I guess Soros didn’t fund them after all.
Is that a “liberal idea”?
I mean, it’s pretty stupid, in the “I’d like a pony which is also a magical unicorn” kind of sense…
Cite?
What liberal is supporting this idea?
“Group”?? Godless commies!
What has the US stolen from Honduras?
It’s sovereignty, for a very large part of the 20th century.
And we really took too many mints on the way out. The dish was just sitting there, and any civilized person would obviously just take one. But no, we grabbed a whole handful, like a barbarian would do.
Wow, you’re being a massive fucking moron.
I said:
That is a true statement: most of the examples I’ve seen have involved people deliberately taking statements of broad principle and pretending they’re intended as detailed policy statements. Note that I even caveated this with “most”.
You then jumped in with:
Is this the same as what I just said? No, it is not. You went and built a nice big strawman of me so you could subject it to abuse:
Actually, I’m complaining about people taking what she actually said and completely reinterpreting it, so basically the opposite of what you accused me of. For example, AOC was accused of wanting to lead an insurrection in Congress based on her comments that a proactive progressive caucus would be a good thing.
But please proceed - you’re doing so well.
What in that particular example do you think a person - not just me, but anyone - would give rise to calling her “insurrection” a matter of factual falsehood?
Sure seems like you are relying on your own straw man there, buddy.
Keep also in mind that I’ve linked to her factual falsehoods in support of my “she doesn’t care about saying untrue things if it makes a snappy Twitter post” theory.
But please, go ahead and look at that Politifact page and tell me how I’m wrong.
Ouch, that’s pretty damning. 
Is it that she wasn’t advocating an “insurrection” at all and said nothing about “leading” anything? That’s a “factual falsehood” on the part of the people making the claim about what she said. Which is what I was talking about in the first place.
Yes you have. And I agree that some of the things she has said are false. And you have provide us with a half-dozen examples of this, three of which were from tweets.
So I agree with you that she sometimes (on at least three occasions) has been guilty of careless and inaccurate tweeting, and that she should know better. And that on other occasions, in interviews, she has likewise made factually false statements. Whether that can be extrapolated to her “not caring” for the purposes of “making a snappy Twitter post” or whether they are, as I suggested, merely “rookie mistakes” caused by not checking the information she has been given as she should do, is clearly a subjective assessment.
You’re wrong in characterizing what I said. Can you point, in my posts, to where I said she never makes factual falsehoods? No? How about if you squint?
I’m talking about people making shit up about things she said, not that she never says anything that’s false. It seems that we’re talking past each other here.
Now that you have conceded that I am correct in her loose regard for facts, I accept your apology.
Even for the Pit this is weak af. Seriously, Ravenman, why does this lady get up your nose so bad? Is it just “old man yells at cloud” syndrome?
Excuse me, but I defended her against the faux-outrage of her not being able to afford an apartment until she started getting her paycheck. She was acting entirely reasonably in that case, and her critics were being absurd.
What I pitted her for is the cluelessness of criticizing 44 senators who were implicitly arguing for the Senate to take impeachment charges seriously; because she hopped on a stupid, out of touch criticism that some of those Senators miiiight be lobbyists. It’s a really, really dumb thing to undercut people arguing that impeachment charges should be taken seriously for the sake of the nation because LOBbYIsTS!!1!
Then the putting turned to her loose grasp on truth when there’s attention to be had.
Frankly, I think both criticisms of her are exactly on point. That does not mean I subscribe to every criticism of her.
Well, who would have a problem with that message? Here’s the message: “we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.”
Gotta admit, it’s hard to argue with that.
And that’s the problem. Despite the upfront gloom and doom, their prescription can be read to mean just about anything.
Given that the Trump Administration routinely gives a back seat to the national interest, this statement would mean more if they came up with a few particulars and said, “here’s some times you’ve recently failed to do this. This shit can’t go on, y’all.”
So yeah, I’d be concerned that the interests that the signatories represent might have a connection to the milquetoasty nature of the message.
I’ve voted Democratic for decades, but in the interest of fairness, there are a couple of ‘what were they thinking’ moments that I think belong in this thread.
Oops#1: Mika Brzezinski speaks her mind and let’s Trump take the high ground. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski criticized by Trump over offensive remark
Which gave Trump the chance to tweet:
(from: Trump rips Mika Brzezinski for ‘butt boy’ dig against Mike Pompeo
She’s apologized, but still a self-inflicted wound.
Oops #2: Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) managed to look as dumb as a Republican (which takes some doing these days) when, after a vote on a fairly obscure item with real-world implications…Dem: I Voted For Yemen War Because I Know Nothing About It
When asked about it, the Rep replied:
Hey, I understand you’re from Minnesota and Farming is important to you, but a mild education about the horror going on in Yemen might have made you look less like a moron–leave that to the Republicans.
Again, I did this in the interests of fairness; now I need a shower and some juicy stuff in the Mueller thread…
So, having made up a claim I didn’t make about a stance I don’t hold, you’ve now made up an apology I didn’t make for that claim and stance.
But if you want an apology, here you go: I’m sorry you struggle at reading for comprehension. I’m sorry that you hallucinate words that aren’t there. And I’m sorry I even got into this with you, given the previous two apologies.
Yeah, Mika went way over the line there.
Not sure it qualifies for this thread: she and Joe aren’t liberals by any stretch of the imagination. They’re anti-Trump conservatives, and once Trump loses in 2020 and Republicans don’t have to be Trump’s lickspittles anymore, Joe and Mika will be just as obviously pro-Republican as they used to be before Trump.
This sort of thing really pisses me off. It’s a Congressperson’s job to know more about stuff like this than those of us do who have day jobs to occupy our time, not to mention no staff to research stuff like this and give us capsule summaries. If he can’t be bothered, he should stand down.
A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale:
Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.
This is stupid on several fronts:
- New Jersey is already pretty safely blue
- It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a “both sides do it” situation
This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.