The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
Smedley said:
I find it hard to believe that folks can blast Tim Scott for being "evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused", "Incomprehensible...Incoherent...Dumb...Ignorant...", and more, but at the same time, Kamala the gourmet word-salad spinner is "fine".
To go back to this statement, m1 is the first quote, Dennis_Seelbach is the second quote, and I'm the third quote. So what you're finding "hard to believe" is that 3 people can have separate opinions of things.
ridski said:
Smedley said:
I find it hard to believe that folks can blast Tim Scott for being "evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused", "Incomprehensible...Incoherent...Dumb...Ignorant...", and more, but at the same time, Kamala the gourmet word-salad spinner is "fine".
To go back to this statement, m1 is the first quote, Dennis_Seelbach is the second quote, and I'm the third quote. So what you're finding "hard to believe" is that 3 people can have separate opinions of things.
I thought the question was why someone might call Scott's response "disastrous". (Fwiw I said I didn't think it was).
So why would any of us refer to Kamala Harris? I'm surprised anyone would be surprised that we wouldn't.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Er, no. More like seeing her many times and concluding she has limited command of the issues and is not very insightful and thus I have limited confidence in her ability to lead.
oh poop. Examples please of limited command and lack of insight.
Harris was the SF DA and the Attorney General of CA. Those don't seem like lightweight jobs.
GoSlugs said:
Here, I fixed that link for you.
That said, I am surprised to see you citing that white supremacist dumpster fire after you acknowledged that it is, essentially, a crock of ####.
Aha, the feces-focused would certainly be able to suss it out even in a roaring dumpster fire!
mtierney said:
Aha, the feces-focused would certainly be able to suss it out even in a roaring dumpster fire!
didn't figure you as a fan of Office Space.
You're full of surprises
mtierney said:
Aha, the feces-focused would certainly be able to suss it out even in a roaring dumpster fire!
Remember, you brought the crap to the table, not me.
The funny thing is that, with the split Senate, Harris has had to spend more time and energy performing the constitutional functions of the VP, than any other VP in recent memory. An effect of that requirement has been less time spent cutting ribbons and kissing babies.
Dan Quayle and Mike Pence are two men who epitomize what a good Vice President should be like…
When will this woman ever stop obsessing with Kamala and Hillary?
Deplorable.
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
I find it hard to believe that folks can blast Tim Scott for being "evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused", "Incomprehensible...Incoherent...Dumb...Ignorant...", and more, but at the same time, Kamala the gourmet word-salad spinner is "fine".
To go back to this statement, m1 is the first quote, Dennis_Seelbach is the second quote, and I'm the third quote. So what you're finding "hard to believe" is that 3 people can have separate opinions of things.
I thought the question was why someone might call Scott's response "disastrous". (Fwiw I said I didn't think it was).
So why would any of us refer to Kamala Harris? I'm surprised anyone would be surprised that we wouldn't.
Smedley's just pulling two elements of this thread together to build his Wednesday reproach is all.
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
I find it hard to believe that folks can blast Tim Scott for being "evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused", "Incomprehensible...Incoherent...Dumb...Ignorant...", and more, but at the same time, Kamala the gourmet word-salad spinner is "fine".
To go back to this statement, m1 is the first quote, Dennis_Seelbach is the second quote, and I'm the third quote. So what you're finding "hard to believe" is that 3 people can have separate opinions of things.
I thought the question was why someone might call Scott's response "disastrous". (Fwiw I said I didn't think it was).
So why would any of us refer to Kamala Harris? I'm surprised anyone would be surprised that we wouldn't.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and doing so disingenuously.
The Tim Scott bit wasn't about the meaning of the word disastrous, as much as folks wanted to project that spin-off discussion that never happened onto me. The Tim Scott bit was about folks effectively saying the interview clip (embedded in the New Republic editorial) exposed him as an idiot. So if folks jumped on that, I would have thought they might have aired their reservations about a subsequent characterization that Harris is "fine", if in fact such reservations exist.
Smedley said:
Well, I'd love to hear specifically why you're such a Kamala fan. I'm sure you have 3 reasons, (1) she's a Democrat, (2) she's a woman, (3) she's a person of color. Let me know if you have anything else.
Timmy is also a person of color…you’re trying hard to bite your own tail…smelling anything funky yet?
Smedley said:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and doing so disingenuously.
The Tim Scott bit wasn't about the meaning of the word disastrous, as much as folks wanted to project that spin-off discussion that never happened onto me. The Tim Scott bit was about folks effectively saying the interview clip (embedded in the New Republic editorial) exposed him as an idiot. So if folks jumped on that, I would have thought they might have aired their reservations about a subsequent characterization that Harris is "fine", if in fact such reservations exist.
Which person said it "exposed him as an idiot"? All the comments are addressing his response to the question about abortion, and alternatives to using the word "disastrous" to describe it.
Not all politicians are the smoothest talkers. And poking fun at those that aren't is fine. But it gets weird when people start insisting that, no, it's a real issue -- and nine times out of ten it turns out that it's not actually a real issue, but a way to hint toward a socially unacceptable critique without explicitly saying so.
For instance, Bush was notorious for his malapropisms. And we all had fun laughing at them while watching The Daily Show or Colbert Report. But the problem with Bush wasn't that he said nukular, it was that he invaded Iraq, killing thousands and destabilizing the entire region while empowering America's enemies and striking a serious blow against American power and influence. Bush's habit of tangling himself up in more verbal brush than a Crawford Ranch wasn't an actual issue.
What exactly is the critique of Harris? For mtierney, let's be honest -- it's Harris' gender and race that gets her going. No one seriously believes that Harris's policies are so different from Biden's, nor has she shown herself so egregiously incompetent, that it justifies the constant harping on Harris whenever discussing on Biden's re-election run. It ain't Harris's eloquence or lack thereof that she's actually worried about.
Smedley said:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and doing so disingenuously.
The Tim Scott bit wasn't about the meaning of the word disastrous, as much as folks wanted to project that spin-off discussion that never happened onto me. The Tim Scott bit was about folks effectively saying the interview clip (embedded in the New Republic editorial) exposed him as an idiot. So if folks jumped on that, I would have thought they might have aired their reservations about a subsequent characterization that Harris is "fine", if in fact such reservations exist.
The New Republic article's (Alex Shepard is a Staff Writer) nub is here:
"There’s just one problem: abortion. In the wake of the repeal of Roe v. Wade, Republicans are getting hammered across the country. Because their ultimate goal—a total ban—is wildly unpopular, Republican politicians have reverted to the classic political strategy of saying as little as possible about the issue. Evangelicals, of course, consistently rate abortion as one of their most important political issues. The repeal of Roe was a generational victory, and many are unwilling to stop there: Only a nationwide ban will do. And so Tim Scott has a challenge: How do you pick up evangelicals and independents in a post-Roe election?"
That's the reason why I posted it. Tim Scott isn't an idiot, it's that he's completely unable to say what his position is for fear of offending either the Evangelicals he's trying to lead, or the rest of the country whose vote he also needs to win. Tim Scott's answers tell us nothing other than Tim Scott is afraid to tell us anything. I wasn't commenting that Scott sounded stupid, but that he sounded scared - both times he vacillates his answer like a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
I find it hard to believe that folks can blast Tim Scott for being "evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused", "Incomprehensible...Incoherent...Dumb...Ignorant...", and more, but at the same time, Kamala the gourmet word-salad spinner is "fine".
To go back to this statement, m1 is the first quote, Dennis_Seelbach is the second quote, and I'm the third quote. So what you're finding "hard to believe" is that 3 people can have separate opinions of things.
I thought the question was why someone might call Scott's response "disastrous". (Fwiw I said I didn't think it was).
So why would any of us refer to Kamala Harris? I'm surprised anyone would be surprised that we wouldn't.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and doing so disingenuously.
The Tim Scott bit wasn't about the meaning of the word disastrous, as much as folks wanted to project that spin-off discussion that never happened onto me. The Tim Scott bit was about folks effectively saying the interview clip (embedded in the New Republic editorial) exposed him as an idiot. So if folks jumped on that, I would have thought they might have aired their reservations about a subsequent characterization that Harris is "fine", if in fact such reservations exist.
I don't think you're referring to me with this, because here's the quote:
ml1 said:...
For many people, that response is among the first things they may have heard from him. Depending on your POV, it made him look like some combination of evasive, dishonest, unprepared or confused.
...
I didn't see anyone else saying it made Scott look like an idiot. But if you have to preface it with "effectively saying", it almost certainly means nobody actually did say it.
you do have a tendency to reinterpret what people write to turn it into something they weren't at all implying.
PVW said:
What exactly is the critique of Harris? For mtierney, let's be honest -- it's Harris' gender and race that gets her going.
PVW said:
Not all politicians are the smoothest talkers. And poking fun at those that aren't is fine. But it gets weird when people start insisting that, no, it's a real issue -- and nine times out of ten it turns out that it's not actually a real issue, but a way to hint toward a socially unacceptable critique without explicitly saying so.
For instance, Bush was notorious for his malapropisms. And we all had fun laughing at them while watching The Daily Show or Colbert Report. But the problem with Bush wasn't that he said nukular, it was that he invaded Iraq, killing thousands and destabilizing the entire region while empowering America's enemies and striking a serious blow against American power and influence. Bush's habit of tangling himself up in more verbal brush than a Crawford Ranch wasn't an actual issue.
What exactly is the critique of Harris? For mtierney, let's be honest -- it's Harris' gender and race that gets her going. No one seriously believes that Harris's policies are so different from Biden's, nor has she shown herself so egregiously incompetent, that it justifies the constant harping on Harris whenever discussing on Biden's re-election run. It ain't Harris's eloquence or lack thereof that she's actually worried about.
I've seen a bunch of different memes, tweets or headlines about Harris and her "word salad." And when I find the actual full quote in context, it usually makes perfect sense. It's extemporaneous speech, so in a transcript it may seem a little weird in print. But if you know what the topic is, and you read the whole thing, it makes sense.
and not for nothing but I can't take anyone seriously who talks about Harris's "word salad." It's like using "wokeness" for me. Right wing buzzwords connote intellectual laziness to me, and fair or not that's my bias. It's substituting right wing clichés for original thought, imho.
I mean, right wing people are going to hate Harris no matter what. It's just a matter of tribalism.
Since this discussion is currently off the rails - well, to be honest, it has been off the rails since Mtierney started it - I was wondering how many people felt safer now that the book-burners in Florida Miami-Dade elementary school limited some access to Amanda Gorman's The Hill We Climb?
GoSlugs said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Since half of your word-salad example is mine, Ill be happy to point out that I have NEVER stated Kamala Harris is "fine".
So, what is your problem with the VP?
She wasn’t my first choice in 2020 but, unlike Biden, she wasn’t my last choice.
Who says I have a problem with her? I've never said that either.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Who says I have a problem with her? I've never said that either.
My bad. When you said that you never said she was “fine” I thought you were saying that there was something wrong with her. Thanks for clarifying.
GoSlugs said:
I mean, right wing people are going to hate Harris no matter what. It's just a matter of tribalism.
Do you engage in tribalism?
If so, does your tribe have any reflexive beliefs?
Moving along.... this is pretty funny.
DeSantis Announcement Derailed by Twitter Malfunction
Talk about a win/win situation.
GoSlugs said:
Moving along.... this is pretty funny.
DeSantis Announcement Derailed by Twitter Malfunction
Talk about a win/win situation.
Are you a member of the Very-Opionated-Without-Evidence tribe?
Nope, I'm a member of the not wanting to spend three days helping RFA get over his confusion about the wording of a post tribe. Sorry, not interested.
For the non-resident American critic…
“The average home price in Canada is C$716,083 ($528,000; £426,000), according to the Canada Real Estate Association, though homes in Canada's most populous city Toronto average about C$1.15m.
“Home prices are the highest in Vancouver, British Columbia, where the average price tag for a property is around C$1.29m.
“Both Toronto and Vancouver consistently rank among the top 10 most unaffordable cities in the world.
“The average value of a Canadian home has more than doubled since 2011, when houses were valued at around C$352,000.
“As of 2021, Canada's household debt is 7% higher than the country's entire GDP. This is an increase from 2010, when household debt was about 5% lower than Canada's GDP.
“By comparison, household debt in the US fell from 100% of the country's GDP in 2008 to about 75% in 2021. The UK's household debt as a share of its GDP also fell from 94% in 2010 to 86% in 2021.
"While US households reduced debt, Canadians increased theirs and this will likely continue to increase unless we address affordability in the housing market," Mr ab Iorwerth said.
“Among major Western nations, only Australia has a higher household debt rate as a share of its GDP (119%).
“Canada's government has been under pressure to address the growing issue of housing unaffordability. Earlier this year, Canada enacted a two-year ban on foreigners buying homes in the country in an attempt to ease unaffordability.
“Some have also called on officials to enact measures that will increase Canada's housing supply, as the country's population has grown by a record of more than a million people in 2022.”
GoSlugs said:
Nope, I'm a member of the not wanting to spend three days helping RFA get over his confusion about the wording of a post tribe. Sorry, not interested.
Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations. Most recent evidence requested: evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy. I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.
mtierney said:
For the non-resident American critic…
“The average home price in Canada is C$716,083 ($528,000; £426,000), according to the Canada Real Estate Association, though homes in Canada's most populous city Toronto average about C$1.15m.
“Home prices are the highest in Vancouver, British Columbia, where the average price tag for a property is around C$1.29m.
“Both Toronto and Vancouver consistently rank among the top 10 most unaffordable cities in the world.
“The average value of a Canadian home has more than doubled since 2011, when houses were valued at around C$352,000.
“As of 2021, Canada's household debt is 7% higher than the country's entire GDP. This is an increase from 2010, when household debt was about 5% lower than Canada's GDP.
“By comparison, household debt in the US fell from 100% of the country's GDP in 2008 to about 75% in 2021. The UK's household debt as a share of its GDP also fell from 94% in 2010 to 86% in 2021.
"While US households reduced debt, Canadians increased theirs and this will likely continue to increase unless we address affordability in the housing market," Mr ab Iorwerth said.
“Among major Western nations, only Australia has a higher household debt rate as a share of its GDP (119%).
“Canada's government has been under pressure to address the growing issue of housing unaffordability. Earlier this year, Canada enacted a two-year ban on foreigners buying homes in the country in an attempt to ease unaffordability.
“Some have also called on officials to enact measures that will increase Canada's housing supply, as the country's population has grown by a record of more than a million people in 2022.”
You wouldn't favor us with a source would you?
I can only say that when we sold our house in SO and moved to Edmonton, we were able to buy a significantly larger house in a similar neighborhood for about 100k less what we sold our NJ house for. Schools are great, city services are great but the real kicker is that our property taxes are $12,000 USD lower.
Living in Vancouver is in many ways like living in SF and that goes for the cost of living as well. Beautiful scenery and you pay for it. That said, there are plenty of places like Edmonton if you are looking for great food, an awesome theater scene and a pretty good hockey team.
RealityForAll said:
Your response proves that you can not provide evidence for your allegations. Most recent evidence requested: evidence to prove/demonstrate that NR supports white supremacy. I await a substantive response from you, GoSlugs.
You go do that.
oh poop. Examples please of limited command and lack of insight.