You need to realize that this “argument” of yours only makes you look even dumber.
You must be one of those guys that thinks that clarifications like that makes it better.
Nope, it makes you look more like a partisan hack because you know better and still come to polish the turds. BTW the creationist and ignorant like was pointed at Gianforte, indeed it does not make it better that you are defending a champion (on many fronts) of ignorance.
I have two basic claims:
(1) I would have voted for Gianforte over Quist. This is not an endorsement of Gianforte. (Please recall that I voted for Clinton over Trump without “endorsing” Clinton; I merely regarded her as the better available choice.) So too here: I am not a Montana resident, but if I were, I’d have voted for Gianforte, merely because I regard him as the better available choice.
(2) The outrage against Gianforte’s body slam arises much more from the fact that he is a Republican billionaire creationist than the fact that he’s likely guilty of misdemeanor assault.
On which of these claims are you contending I “know better?”
Oh, I’m with you on this.
I also don’t really think it’s a big deal about how he would have (hypothetically) voted on the GOP healthcare bill.
What I DO think is that a reporter should be allowed to ask him questions about these issues without being physically assaulted.
But I’m sure I’m being a massive hypocrite about this, as I am apparently only saying this because he’s a Republican, and I’m fine with assaults by Democrats.
I checked, because I didn’t know for sure.
But it looks like I have about $16,500 in the Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund Investor Shares (VEIEX), which has index investments in Brazil, India, Taiwan, China. . . and Russia.
I had no idea. But I do.
I await the judgement of the People’s Revolution.
I think any politician who body slammed a reporter would catch a lot of outrage.
NB all of those points are relevant: politician, violence, reporter.
I don’t think you’re fine.
But I think that you’re “Meh, let the justice system handle it. He did wrong.”
And when it’s a Republican, I think you’re closer to, “Off with his head!”
IMHO it should, after reading on the subject I do think that many conservatives or moderates on the right are making a big mistake on falling for the propaganda that this is just an attempt by the left to return to old feuds that “should be forgotten now”.
The basic mistake is that it is really not an opposition to the ideology Russia has now or before, what is happening now is IMO the globalisation of the big fight American democracy had with the gangsters of the 20th century. We are in wold wide fight against gansterism and corruption.
And we are being led by people that either had deep connections with that corruption of they are weapons grade naive on the influence they have on them.
And yes, at about 4:10 that laughing character is a very non subtle dig at Trump from the creators of that TEDed short animated video. We always have to remind ourselves that virtually all Republicans in congress are defending the refusal of Trump to be transparent on his finances, his conflicts of interest and his taxes.
Not those your misguided emeritus esquire… you are not voting here nor you are correct on the second one.
Do you know what an index fund is? It’s laughable to think that some guy is vulnerable to corruption because he has some minuscule amount of money invested in a frickin’ index fund. Even the linked article makes that point that “Index funds are usually just like mutual funds, excluded from consideration from a sanctions perspective because the ownership stake per person is incredibly small.”
Having said that, I do agree with you that I think Bricker has stepped over the edge here and is defending the indefensible. Further I disagree with him that most of the folks here are dumping on Gianforte primarily because he’s a Republican. It’s possible, of course, but there is no convincing evidence of that. The Franken issue is, as far as I can see, too fuzzy to make a judgement about. I wouldn’t go quite as far as Richard Parker went in saying that he probably didn’t commit a crime, but I’d say there just isn’t enough evidence either way. Not so with Gianforte-- I’m confident he could be tried and convicted of assault.
Just a nit here, even if I agree with that I was not just talking about minuscule index funds.
I do agree with all the rest of your post.
Doesn’t matter. You and all of your ilk are letting them win.
Measure of outrage?
Body slammed reporter? 300 posts.
Terrorist bombing of concert? 61 posts.
The number of Trump bitch threads exceeds the concert bombing posts.
That’s a fair criticism.
But I have to balance the damage that creationists can do in office against the damage that I believe Democrats can do.
Some of that weighing represents calculations that you and I would perform very differently. Democrats push for reproductive choice, which you see as a positive; I see it as a path to more abortions, a negative.
So I admit that by supporting Republican candidates like Gianforte, I am shouldering some blame for anti-science positions like young earth creationism. But on balance, I accept that as a necessary price.
Expert opinion.
I already showed that if creationists just were of the old earth variety and respected the separation of church and state they would not be an issue, but in this case it is not just their creationism. Young Earth Creationists are a natural enemy of education and that is reflected on their votes that end up reducing public education more.
It seems that you are still naively believing that it is just his creationism that is the issue. Nope, His very anti science brand of creationism is as reported a very powerful crank magnet of many other issues. Many that have been adopted as standard issue by many Republicans in congress nowadays.
He was being asked by a legit reporter about critical policy that voters had the right to know, the day before the election. This is what set him off?! You have to ask why. What happens if you ask him about science, the russians, his being an outsider (or carpetbagger) his policies on lands in this state he did not come from etc etc. Does he bring out a firearm?
The outrage is wrapped up in his actions, his presidents actions (…) and statements about the press, his ducking a reasonable question, as well as who he is as a pol, meaning republican. The idea that asking him this was baiting him for a fight, no matter how aggressively, is ridiculous.
You are living in a deeply delusional past if you try to make this into another left/right partisan dustup. Those were the good old days. I get it. But it’s over. Look at the republican party for a second.
The outrage comes from the context: the arrogance, and anti-democratic un-americanism of this act. I’m sure you’re not happy that this is exemplified by a republican politician. C’est La Vie. Got to move on into the world as it is.
So are you a climate change denier yourself? Because there is no coincidence that the YECs in congress Venn Diagram with climate change denialism is basically one circle.
Or maybe you’re a different kind of climate change denier, one who admits it’s real but thinks that the “damage that (they) can do in office” is far less. Because, fuck the planet and those silly egghead scientists who see it as a huge problem. No problem at all, right? Minimal problem? Surely the “damage that (you) believe Democrats can do” is far worse than an inhabitable planet. Never mind that’s where I keep all my stuff (and you do as well).
I understand that climate change will affect fetuses. Maybe that will help you get your priorities correct for once? Probably not.
That link is most certainly NOT “non-partisan.”
And from it:
So under Quist’s world, the New York Times (a corporation) can endorse a candidate (like Quist!) on page 16, but Microsoft (a corporation) cannot take out an ad on page 17 to endorse Quist’s opponent?