Well I see nothing in any credible print outlet that says anything other than McAuliffe's comment was a gaffe. But I guess this is the usual case of you being right and the whole MSM complex being wrong. Amazing how this is the case time after time after time.
And this ties into the broader pattern of you contorting what should be simple explanations beyond recognition. Why are Biden's numbers down? Because the evil and nefarious MSM is fooling voters, of course. Why has McAuliffe lost his lead? Because the other guy's duplicitous campaign tactics are hoodwinking Virginians. Always an extra layer of complexity and subterfuge. Like a friggin Peter Lorre movie.
Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, some people hold different views than you do; those different views are not a product of misinformation; and those different views can be reflected in polls and election results?
As my man ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.
I'd prefer not to be associated with any of your arguments.
I haven't followed it very closely but I've looked in on it a bit this week. I know Terry made a big gaffe in saying parents shouldn't be involved in what schools teach.
pray tell, what do you think is the primary reason(s) VA is now a dead heat when McAuliffe had a comfy lead ? I've already said 2, Biden, and the culture wars in schools. I imagine you disagree on both but before I elaborate on anything I'd like to hear your theory. As I've said before, real easy to just sh*t on what others say without putting your own stuff out there.
you haven't really said anything.
anyway, Youngkin has been demagoging the crap out of phony education issues. e.g. They've been running ads featuring a "mom" (actually a Republican official) about how her high school son had nightmares after reading Toni Morrison's Beloved. He's also been running the standard CRT playbook.
It may well be that Youngkin's tactics have helped pull him close. But that doesn't mean that Brook's piece is telling us anything useful.
It's also telling how you characterize McAuliffe's quote on parents, because you got it wrong. Now, I wonder why that is? (hmm, could it be the media you consume?)
Here's the full quote, in context. Do you think your characterization (which is Youngkin's, btw) is accurate? He was talking about a bill that he had vetoed back when he was Governor, that many believed was one step from allowing parents to ban books.
McAULIFFE: "The parents had the right to veto books, Glenn, not to be knowledged about it, also take them off the shelves. And I’m not gonna let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision." YOUNGKIN: "You vetoed it." McAULIFFE: "Yeah, I stopped the bill that I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."
I just watched the video , in full, without media filter, and I believe it is a fair characterization that McAuliffe said "I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."
As per usual, you show your own hardwired bias by stating definitively "you got it wrong". And then you breezily mischaracterize the backstory bill itself when you say "He was talking about a bill that he had vetoed back when he was Governor, that many believed was one step from allowing parents to ban books."
Actually, according to WaPo factcheck, "While the former governor knocked Youngkin for not understanding the basics of the law that was debated, he mischaracterized the bills he vetoed. Neither bill would have allowed parents to “veto books” or “take them off the shelves,” according to the bills and the veto statements issued by McAuliffe at the time. In fact, neither had to do with books, but concerned instructional material."
Uh...so you got some stuff wrong here.
The original point was about his quote, which you took out of context. The issue of whether he mis-characterized the law during the debate is completely beside the point.
I got nothing wrong, bub.
As for WaPo's "factcheck" (perhaps the worst in the business) maybe they should fact check their own headlines:
McAuliffe vetoes bill permitting parents to block sexually explicit books in school
Well I see nothing in any credible print outlet that says anything other than McAuliffe's comment was a gaffe. But I guess this is the usual case of you being right and the whole MSM complex being wrong. Amazing how this is the case time after time after time.
And this ties into the broader pattern of you contorting what should be simple explanations beyond recognition. Why are Biden's numbers down? Because the evil and nefarious MSM is fooling voters, of course. Why has McAuliffe lost his lead? Because the other guy's duplicitous campaign tactics are hoodwinking Virginians. Always an extra layer of complexity and subterfuge. Like a friggin Peter Lorre movie.
Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, some people hold different views than you do; those different views are not a product of misinformation; and those different views can be reflected in polls and election results?
As my man ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.
do you not see how McAuliffe's comment has been completely taken out of context? can't you think for yourself once you're presented with the facts?
you know, the MSM thought Hillary's EMAILS!!!! were a big deal too.
do you not think that Youngkin is being duplicitous?
Youngkin is a politician running for office. Politicians running for office, such as McAuliffe and Youngkin, tend to stretch the truth and position the other person's words for their own benefit. If you do not know this, I'm not sure what planet you live on.
Here are some fact checks that show how both McAuliffe and Youngkin have done this.
Note I've included 3 sources and excluded the execrable WaPo, to accommodate your sensitive taste in media fact checks. Hopefully at least one of these three isn't in your axis of media evil.
What do you think? Do any/all of these support the notion that Youngkin has been duplicitous, McAuliffe hasn't, and that is why the race has tightened?
Let me guess your answer: the fact checks are accurate when they cite the Republican for BS, but they're wrong when they cite the Democrat.
I haven't followed it very closely but I've looked in on it a bit this week. I know Terry made a big gaffe in saying parents shouldn't be involved in what schools teach.
pray tell, what do you think is the primary reason(s) VA is now a dead heat when McAuliffe had a comfy lead ? I've already said 2, Biden, and the culture wars in schools. I imagine you disagree on both but before I elaborate on anything I'd like to hear your theory. As I've said before, real easy to just sh*t on what others say without putting your own stuff out there.
you haven't really said anything.
anyway, Youngkin has been demagoging the crap out of phony education issues. e.g. They've been running ads featuring a "mom" (actually a Republican official) about how her high school son had nightmares after reading Toni Morrison's Beloved. He's also been running the standard CRT playbook.
It may well be that Youngkin's tactics have helped pull him close. But that doesn't mean that Brook's piece is telling us anything useful.
It's also telling how you characterize McAuliffe's quote on parents, because you got it wrong. Now, I wonder why that is? (hmm, could it be the media you consume?)
Here's the full quote, in context. Do you think your characterization (which is Youngkin's, btw) is accurate? He was talking about a bill that he had vetoed back when he was Governor, that many believed was one step from allowing parents to ban books.
McAULIFFE: "The parents had the right to veto books, Glenn, not to be knowledged about it, also take them off the shelves. And I’m not gonna let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision." YOUNGKIN: "You vetoed it." McAULIFFE: "Yeah, I stopped the bill that I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."
I just watched the video , in full, without media filter, and I believe it is a fair characterization that McAuliffe said "I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."
As per usual, you show your own hardwired bias by stating definitively "you got it wrong". And then you breezily mischaracterize the backstory bill itself when you say "He was talking about a bill that he had vetoed back when he was Governor, that many believed was one step from allowing parents to ban books."
Actually, according to WaPo factcheck, "While the former governor knocked Youngkin for not understanding the basics of the law that was debated, he mischaracterized the bills he vetoed. Neither bill would have allowed parents to “veto books” or “take them off the shelves,” according to the bills and the veto statements issued by McAuliffe at the time. In fact, neither had to do with books, but concerned instructional material."
Uh...so you got some stuff wrong here.
The original point was about his quote, which you took out of context. The issue of whether he mis-characterized the law during the debate is completely beside the point.
I got nothing wrong, bub.
As for WaPo's "factcheck" (perhaps the worst in the business) maybe they should fact check their own headlines:
McAuliffe vetoes bill permitting parents to block sexually explicit books in school
Well I see nothing in any credible print outlet that says anything other than McAuliffe's comment was a gaffe. But I guess this is the usual case of you being right and the whole MSM complex being wrong. Amazing how this is the case time after time after time.
And this ties into the broader pattern of you contorting what should be simple explanations beyond recognition. Why are Biden's numbers down? Because the evil and nefarious MSM is fooling voters, of course. Why has McAuliffe lost his lead? Because the other guy's duplicitous campaign tactics are hoodwinking Virginians. Always an extra layer of complexity and subterfuge. Like a friggin Peter Lorre movie.
Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, some people hold different views than you do; those different views are not a product of misinformation; and those different views can be reflected in polls and election results?
As my man ml1 says, usually the simplest explanation is also the truth.
do you not see how McAuliffe's comment has been completely taken out of context? can't you think for yourself once you're presented with the facts?
you know, the MSM thought Hillary's EMAILS!!!! were a big deal too.
do you not think that Youngkin is being duplicitous?
Youngkin is a politician running for office. Politicians running for office, such as McAuliffe and Youngkin, tend to stretch the truth and position the other person's words for their own benefit. If you do not know this, I'm not sure what planet you live on.
Here are some fact checks that show how both McAuliffe and Youngkin have done this.
Note I've included 3 sources and excluded the execrable WaPo, to accommodate your sensitive taste in media fact checks. Hopefully at least one of these three isn't in your axis of media evil.
What do you think? Do any/all of these support the notion that Youngkin has been duplicitous, McAuliffe hasn't, and that is why the race has tightened?
Let me guess your answer: the fact checks are accurate when they cite the Republican for BS, but they're wrong when they cite the Democrat.
that away to divert.
Youngkin's entire campaign is built around a dishonest attempt to gin up racism around the idea of CRT and "parental rights" in education.
you still have never explained what words of wisdom you think came from Brooks.
I linked to a column that I said made some good points. So it's fair to say that on balance I agree with the column. So read the column for your answer?
I imagine that if you read this piece and the byline was John Doe, you'd say something to the effect of, man that John Doe is a sharp bloke.
I linked to a column that I said made some good points. So it's fair to say that on balance I agree with the column. So read the column for your answer?
I imagine that if you read this piece and the byline was John Doe, you'd say something to the effect of, man that John Doe is a sharp bloke.
I linked to a column that I said made some good points. So it's fair to say that on balance I agree with the column. So read the column for your answer?
I imagine that if you read this piece and the byline was John Doe, you'd say something to the effect of, man that John Doe is a sharp bloke.
But somehow Brooks is a babbling idiot because he also writes stuff you disagree with.
Other than being for the Democratic budget proposals, it's still Brooksian babble. It's possible to support the proposals without sounding so condescending to people who aren't "Washington elites" like him.
I linked to a column that I said made some good points. So it's fair to say that on balance I agree with the column. So read the column for your answer?
I imagine that if you read this piece and the byline was John Doe, you'd say something to the effect of, man that John Doe is a sharp bloke.
But somehow Brooks is a babbling idiot because he also writes stuff you disagree with.
I used to read Brooks's column fairly regularly. But after reading hundreds of badly reasoned arguments I gave up. I don't waste my time reading him. Once in a while he may have an insight but it's not worth the 99 times out of 100 that his column is profoundly fatuous.
He's not an idiot because I disagree with him. He's an idiot because he's an idiot. And the prestige of a NYT byline doesn't make him any less of an idiot.
“It will provide $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid. The measure also includes the United States’ largest investment to prepare for climate change: $50 billion to help communities grapple with the devastating fires, floods, storms and droughts that scientists say have been worsened by global warming.”
“It will provide $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid. The measure also includes the United States’ largest investment to prepare for climate change: $50 billion to help communities grapple with the devastating fires, floods, storms and droughts that scientists say have been worsened by global warming.”
Where is the rest of the $1T GOING?
The $550 billion is new funding. The rest is what we would already be spending on infrastructure under the status quo.
“It will provide $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid. The measure also includes the United States’ largest investment to prepare for climate change: $50 billion to help communities grapple with the devastating fires, floods, storms and droughts that scientists say have been worsened by global warming.”
Where is the rest of the $1T GOING?
Most of the additional is from including additional funding normally allocated each year for highways and other infrastructure projects. The $550 was the new spending.
The ultimate goal for the BB plan is 1.85T - here's the breakdown of all of it:
$400 billion for childcare and universal preschool. The plan is designed to save most American families more than half of their spending on childcare by providing two years of free preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old in America and additional funding for childcare. $200 billion for Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit. The proposal extends the expanded Child Tax Credit for one year and provides additional funds to extend the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. $150 billion for home care. This would expand access to high-quality home care for older Americans and people with disabilities. $555 billion for clean energy and climate. The plan proposes cutting greenhouse gas pollution by over a gigaton in 2030, reducing consumer energy costs, helping to create more clean air and water, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. $130 billion in ACA credits. This money will be used to expand affordable healthcare coverage, reduce premiums for more than 9 million Americans, and deliver healthcare to uninsured people in states that are not enrolled in expanded Medicaid coverage. $35 billion Medicare hearing coverage. While dental and vision coverage did not make the cut, Medicare recipients will have coverage for hearing aids and hearing tests. $150 billion for housing. The plan invests in affordable housing, including construction and rehabilitation of homes, as well as investments in rental assistance and housing vouchers. $40 billion higher ed and workforce. The legislation will increase Pell grants and provide post-high school education opportunities including through apprenticeship programs for underserved communities. $90 billion for equity and other investments. Spending in this area will be designed to achieve equity through investments in uterine and vaginal health, community violence interventions, and nutrition according to the Whitehouse. $100 billion for immigration.
“It will provide $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid. The measure also includes the United States’ largest investment to prepare for climate change: $50 billion to help communities grapple with the devastating fires, floods, storms and droughts that scientists say have been worsened by global warming.”
Where is the rest of the $1T GOING?
New Jersey GOP members of the House of Representatives, Chris Smith and Jeff Van Drew, voted for that infrastructure bill last evening.
HOUSE INFRA VOTE 13 GOP yeas: Don Bacon (NE) Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) Andrew Garbarino (NY) Anthony Gonzalez (OH) John Katko (NY) Adam Kinzinger (IL) Nicole Malliotakis (NY) David McKinley (WV) Tom Reed (NY) Chris Smith (NJ) Fred Upton (MI) Jeff Van Drew (NJ) Don Young (AK)
New Jersey GOP members of the House of Representatives, Chris Smith and Jeff Van Drew, voted for that infrastructure bill last evening.
We now have the loony tunes hysterical reactions from the Republican patriotic front. Greene's being the worst:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), in her typically understated fashion, warned last week that any Republican who voted for the bill would be “a traitor to our party, a traitor to their voters and a traitor to our donors.” After the vote, she accused the 13 of having voted to “pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America” and tweeted the phone numbers to their congressional offices (while for some reason only listing 12 of the 13).
Smedley will explain that he's merely describing what the Republicans think, so same result.