dominated, minority-debasing America of old. Everything he says must be read through that context. This is not a left-right split: it’s a truth-lie split. Trump lies every time he repeats MAGA. Of course, his lies must be refuted at every turn. It’s the responsibility of every politician and every decent citizen to do so.
Was Cuomo’s phrasing “inartful,” to use his term? I’ve already acknowledged that. But his words were wrong only to the extent that they allow Trump supporters to attack the words and divert attention from the basic truth of the statement. Since Trump is so fond of throwing the term treason around, I don’t see why somebody who calls the racist, sexist, homophobic, Christian-first-and-only America of the past the only possible great America houldn’t be labeled treasonous, if only toward every ideal of what real Americans should hold dear.
You say you don’t agree with this truth. That stance is the equivalent of being a moon-hoaxer from our perspective. The reality is so obvious, and so heavily supported with mountains of evidence that it’s impossible to imagine any argument to the contrary taken seriously even for a second. And none have been provided that even last a half-second.
My view of the left’s versus right view of their love for America.
Imagine two sons discussing their mother.
Richard: Isn’t mother wonderful?
Leonard: I just wish she wouldn’t drink so much. I really think she has a problem. She gets drunk several times a week and lost her license after the second DWI. One of these days she’s going to hurt herself or someone else. I think it might be time to consider putting her into rehab.
Richard: What are you talking about! Yes, she drinks a some now and then but its just to relieve a little stress. Those DWI’s were totally bogus, that judge was just jealous because mom’s more attractive than she is. Mom actually drives better when she’s had a few. Rehab is totally uncalled for. Truth be told I actually like her better when she’s a bit tipsy. You must just not love her like I do.
My observation is that one implies that slavery was OK, (before you freak out, we have had Republican pols say this publically) and the other gives the issue due recognition in light of that fact that all americans are people, not just the ones who were “OK” back then.
So why did Cuomo, in the span of a couple of days, switch to the one that you think implies slavery was OK? Is it a fair guess that he doesn’t share your assessment? And assuming you agree thus far, if the lefty NY Governor thinks your analysis doesn’t merit enough consideration to heed, can you imagine what regard I hold it in?
Given your performance wrt context so far (which I think you’ll agree has been “not great”), I’m going to need full context of every one of Cuomo’s statements that you’re referencing here in order to develop an opinion.
I think it’s more the incumbent vs, opposition dynamic. The party in power will focus on what’s right with the country, so as to stay in power, and the party out of power will highlight what’s wrong with the country, so as to topple the ruling party.
But you’re right, Trump and conservatives are still talking up what’s bad. Mainly because the country has moved leftwards for several decades.
Maybe I see the problem, here. People who don’t actually listen to lefties don’t know what we think. They think Andrew Cuomo is like a serious leader with a huge following of lefties. Therefore, if he is a mealy mouthed hypocrite, that’s really important!
How to put this? OK, you got Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk…and then Aquaman…
You seem confused. Let me clarify: Your post referenced two different quotes. For the first quote running coach kindly provided the context for the quote that you omitted, and that context showed that you did not represent the meaning accurately.
That’s the first quote.
Now you are referencing a second quote, to which you also have not provided the context.
I’m not confused. The second quote, in all its glorious context, was provided in post #3. Have you tried reading the thread from the beginning yet?
ETA: and I disagree that I omitted the context of the first quote. I provided a link to the video where you can watch it yourself, in context. If you’re unwilling to click on the links I provide, I don’t know how much further I can reasonably be expected to exert myself to provide the “context”.
No, it can’t have been post 3. That post just gives his clarification. You clearly wrote “switched”, which implies a change.
So is there another quote? Or when you wrote “switched” did you mean “clarified without changing the meaning”?
As for context: you quoted a phrase out of the center of a paragraph. Including the words around the phrase changes its meaning. Do you think you did a good job with the context?
his “clarification” is a switch from “never” (in the first quote) to “always” (in the second quote).
If one day I said “America was never that great” and the next day I came back and said “Of course America is great and of course America has always been great. No one questions that”, do you think many people would believe those two statements on two separate days have the same meaning, or something closer to the opposite meaning?
Yes, I included a link to the video. I think I did a “great” ( ) job with the context.
I’m not sure why you’re resorting to analogy to describe the change in language when you could probably just refer to the actual text.
Here’s the original language (from the bit you forgot to quote):
We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping of women, 51% of our population, is gone, and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed and every woman is making her full contribution.
Here’s the clarified language (from another bit you didn’t quote):
We will not go back to discrimination segregation, sexism, isolationism, racism or the KKK
Those two thoughts seem pretty similar to me. Certainly much closer than your analogy.
Suppose you make a post saying something like “I never said that I like Nazis”. and I quoted you saying “I like Nazis”, but with a link back to your original quote. Would I have done a great job with the context?
) job with the context.