I’m fine with criticizing Bricker for not seeing how much worse Trump was (vastly!) than Clinton. But you snipped the quote in a way that made it seem like he actually voted for Trump, not Clinton, when the reverse is true. That was a dishonest snip, in my opinion. You could have made your point with an honest snip, but you didn’t.
I don’t think so. It’s clear that his point was specifically to lie about something, so that rules out an “honest snip”. Why else claim that Bricker “didn’t vote for Clinton”.
I don’t see where he said that. In the post in question, I interpreted it to be about the “struggle with the decision” from the immediately prior post. But he still should have included the entire context of the post in which Bricker described his “struggle”.
The struggle itself is the point. B’rer Bricker has taken the first faltering steps away from the path of political error. Even a journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single stumble. Yeah, I’m fuckin’ deep.
He was responding to “I respect that he didn’t vote for Trump” in the post immediately above. Elvis was clearly trying to say that Bricker did vote for Trump, not Clinton.
That’s not how I interpreted it. Either way the way he quoted Bricker was wrong.
I just want to note, all the reasons Bricker listed for changing his vote to Clinton are the same reasons many others (like myself) voted against Trump too.
And they were/are valid reasons. Plus, being raised in Queens county NYC, I was well aware of his past history or “life story” too. See above for how his “home town” saw him and how they voted accordingly.
Anyone reading Elvis’ post would think that Bricker voted for Trump. If you don’t think Elvis intended that, then I’m not going to argue with you about it.
That’s why I’m saying the snip was dishonest – because it would lead to that incorrect belief.
[Moderating]
The way you’ve edit Bricker’s post to imply that he supported Trump is sufficiently deceptive that it’s in violation of the board rule against manipulating other poster’s words in a quote box.
Avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Let’s hope that will end this stupid hijack.
But that is exactly how I interpreted it, and it made me question my certainty that Bricker had in fact voted against Trump.
Thanks, John, for providing the full quote. And apologies for continuing this, but I don’t think it’s a hijack so much as a perfect demonstration of the issue already in discussion: that the mocking, 100%-or-nothing attitude coming from many on the left, while often enjoyable in a sanctimonious way, could doom us all at the next election, or the midterms or whatever you call them.
But John, unlike you, did provide factual accuracy.
This also is inaccurate. Bricker outlined numerous reasons why he ultimately voted against Trump and – I can’t stress this enough – his own party.
It’s possible also to make enemies of potential allies by criticizing someone for not doing something in exactly the way you wanted after they’ve already crossed party lines to support your interests. How do you expect to win over any new supporters when this is how you treat those who are already, reluctantly, on your side? In his own way he’s fighting for your camp. Don’t drive him off for not wearing the uniform.
Honestly, neither do I. But it would behoove us to learn.
The fact remains that he *did *vote for Trump, and told us so, even if he did change his mind at the last possible moment. That *is *factually accurate and *not *deceptive. What is *not *factually accurate and is deceptive is his proud and repeated claim subsequently that he has never been a Trump supporter.
We’re about fighting ignorance here, or so I thought. This is not a proud moment for some of you.
Voting involves more than marking a ballot. It requires submitting that ballot, which is them counted. I could print up a hundred ballots and mark Trump, but I wouldn’t have actually voted for him.
It’s a factually false statement to say that Bricker voted for Trump (unless he’s lying). He voted for Clinton, not Trump. That he had trouble with this decision is worthy of criticism, but marking a ballot and then scrapping it before submitting is not voting.
Die on this hill if you want, but it reflects poorly on you as a poster of you do so, IMO.
Lord almighty!
I’d say that’s some pretty twisted logic you’re using there, but there just isn’t a shred of logic to it.
Bricker rethought his intent to vote for Clinton, against his party.
He filled out a ballot for Trump, which, after much thinking, he voided.
He actually voted for Clinton.
I thought alternative facts were the game of the other side.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot.
Let me make it easier for you…
Booze can get expensive.
:eek:
That’s gonna leave a mark…
Of course, the 9/11 perps were safely based in Bricker’s ballot.
Yeah, other people are to blame for your behavior. Got it.
Uh, you “can’t help but wonder” whether hundreds of literal Nazis and white supremacists:
-
who showed up at a prearranged rally of Nazi and white supremacist groups to yell antisemitic and racist slogans and vile racial epithets;
-
who picked the location for their rally based on their vehement opposition to legal and peaceful local deliberations about whether to move a statue honoring a leader of a treasonous rebellion in defense of the practice of slavery;
-
who beat up, ran down and murdered people who weren’t physically threatening them in any way;
…would have behaved themselves better if a small handful of other people at previous demonstrations hadn’t got into fights? :dubious:
Based on past performance, I can’t say I share your optimism that Nazis and white supremacists would be likely to behave themselves as long as other people don’t start any trouble. Nazis and white supremacists have a long and crowded history of being well able, and quite willing, to start plenty of trouble all on their own initiative.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
The racial insults are probably 50% or more insincere and intended to cheese off the libs
[/quote]
Another astounding example of some conservatives’ current willingness to downplay, trivialize and normalize even the most horrendously unethical behavior as long as it annoys liberals.
You seriously think that yelling “nigger” and “I hope you get raped by a nigger”, etc., at people is basically not a big deal if the intent is to make liberals angry? What other kinds of appalling misconduct are you willing to excuse or shrug off in the name of the sacred mission of Pissing Off the Liberals? Don’t you think it would be more ethical to call out appalling behavior as appalling, no matter whom it’s intended to piss off?
(And besides: Why in the world does it seem even remotely plausible to you that literal Nazis and white supremacists yelling racial insults “are probably 50% or more insincere”? We are talking about dues-paying members of racist hate groups carrying swastika flags and “white power” symbols. Generally, when people like that yell racial insults they’re 100% sincere about it.)
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I was amused the excuse that the ACLU dreamed up to excuse themselves from having to defend the free speech rights of Nazis by announcing they would not defend hate groups who come to demonstrations armed.
[/quote]
The ACLU is not in fact abandoning its principled commitment to defending the free speech rights of Nazis and other pustulent assholes who nonetheless are constitutionally entitled to free speech. Here’s an article by an ACLU spokesman describing the actual policy: