OK. You want an answer for a concedely technically possible but highly highly unlikely outcome? Here: he’d be very ineffective during the time he was in jail. SO far as I am aware, there is no provision to reduce a salary paid to a member of the House even if he is absent.
You know that’s not what I said.
But you imputed it to me anyway.
Too bad you missed the point I was making. It’s not about “liberal hypocrisy,” but about reactions by the board population. I certainly don’t claim the board population was monolithic in that reaction.
So what’s your response? You argue (apparently) that a single act of physical violence is sufficient for disqualification, and that all right-thinking people should agree. I point out lots of people that don’t agree (when the perpetrator is their favored side).
Your response is to complain about my attack on liberal hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Do you really think that the press, by and large, hasn’t been fair to Trump?
[/QUOTE]
Please explain how the media should have treated a public figure seeking to be a politician who did the following in the course of just the 2016 campaign before actually becoming president (as pointed out by conservative editorialist Michael Gerson):
It is perversely appropriate that the conservatives who whine so much about liberal snowflakes who demand safe spaces free from “unfairness and bias” (i.e. scrutiny, criticism or the potential for hurt feelings) are themselves the biggest whiners who create safe spaces free from scrutiny and criticism (Fox News, Breitbart, etc.) and demand other media platforms conform to this standard.
Gerson’s thesis appears to be cuttingly accurate. For a large segment of the right, “the conservative mind has become diseased.”
For the purposes of this discussion, I accept this as true.
But that does not describe “thrown off” insurance. That language is not correct. And even if it’s defensible as you’ve done (“…can very well be said to have been removed from insurance…”) it’s supportive of my point that someone who chooses that phrasing to describe the situation is not doing so as a neutral observer of facts. That’s the choice made by a narrator who believes that the ACA’s model is a comparatively good thing when contrasted with the AHCA and seeks to persuade the reader of this belief.
It’s nowhere near as malicious a distortion of arguments compared to conservative nuts like Cruz saying they want to get government out of the way so people have more choice and access to care.
No one is barring any person from being eligible to get insurance from such a model, but merely having access in principle does not mean everyone can pay for access. Conservatives love ignoring this key concern, shine the laser pointer on the wall with rhetoric like less government and more choice and getting away with it because too many conservatives have the attention spans and mental capacity of cats chasing the light.
Answer: by factual descriptions of each of his proposals. In other words, because Trump suggested that “unnamed liberals might have killed Justice Antonin Scalia,” the press should certainly report there is no known factual predicate for that claim. But that kind of insane claim does not license the press to claim that 23 million people will be thrown off health care. There’s no concept here that Trump has somehow lost the accurate reporting on all issues because he lies about things.
Or is that your argument? That because Trump has made a series of absurd, clearly false, and utterly ungrounded claims he has forfeited the deontological press treatment that otherwise guarantees accurate reporting? Has this penalty been applied to the entire GOP as well? Is this what justifies the various posts here that misrepresent my own positions?
I also accept this statement for the purposes of this thread: Cruz’s misrepresentation is far more of a distortion than the 23 million “thrown off” statement.
But this is the difference: Cruz is an advocate. I don’t expect him to neutrally describe his position.
I’m talking about the press, whose reporting I do expect to be factual. So your complaint that Cruz’s statements are more biased than the press statements are is unsurprising.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. As I noted earlier in the thread, the governor is a Democrat and one of the Senators is, too. Democrats obviously can win in state-wide elections even if presidential elections tilt towards Republicans.
Party of Putin über alles.
First off, props for going back through a long thread and responding to those who are engaging with you.
Secondly, I didn’t ask if it was legal to withhold his salary during his jail time, I asked if you thought if it was the right thing to do. Put it this way, do you think it would be ethical for a congressperson to accept full salary for a job he was not able to perform because he was in jail for assault? And further, do you still think that electing a representative who ends up in jail for six months on an assault conviction is better for his constituents than the alternative Democrat? That seems asinine to me. What’s the point of a representative who doesn’t represent for a quarter of his term?
You know what, I reject this line of argument. It is often used by some of the worst partisan deceit filled hacks like Sean Hannity who use the fact that they are explicit in their partisanship as an aegis against the MASSIVE distortions they puke out week after week. Then when the more left leaning media says something with a FRACTION of the spin and misinformation they bitch up a storm.
This standard just so happens to conveniently hit non conservative media much harder since most national media outfits are based out of big cities and population centers where more liberals live.
And conservative media? They love to play the poor wittle helpless victims, but they can’t play that shit with me because I follow and listen to them.
Most of talk radio is an over the top biased cesspool of hyper conservative dogma. They bathe themselves in some of the most caustic and biased and dishonest media around, then turn around and cry about CNN because it was slightly slanted towards a liberal perspective?
Oh but it’s OK for their media centers to do FAR worse since they are admitted partisans? Eff that.
We do not live in some closed off world today, and those cheap distinctions so are not enough in my eyes to absolve the absolute cancer of conservative commentary.
But that’s only an expectation for the “liberal press,” right? Fox News, which your Republican friends love, has no such expectation.
How long until a journalist gets stomped by the crowd at a Republican candidate/office holder rally?
How long until one gets shot?
Poster often complains about liberal hypocrisy. In an effort to deflect attention from support for a criminal, poster brings up liberal examples, tenuously related, selectively edit quotes, and say THERE! But now it’s not about liberal hypocrisy, 3 pages later.
Goalposts only a Vikings kicker could love.
I guess this is what Trump call "Making America great again " ! :eek:
I agree with this. It’s like the conservatives think it’s OK to say "well, sure our media talkers are outrageous partisan liars who make up the nastiest shit about our opponents. But that’s OK, since this is the expected level of what we will tolerate. "
YOU LIBERALS on the other hand, have to play by the rules, and be fair, and tolerant, and even handed. Otherwise you are being MEAN! and BIASED! And we will bitch and cry and complain.
N/M
I’d be curious to see the right wing’s take on the fact that if that reporter had a concealed handgun, he would have been justified in putting a bullet right between Gianforte’s eyes. I’d like to know why they think Gianforte should be forgiven for a transgression that they normally consider serious enough to take a person’s life no questions asked.
Pro-life people don’t grab people by their throats and throw them to the floor. Pro-life people also don’t advocate against legislation that saves millions of lives. You are endorsing the anti-life candidate over the actual pro-life candidate. You used to be better than this, Bricker. Please try to find that better you again.