The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

Where are the liberals and progressives in our country who faint over any perceived racist remarks — and see racism everywhere — but within themselves?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-uncle-tim-hashtag-slur-racism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-just-cannot-handle-a-black-conservative/2021/04/30/0e3f7f84-a9ea-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html

mtierney said:

Where are the liberals and progressives in our country who faint over any perceived racist remarks — and see racism everywhere — but within themselves?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-uncle-tim-hashtag-slur-racism

The usual garbage from Fox News.  It describes a segment on one show where the host criticizes the use of "Uncle Tim", and the two guests disagree with each other about it.

This example of telling a lie right to our faces is classic Fox: "Johnson didn't address Greer's defense of the 'Uncle Tim' slur. He instead turned to Columbia University professor Jelani Cobb and said the criticism could be made that Scott 'sold his soul' to the Republican Party that 'oppressed' him and his family while saying referring to him as 'Uncle Tim' was still offensive."  In other words, he did address the defense and disagreed with it.

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

Here's a better description that doesn't use the "Uncle Tim" slur:

How not to talk about American racism: Tim Scott lures Democrats into a trap 

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were forced to run the media's "racist country" gauntlet. Don't answer dumb questions!

Tim Scott is the only black Republican in the U.S. Senate. In that role, like other Black conservatives, Scott is a professional "best black friend" and human shield against accusations of racism. In so many ways, Scott and other Black conservatives fulfill many white racists' American Dream of compliant, sycophantic, loyal and submissive Black people.

mtierney said:

Where are the liberals and progressives in our country who faint over any perceived racist remarks — and see racism everywhere — but within themselves?

If I understand the question correctly, you’re asking where the people who see racism everywhere except within themselves are. Do I have that right? If I do, the answer is easy: Lots of places.

mtierney said:

Fair question, Jamie. I will try hard to just pick a few — I’ll edit this thread later on...

here goes— just a few...

Senators:

Tim Scott (who has received shameful taunts by Democrats, calling him “Uncle Tim” —

Marco Rubio

John Kennedy (who has a sense of humor)

Chuck Grassley

Tom Cotton

Lindsey Graham

Representatives:

Steve Scalise

Jim Jordan

David Nunes

Kevin McCarthy
 

Blech, mostly just Trump sycophants. 

Trump lost the election. He has the ignominy of being a one-term president. And then his approval rating tanked after the election because he was a psycho a-hole. And he pretty much single-handedly lost the Senate. So while I see why Republicans in certain deep-red regions stay loyal to Trump, it's a prescription for failure for anyone with ambitions to lead the party. Why continue to hitch your star to a loser?

I think Christie is potentially formidable in 2024. He may be the only guy who can even come close to uniting the GOP -- moderates would support him, and I think a fair amount of MAGA true believers could live with him.   

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 LOL

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

ml1 said.  

Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

It happens to the best of us. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said.  

Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

It happens to the best of us. 

 indeed it happens to almost all of us.

I could have been more blunt in my assessment, but I was trying to be polite with that observation.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though. 

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though. 

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.  

 No, he's not saying that.

Do you think true stories about your life can't be used within a general context of B.S.?

Haven't seen or read Sen. Scott's speech, but did he at any point denounce Trumpism or the continuing Republican support for that violent anti-democratic movement? If not, then he's still part of the problem that ails the GOP.

Smedley said:

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.

Life lessons are great. Applied generally, they can be an easy BS trap.

PVW said:

Haven't seen or read Sen. Scott's speech, but did he at any point denounce Trumpism or the continuing Republican support for that violent anti-democratic movement? If not, then he's still part of the problem that ails the GOP.

He didn't, and I agree. I think the GOP stays in the wilderness as long as they keep kissing Trump's fat ---. Barring some infinitesimal-chance happenstance like real voter fraud actually being found to validate Trump's insanity, at some point in the next year or so the party will need to break from him if they want to have any chance in 2024.  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though. 

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.  

 that's a fallacious conclusion to draw from what I wrote.  but it's what I've come to expect.

Smedley said:

He didn't, and I agree. I think the GOP stays in the wilderness as long as they keep kissing Trump's fat ---. Barring some infinitesimal-chance happenstance like real voter fraud actually being found to validate Trump's insanity, at some point in the next year or so the party will need to break from him if they want to have any chance in 2024.  

 Oh, voter fraud is being uncovered, but it keeps on turning out to be Trump voters. I think more times than you expect, you'd be right in assuming that whatever bad thing Trumpists allege is actually projection.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though. 

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.  

 that's a fallacious conclusion to draw from what I wrote.  but it's what I've come to expect.

 Fair enough, You didn't say his life story was BS. I was overly expansive with my wording. 

Rather than

"Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it."

I should have said

"Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying the lessons he's drawn from his life story are BS." 

But still I disagree that what he said was "BS". There's a lot I don't like about the guy's political leanings, but his life story of rising from working poverty to where he is now is inspirational, and one that wouldn't be possible in many other countries. 

But because Scott's story doesn't fit the left's narrative that this country is utterly failed and broken with regard to race, it's "BS".   

Smedley said:

 

But because Scott's story doesn't fit the left's narrative that this country is utterly failed and broken with regard to race, it's "BS".   

 and there it is. Didn't we spend a week on this already?

ETA:  how exactly doesn't Scott's story fit "the left's narrative", as you call it.

Smedley said:

But still I disagree that what he said was "BS". There's a lot I don't like about the guy's political leanings, but his life story of rising from working poverty to where he is now is inspirational, and one that wouldn't be possible in many other countries.

 Perhaps not in a global comparison, but compared to our peer countries, the US has been underperforming in terms of economic mobility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Worldwide

Scott's success is notable here in America. It would be less unusual in, say, Denmark.

PVW said:

Smedley said:

But still I disagree that what he said was "BS". There's a lot I don't like about the guy's political leanings, but his life story of rising from working poverty to where he is now is inspirational, and one that wouldn't be possible in many other countries.

 Perhaps not in a global comparison, but compared to our peer countries, the US has been underperforming in terms of economic mobility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Worldwide

Scott's success is notable here in America. It would be less unusual in, say, Denmark.

 smedley simply has a belief in American exceptionalism which is not supported by any data, but feels good, I guess.

nuff said....

I guess it's Projection day for the Gaslight Obfuscate Project party.

It's a weird cartoon. The audience for the cartoon probably doesn't believe much in the whole "driving while black" thing, so if they were to think about it for more than a second, they'd be confused.

Of course, they won't.

mtierney said:

nuff said....

^^ Now this an example of cynical GOP deflection.

mtierney said:

nuff said....

 In 2016, after two then-recent police shootings, Senator Tim Scott took to the Senate floor to discuss his own experiences.

While many law enforcement officers do good, he said, some do not. "I've experienced it myself." Scott revealed that he has been stopped seven times in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure. But the vast majority of the time I was pulled over for driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or something else just as trivial."
...
He described several encounters with police, including one where he was stopped because the officer suspected his car was stolen. He described a similar incident that happened to his brother, a command sergeant major in the U.S. Army.

He told of a staffer who was pulled over so many times, that staffer switched to a car that wasn't as expensive.  Scott also said that he'd been asked for ID in a Senate building, even though he was wearing his Senate pin.

He told his colleagues, ""there is absolutely nothing more frustrating, more damaging to your soul than when you know you're following the rules and being treated like you are not."

Senator Tim Scott Delivered A Personal Speech On His Encounters With Police : NPR

And conservative "cartoonists" think it's just a joke. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

This is typical GOP deflection away from the important issue at the heart of the criticism of Scott. His speech was warmed-over "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. It's shameful that in these times, he'd foist that preposterous BS on the country. And beyond cynical that the Republicans would enlist a Black man to deliver it. 

 What's cynical is denying the possibility that Scott spoke sincerely, on his own volition and based on his own beliefs and life experiences. Instead it must the GOP using him as a puppet. 

That's cynical. 

 that's being skeptical, not cynical.  Which is generally a good rule of thumb with regard to politics.

And it's possible that it was BOTH Scott speaking sincerely AND the Republicans cynically exploiting him.  Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.  Sometimes it appears you don't think your responses all the way through.

 I generally don't associate "foisting preposterous BS" with sincerity, so pardon me for reading your post as you saying Scott wasn't sincere. I guess you're saying there's a possibility that Scott sincerely foisted preposterous BS?

And, thanks for the posting tips -- always appreciated.  

 someone can believe something sincerely and it can still be BS.  The "bootstraps" theory of success is notorious BS, considering how few people are truly self-made.  Doesn't stop a lot of people from truly believing it though. 

Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it.  

 that's a fallacious conclusion to draw from what I wrote.  but it's what I've come to expect.

 Fair enough, You didn't say his life story was BS. I was overly expansive with my wording. 

Rather than

"Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying his life story is BS, and he shouldn't believe it, or the lessons he's drawn from it."

I should have said

"Much of Scott's speech was drawn from his life story. So by saying he's foisting BS, you're saying the lessons he's drawn from his life story are BS." 

But still I disagree that what he said was "BS". There's a lot I don't like about the guy's political leanings, but his life story of rising from working poverty to where he is now is inspirational, and one that wouldn't be possible in many other countries. 

But because Scott's story doesn't fit the left's narrative that this country is utterly failed and broken with regard to race, it's "BS".   

 you seem to be working really hard to either misunderstand or mischaracterize my point.  Maybe if your first reflex wasn't to disagree, you could give some more thought to what you're reading.

as with anything, context is really important.  Scott was giving the rebuttal to Biden's address.  He wasn't speaking to the Boys and Girls' Club.  So it was his biographical, inspirational story being used to argue that average people don't need proposed government programs to give them better preschool, day care, or access to high speed internet.  And as PVW pointed out above, for most U.S. families, upward mobility isn't as easy as being prayerful and working hard.

To argue that Biden's proposals are not needed or wanted by most Americans because they can do what Scott did is indeed a BS argument.  It's a logical fallacy.  To tell people they don't need any sort of government programs to succeed because he didn't is a very common conservative argument to be sure, but it doesn't make it a valid one.

So that's the point I'm making spelled out.  I wasn't calling Scott's life story BS, and I wasn't suggesting some people wouldn't find it inspiring (I'm sure many do).