See 1272Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Printable View
See 1272Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Nothing you said shows his assumption is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Oh, I see now where your confusion lies. When I said "Considering the fact that in Georgia, as well as most other states, it's never been easier to vote considering generous early voting timelines and ease of absentee ballots...", you read that as "everywhere" and thought I "assumed" something not in evidence, then thought you proved me wrong by mentioning a non-contextualized claim from Wisconsin. I copied all the relevant posts so you could see your error.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Perhaps I should end my posts with "thank JPeee!" And also, for the record, Paul Pelosi isn't a damn republican. If he was then 'maybe' it would be believable that he got clobbered by some mythical gay BF. But he didn't. He got clobbered by an asshole trumper. Only sad sack trumpers believe that he might have been clobbered by a gay BF. If you want to be one of those folks that believe stupid shit like that then go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I was not in error. You stated in most other states…. that is not necessarily true…WI and TX are prime examples of your error. People here in TX talk of having to sometimes drive for over an hour if they want to vote in person. That definitely is not easy. I have not (or will I) spend time looking up to give umpteen examples. If you choose to do so .. go ahead. These two I personally know to be relevant. In WI look up gerrymandering and you will find the extent of the problem there. republicans are trying to make it more difficult to vote wherever they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I'm curious why you keep bringing this up with me, would you care to explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
We have two dueling myths here. On the extreme right, we hear the gay lover story. On the looney left, we hear about a Trump acolyte energized by vile humors emanating from GOP political rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
The truth seems to be that a mentally disturbed Canadian here illegally acted in a mentally disturbed way. I don’t see how any amount of speech restraint will be enough to prevent episodes like this.
I liked what Ben Shapiro had to say about this: basically, the media didn’t ask the questions they might have/ should’ve asked. In a vacuum, people make up their own (often stupid) stories of what happened. The incident happened in the way the police chief said it did, details not elaborated, end of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I see this all the time – the official source of information doesn’t put out the facts in a press release immediately because they have to ascertain what the facts really are. Or if they put out “just the fax ma’am in bare-bones format and the details are filled in by people so that they can understand it, so that it makes sense to them.
Meanwhile, people make things up. We saw that happen with the Michael Brown/Ferguson event many years ago in St. Louis. Despite multiple investigations by law enforcement and government agencies including the United States government, there was no “hands up don’t shoot “. There was no disrespecting of Michael Brown’s body in the fact gathering effort. There was no… any one mythological idea charged against police.
And as an aside, I have to say… Wait. Mr. Pelosi’s assailant was Canadian? I did not know that. I just googled it and it appears he was here illegally. Or rather I should say that rather than he is an illegal immigrant, he is an undocumented immigrant, although it’s likely his documentation shows he is here illegally.
Sometimes I wish we depended on the Pony Express and literal stump speeches in the town square for information to form our opinions. You and your neighbors could watch the town square debate and then go to the local pub to discuss. The "discussion" could still get rowdy after a couple of pints but at least it wouldn't spread a wildfire of misinformation spreading from sea to shining sea.
In this case, a lot of the information initially shared shaped the resultant narrative and it took days for officials to correct some of the invalid information initially shared. During the first day or so, all anyone knew was that Mr Pelosi referred to his assailant as 'a friend' to the 911 operator, a third person reportedly answered the door when the police arrived and the assailant was in his underwear. It made it sound more like a domestic dispute than an attempted kidnapping/assassination attempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
So, a few folks began to speculate and it pissed off a few other folks who then began to throw shade at people who never made any comment or speculation on the subject, all in an effort to slam their perceived ideological rival due to, for some unknown reason, Trump. Weird!
Brandolini's Law is well-known, and used, by those would would divide us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Yes, I heard about that CBS News report that was later taken down. I suppose CBS got their information from someplace, but even if from an official source, that source talked out of turn. An assailant doesn’t preclude Pelosi from calling the intruder a “friend” to keep the guy from going ballistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Because you keep sticking with the stupid and cruel idea that he might be Larry Craig in a democrat’s clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Feel free to share links where articles from actual news sites indicated at the time in any way that what happened to mr pelosi was that he was attacked by a gay lover.
It would be fitting if you were to share any posts where I've expressed any opinion on it at all prior to your two different veiled accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
No kidding. I can't imagine being so heartless as to tell someone who lost her legs in service of this country that they should just get over it and STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
If republicans were decent human beings I suspect they could override any ‘democrat shenanigans’.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Yes, apparently they lack the moral flexibility to understand that the end justifies the means.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Today a report on gerrymandering… Sunday mornings with Jane Pauley … 44 states do gerrymandering of which 42 are republican! Shocking to say the least!
That's an interesting statistic! I was under the impression that prior to last weeks elections, only about 30 states were controlled by Republican legislatures and of those, only about 23 also had Republican governors. I wonder how they managed to gerrymander so many?Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
The other six states, one of them mine, only have a single congressional district. Gerrymandering isn't possible. I think gerrymandering is a bipartisan strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Then there is New York, having trouble with lines drawn by the Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Jane Pauley‘s numbers are not adding up.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/polit...urt-blocks-map
Things are going better than I thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
On the show they showed how gerrymandering works. It is not something I can explain.
Washington State certainly engages in gerrymandering, and this is a Democrat-controlled state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
For instance, last time they redistricted here, they gave my US Congresscritter a totally safe district, whereas before he had a "competitive" district. About 30 seconds after that passed, he basically started ignoring his constituents.
Many of the new redistricting proposals in the state "accidentally" disperse and diffuse communities of shared interest. Presumably this isn't simply to make sure they don't have a voice...
You are not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Scientists at MIT (and other major think tanks) address the problem with computational redistricting tools. Members of the Supreme Court famously were not able to wrap their heads around the algorithmic analysis put in front of them in 2017.
In my Democratic controlled city, my neighborhood held its breath every ten years to see if we would be split up among aldermanic wards. We hated being split, and for most decades we were. It was always so weired to have to work with one Alderman for the community garden, and another one for the Park just a block away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
The show explained it well I thought. It had visuals, etc. I would not be able to explain as such.
Here's the segment on CBS Sunday Morning.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-ger...-gotten-worse/
And it’s official. Trump has announced his run for president for an unprecedented in our lifetimes third time. Let the backstabbing and mudslinging begin.
I wonder how many more horrifying stories like this we’ll have to hear thanks to the Republican radicals on the Supreme Court.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...tOi44AynXK7hQ0
My market research brain loves this study about the five types of people who voted of Trump. This study was published in 2017--it would be interesting to see if they repeat it for his 2024 campaign to see if any of those segments shift, or if new ones emerge.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publ...s-trump-voters
I will have to delve into this later as I know several Trump voters including those who are never spoken about: successful professional women with advanced degrees. That demographics is supposed to hate Trump and love Hilary.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Ay carumba, DJT is running again, even in the face of most of his hand picked election denier candidates losing - does he have any sense of change in the air? He's very vulnerable to this Ron DeSantis and he doesn't seem to get that his time has come and gone. Pass the popcorn, the issues in the GOP concerning Trump and how to minimize continued damage to the GOP brand via giving DJT one ounce of attention/election consideration should be entertaining. Rob
The New York Post put the story on page 26: “Florida Man Makes Announcement”.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I believe the only man to win then lose than win the presidency was Grover Cleveland.
I thought it was sad Trump had no family on the stage, not even a wife. What a sad life he leads.
One can hope it will be another opportunity to watch him lose. I half expected him to announce as an independent.
I sort of doubt that his ego allows him to think that he leads a sad life.
National Review published an editorial on the announcement. The title was “No”.
I agree. I don’t believe anyone connected to him, family or not finds much joy. As he seems to be missing the point of it allQuote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Perhaps trump thinks by running he can avoid jail.
I just finished reading Jessikka Aro's "Putin's Trolls", and found it quite interesting, and relevant to political discussions here in the US. It also tempered my thinking about living in Finland some day :-)
https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/boo...tlines-russias
I've been warning about the dangers of Russian trolls for some time--and mostly being laughed at. They're certainly behind much of the QAnon spew.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
From the link:
"Moscow State University, where Aro studied journalism, now hosts courses taught by military officers in methods of computer propaganda. They emphasize three tactics: the rotten herring (rubbing a nasty smell onto the target), the big lie (the bigger the better), and the 60–40 method (60% plausible facts and 40% fake)."