DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
drummerboy said:
explain to us what the inconsistency is, because I'm not seeing it. Her 3 statements do not contradict each other - that's what would make the statements inconsistent. She is simply describing three separate things, all of which can comfortably co-exist with each other.
exactly. Anyone seeing an inconsistency there is either incapable of employing a certain type of logic, or is just looking for an excuse to bash Warren.
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. The statement on balance is something you’d expect from Klobuchar or Biden, ie criticizing trump but not necessarily the strike.
Then she pivots to the left and goes full-on critical of both trump and the strike.
I don’t see her second and third statements as being very different from each other. It’s the first compared with the second and third that is inconsistent.
no it's not. I can believe a guy is a murderer and still think it would be deplorable for a cop to shoot him down in cold blood.
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. The statement on balance is something you’d expect from Klobuchar or Biden, ie criticizing trump but not necessarily the strike.
Then she pivots to the left and goes full-on critical of both trump and the strike.
I don’t see her second and third statements as being very different from each other. It’s the first compared with the second and third that is inconsistent.
all I can say is that clearly Cizzilla has an audience.
However, your analysis is ridiculous. All three things are perfectly true and perfectly consistent.
And if you actually read the article, it's even stupider. He gives no analysis. He just sticks things together, as if there are obvious inconsistencies. When there are none.
Cizzilla is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. This piece is stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
How can you not see that?
gaaa
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. The statement on balance is something you’d expect from Klobuchar or Biden, ie criticizing trump but not necessarily the strike.
Then she pivots to the left and goes full-on critical of both trump and the strike.
I don’t see her second and third statements as being very different from each other. It’s the first compared with the second and third that is inconsistent.all I can say is that clearly Cizzilla has an audience.
However, your analysis is ridiculous. All three things are perfectly true and perfectly consistent.
And if you actually read the article, it's even stupider. He gives no analysis. He just sticks things together, as if there are obvious inconsistencies. When there are none.
Cizzilla is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. This piece is stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
How can you not see that?
gaaa
It really is amazing that Cillizza has masqueraded as a competent journalist for a top media outlet for as long as he has. He has fooled so many people for so long. But not you.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
explain to us what the inconsistency is, because I'm not seeing it. Her 3 statements do not contradict each other - that's what would make the statements inconsistent. She is simply describing three separate things, all of which can comfortably co-exist with each other.
exactly. Anyone seeing an inconsistency there is either incapable of employing a certain type of logic, or is just looking for an excuse to bash Warren.
I assume warren also was not inconsistent in catering to big-money campaign donors for a long period of time and then suddenly pivoting to believing doing so is the worst thing ever. Nope, that’s as consistent as the day is long.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. The statement on balance is something you’d expect from Klobuchar or Biden, ie criticizing trump but not necessarily the strike.
Then she pivots to the left and goes full-on critical of both trump and the strike.
I don’t see her second and third statements as being very different from each other. It’s the first compared with the second and third that is inconsistent.no it's not. I can believe a guy is a murderer and still think it would be deplorable for a cop to shoot him down in cold blood.
And if you said “The guy was a murderer, responsible for x number of deaths, including many local residents.” as your first sentence in a three-sentence statement on the incident, people would be wrong to read into that any implied justification for him being killed by a cop?
Smedley said:
And if you said “The guy was a murderer, responsible for x number of deaths, including many local residents.” as your first sentence in a three-sentence statement on the incident, people would be wrong to read into that any implied justification for him being killed by a cop?
You've taken that out of context. The passage that followed was criticism, not justification.
You don't like Warren. We get it. But that doesn't mean you need to reach to find something nonsensical and trivial to bash her over. There are substantive issues you can focus on.
Smedley said:
It really is amazing that Cillizza has masqueraded as a competent journalist for a top media outlet for as long as he has. He has fooled so many people for so long. But not you.
There are a lot of people who aren't fooled by Cillizza's fatuousness. A Google search will uncover a lot of criticism.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
And if you said “The guy was a murderer, responsible for x number of deaths, including many local residents.” as your first sentence in a three-sentence statement on the incident, people would be wrong to read into that any implied justification for him being killed by a cop?
You've taken that out of context. The passage that followed was criticism, not justification.
You don't like Warren. We get it. But that doesn't mean you need to reach to find something nonsensical and trivial to bash her over. There substantive issues you can focus on.
It’s hardly nonsensical, and it’s not trivial. And i pointed out an inconsistency — calling that “bashing” is a little dramatic if you ask me.
Lastly if you found my post(s) nonsensical and/or trivial, I’m not sure why you bothered to weigh in. Save your keystrokes for higher-quality discussions.
Smedley said:
It’s hardly nonsensical, and it’s not trivial. And i pointed out an inconsistency — calling that “bashing” is a little dramatic if you ask me.
Lastly if you found my post(s) nonsensical and/or trivial, I’m not sure why you bothered to weigh in. Save your keystrokes for higher-quality discussions.
You're right.
Smedley said:
I assume warren also was not inconsistent in catering to big-money campaign donors for a long period of time and then suddenly pivoting to believing doing so is the worst thing ever. Nope, that’s as consistent as the day is long.
jeebus. Yes, Warren is being inconsistent in this case. So effing what? She has changed her position - and many people think it was for the better.
Is consistency all that you care about ? If someone changes their mind for the better are you going to say "nyah, nyah. That's not what you said before!"
You know what they say about consistency, right?
And, just to be sure we're clear on this, the fund raising issue is not at all like what Cillizza is trying to point out, because in the latter, there is no inconsistency. There's just buffoonery from a little mind.
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. ...
The first sentence of her first statement set forth a fact. The rest of the statement set forth her opinion, which was consistent with her later statements. Or more accurately, her tweets (short statements in a character-limited forum). She made other statements, also all consistent.
If you just do a "full stop" at "the first sentence of her first statement", you really shouldn't draw any conclusion. Any claim about what it "implies", comes from your head, not hers.
A good summary of Mr. Smedley's position here, about her three tweets, was this one from the Twitter last evening. Jesus Christ, ESL courses are available on line.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. ...
The first sentence of her first statement set forth a fact. The rest of the statement set forth her opinion, which was consistent with her later statements. Or more accurately, her tweets (short statements in a character-limited forum). She made other statements, also all consistent.
If you just do a "full stop" at "the first sentence of her first statement", you really shouldn't draw any conclusion. Any claim about what it "implies", comes from your head, not hers.
A good summary of Mr. Smedley's position here, about her three tweets, was this one from the Twitter last evening.
OK, if everything is perfectly consistent as Warren supporters maintain, I guess I'm just puzzled why she would lead a statement with a background fact that has nothing to do with her opinion. People can generally find the facts for themselves. She may has well led the statement with "Iran is a country in western Asia with a population of 82 million."
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
I assume warren also was not inconsistent in catering to big-money campaign donors for a long period of time and then suddenly pivoting to believing doing so is the worst thing ever. Nope, that’s as consistent as the day is long.
jeebus. Yes, Warren is being inconsistent in this case. So effing what? She has changed her position - and many people think it was for the better.
Is consistency all that you care about ? If someone changes their mind for the better are you going to say "nyah, nyah. That's not what you said before!"
You know what they say about consistency, right?
And, just to be sure we're clear on this, the fund raising issue is not at all like what Cillizza is trying to point out, because in the latter, there is no inconsistency. There's just buffoonery from a little mind.
I'm pointing out that Warren was inconsistent here, after being inconsistent with M4A, and being inconsistent with big-donor fundraising. It seems she's having some trouble deciding whether she's running as a full-on progressive or whether she's somewhere between progressive and moderate.
Look, lots of candidates struggle to calibrate their message to be true to themselves and also optimize their chances in the campaign. Mayor Pete for example. Kamala. Biden. Others too, I'm sure (not Bernie).
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.
But "jeebus" the vitriol from Warren supporters on here that I even dared to question her principles.
Smedley said:
I'm pointing out that Warren was inconsistent here, after being inconsistent with M4A, and being inconsistent with big-donor fundraising. It seems she's having some trouble deciding whether she's running as a full-on progressive or whether she's somewhere between progressive and moderate.
Look, lots of candidates struggle to calibrate their message to be true to themselves and also optimize their chances in the campaign. Mayor Pete for example. Kamala. Biden. Others too, I'm sure (not Bernie).
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.
But "jeebus" the vitriol from Warren supporters on here that I even dared to question her principles.
I see no vitriol from Warren supporters here. I'm one, and I criticize her a fair amount. But when someone like Cillizza, who unfortunately and inexplicably has some kind of loyal fanbase, makes bogus accusations, then yeah, vitriol is warranted.
Smedley said:
OK, if everything is perfectly consistent as Warren supporters maintain, I guess I'm just puzzled why she would lead a statement with a background fact that has nothing to do with her opinion. People can generally find the facts for themselves. She may has well led the statement with "Iran is a country in western Asia with a population of 82 million."
Okay, now you're just trolling.
Smedley said:
But "jeebus" the vitriol from Warren supporters on here that I even dared to question her principles.
I know, it's amazing how contrary some people can be when reacting to dishonest and illogical political attacks
Smedley said:
I'm pointing out that Warren was inconsistent here, after being inconsistent with M4A, and being inconsistent with big-donor fundraising. It seems she's having some trouble deciding whether she's running as a full-on progressive or whether she's somewhere between progressive and moderate.
Look, lots of candidates struggle to calibrate their message to be true to themselves and also optimize their chances in the campaign. Mayor Pete for example. Kamala. Biden. Others too, I'm sure (not Bernie).
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.
But "jeebus" the vitriol from Warren supporters on here that I even dared to question her principles.
It’s “not trivial” — indeed, it’s a question of principles — yet “there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.”
Let’s say someone accepts your position that Warren’s statements were inconsistent, that “she seems to be having some trouble deciding,” etc. What is that person supposed to do with it?
nohero said:
Smedley said:
OK, if everything is perfectly consistent as Warren supporters maintain, I guess I'm just puzzled why she would lead a statement with a background fact that has nothing to do with her opinion. People can generally find the facts for themselves. She may has well led the statement with "Iran is a country in western Asia with a population of 82 million."
Okay, now you're just trolling.
Or saying that is your out to not address the question.
Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?
Smedley said:
Or saying that is your out to not address the question.
Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?
You're asking why someone who knows how to craft a succinct, intelligent argument would anticipate the sleazy arguments from the other side, such as Nikki Haley's?
“The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates.” pic.twitter.com/IZJJqpxkBE
If you honestly don't understand this, I can't help you.
Smedley said:
Or saying that is your out to not address the question.
Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?
what background fact that doesn't tie in with her viewpoint? What do you think her viewpoint is?
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
I'm pointing out that Warren was inconsistent here, after being inconsistent with M4A, and being inconsistent with big-donor fundraising. It seems she's having some trouble deciding whether she's running as a full-on progressive or whether she's somewhere between progressive and moderate.
Look, lots of candidates struggle to calibrate their message to be true to themselves and also optimize their chances in the campaign. Mayor Pete for example. Kamala. Biden. Others too, I'm sure (not Bernie).
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.
But "jeebus" the vitriol from Warren supporters on here that I even dared to question her principles.
It’s “not trivial” — indeed, it’s a question of principles — yet “there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, and a candidate can still be elected president and be a good president even with some inconsistency.”
Let’s say someone accepts your position that Warren’s statements were inconsistent, that “she seems to be having some trouble deciding,” etc. What is that person supposed to do with it?
There are 10,835 comments on this thread about 2020 candidates -- the good, the bad, the ugly, and everything in between, tangents, debates, non sequiturs, deep insights, nonsense, likes, arguments, etc.
So I don't get your question. Is it clear what a person is supposed to do with the other 10,834 comments but not mine?
Smedley said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Let’s say someone accepts your position that Warren’s statements were inconsistent, that “she seems to be having some trouble deciding,” etc. What is that person supposed to do with it?
There are 10,835 comments on this thread about 2020 candidates -- the good, the bad, the ugly, and everything in between, tangents, debates, non sequiturs, deep insights, nonsense, likes, arguments, etc.
So I don't get your question. Is it clear what a person is supposed to do with the other 10,834 comments but not mine?
10,835 comments on this thread, and THAT question is the one you reply to?
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Or saying that is your out to not address the question.
Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?
what background fact that doesn't tie in with her viewpoint? What do you think her viewpoint is?
nohero said "The first sentence of her first statement set forth a fact. The rest of the statement set forth her opinion, which was consistent with her later statements. Or more accurately, her tweets (short statements in a character-limited forum). She made other statements, also all consistent."
As I understand it nohero is making the argument that the first sentence of Warren's statement is just a plain old fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint. That is the alleged background fact that I refer to.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Or saying that is your out to not address the question.
Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?
You're asking why someone who knows how to craft a succinct, intelligent argument would anticipate the sleazy arguments from the other side, such as Nikki Haley's?
If you honestly don't understand this, I can't help you.
Actually I didn't say a word about Nikki Haley, but if you want to believe your question is the one I asked, have at it. You can answer for me too.
nohero said:
You're asking why someone who knows how to craft a succinct, intelligent argument would anticipate the sleazy arguments from the other side, such as Nikki Haley's?
If you honestly don't understand this, I can't help you.
Haley isn't interested in crafting intelligent arguments to her masses. She's pushing the emotional buttons of the deplorables, the stupid, the scared. Fear is a wonderful vote getter. For that you don't want or need succinct intelligent arguments.
We hear of if we intelligently argue with Trump supporters we may then we be able to change their minds. How many Trump supporters on this forum have changed their minds? How many in the country? We see Trump's support fixed at 41 to 43 %.
Smedley said:
nohero said "The first sentence of her first statement set forth a fact. The rest of the statement set forth her opinion, which was consistent with her later statements. Or more accurately, her tweets (short statements in a character-limited forum). She made other statements, also all consistent."
As I understand it nohero is making the argument that the first sentence of Warren's statement is just a plain old fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint. That is the alleged background fact that I refer to.
that's a pretty odd interpretation. no wonder you're confused.
Honestly, for me, the fact that GOP refugees aren’t in love with Warren is more of a feature than a glitch. This is, after all, the DEM primary, not a primary for the party of the redeemable deplorables.
Smedley said:
So I don't get your question. Is it clear what a person is supposed to do with the other 10,834 comments but not mine?
Not always. When they aren’t, I choose which ones I’m interested in seeking some clarity about. It don’t understand why you raised the Warren inconsistency, as you see it, in the first place, so, as someone who’s interested in what you have to say, I asked.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
The first sentence of her first statement implies the strike was justified. The statement on balance is something you’d expect from Klobuchar or Biden, ie criticizing trump but not necessarily the strike.
Then she pivots to the left and goes full-on critical of both trump and the strike.
I don’t see her second and third statements as being very different from each other. It’s the first compared with the second and third that is inconsistent.