The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Roundy on January 21, 2022, 01:43:02 AM
-
That's what everybody's favorite human eel, Mitch McConnell thinks, anyway.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/20/mcconnell-waves-off-voting-concerns-since-black-people-turn-out-heavily-americans/
"African-American voters are voting in just as high percentages as Americans."
Yep. Every now and then these assholes say the quiet part out loud.
Let's face it, he really thinks the concerns are misplaced because he doesn't see black people as Americans.
Should be fun seeing Tim Scott's awkward attempt at justifying the comment. The Republicans just love trotting out their token black Senator for damage control in these situations.
-
It's of course fun to have a laugh at Mitch McConnell's expense, I enjoy that as much as anyone else. But this one has me rolling my eyes. "Old man has tough time with words" is pretty boring. And that's not to say you (and all the talking heads posting about it) are wrong, it's just that there's no way anyone is going to see this through anything other than their already-established political goggles. And Biden makes constant gaffes, so there's the whole glass houses and rocks thing too.
-
It's of course fun to have a laugh at Mitch McConnell's expense, I enjoy that as much as anyone else. But this one has me rolling my eyes. "Old man has tough time with words" is pretty boring. And that's not to say you (and all the talking heads posting about it) are wrong, it's just that there's no way anyone is going to see this through anything other than their already-established political goggles.
So what else is new?
And Biden makes constant gaffes, so there's the whole glass houses and rocks thing too.
Oh for sure, and I've taken aim at him in the past for it too. His comment that if you don't vote for him "you ain't black" was very cringey and condescending, for example, and somewhere in one of the threads dedicated to him I criticized him for it. And I was the one who brought it up, not a Tom or a Lackey.
But Republicans (modern Republicans, please don't trot out the tired cliche that it was the Democrats who fought for slavery and the Republicans who fought against it 160 years ago, it's just not constructive) have a history of this kind of thing. They keep the racism to themselves for the most part these days but it's there. They are fighting to keep white people in power right now. That's what all these voter suppression measures are all about.
This is beyond "old man has a tough time with words". He said what he meant, he just didn't mean to say what he meant.
-
I highly doubt that deep down McConnell really thinks that black Americans don't count as regular Americans. It's just a slip of the tongue, and to focus on that buries the real issue of McConnell only pushing this rollback on voting rights and access because he knows that a smaller voting population usually favors Republicans - because the people most affected by reduced voting rights and access tend to vote Democratic.
-
Eh, he's an old white southern Republican. He's racist. It's really only a question of degree.
And it was a Freudian slip if the tongue if anything.
-
It's of course fun to have a laugh at Mitch McConnell's expense, I enjoy that as much as anyone else. But this one has me rolling my eyes. "Old man has tough time with words" is pretty boring. And that's not to say you (and all the talking heads posting about it) are wrong, it's just that there's no way anyone is going to see this through anything other than their already-established political goggles.
So what else is new?
Nothing at all, including this silly sound bite from McConnell. Lefties will say he said the quiet part out loud. Righties will say he just made a gaffe. No one can definitively say either way. The dial doesn't move. This silliness fans the flames of division among the masses and serves literally no other purpose.
please don't trot out the tired cliche that it was the Democrats who fought for slavery and the Republicans who fought against it 160 years ago, it's just not constructive
Alright friend, I see I'm a proxy here for someone that wronged you, but try not to take out your frustrations with others on me.
This is beyond "old man has a tough time with words". He said what he meant, he just didn't mean to say what he meant.
You might be right about that. But he's got plausible deniability on his side, and plausible deniability is an enshrined democratic institution at this point. No one that thinks he's racist needed this statement to confirm it. And no one that thinks otherwise will hear this and think it was anything other than a gaffe.
-
Righties will say he just made a gaffe.
Actually the popular position on the right is not to give a flying flip about defending McConnel. Most lifetime politicians are rotten and corrupt regardless of political affiliation. Many on the right would be happy to see McConnel removed from office for his transgressions, as well as many others in Congress. Hence the derogatory term RINO. The right even accuses them of participating in the election fraud.
The slight difference here is the Left is disingenuous and generally defends or turns a blind eye to their corrupt politicians. The discussions almost always turn into a "Yeah, but look at this other corrupt politician", like you think I like corruption of any party. ::)
-
Righties will say he just made a gaffe.
Actually the popular position on the right is not to give a flying flip about defending McConnel. Most lifetime politicians are rotten and corrupt regardless of political affiliation. Many on the right would be happy to see McConnel removed from office for his transgressions, as well as many others in Congress. Hence the derogatory term RINO. The right even accuses them of participating in the election fraud.
The slight difference here is the Left is disingenuous and generally defends or turns a blind eye to their corrupt politicians. The discussions almost always turn into a "Yeah, but look at this other corrupt politician", like you think I like corruption of any party. ::)
Hilariously dumb take from you considering the lefties here have each criticized Biden in his first year more than you criticized Trump ever.
-
Hilariously dumb take from you considering the lefties here have each criticized Biden in his first year more than you criticized Trump ever.
No, not really. Lefties don't call him corrupt. I don't see them participating in questioning Joe Biden actions in Ukraine, pay-for-play, the shady actions of his son, etc. They literally ignore it.
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
-
Hilariously dumb take from you considering the lefties here have each criticized Biden in his first year more than you criticized Trump ever.
No, not really. Lefties don't call him corrupt. I don't see them participating in questioning Joe Biden actions in Ukraine, pay-for-play, the shady actions of his son, etc. They literally ignore it.
Nope. For the record, anyone who has criticized Biden once has shown more of a critical than eye than you do towards Trump.
By the way, how is Hunter’s alleged corruption Biden’s fault? Surely you don’t hold the father responsible for the son’s actions?
-
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Now you are suggesting that Hunter was doing corrupt things with foreign countries, receiving large sums of money, and that it had nothing to do with his father who was running policy on those countries as VP at the time. Completely disingenuous.
-
He probably had voter blocks in his head.
The black vote (African American) is not the same voting block as most Americans. Ie. Whites. Different needs, cultural differences, etc...
So he probably just lumped all non-blacks into one group because its easiest when looking at data sets.
-
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Now you are suggesting that Hunter was doing corrupt things with foreign countries, receiving large sums of money, and that it had nothing to do with his father who was running policy on those countries as VP at the time. Completely disingenuous.
So you literally want Biden to be guilty because of his son’s actions. Fascinating.
-
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Now you are suggesting that Hunter was doing corrupt things with foreign countries, receiving large sums of money, and that it had nothing to do with his father who was running policy on those countries as VP at the time. Completely disingenuous.
So you literally want Biden to be guilty because of his son’s actions. Fascinating.
Listen to yourself. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be calling out the questionable nature of the Republican president's son. Don't even lie.
At least be honest and tell us that you don't care, that he's on your side so it's okay, or however you really feel. That's infinitely better than lying to yourself and everyone else by pretending to have morals.
-
Ever notice how when Donald Trump wanted to protect our borders it was called racism.
And when president Kamala Harris makes a comment in Guatemala to not come to America it's about protecting our borders?
----------------
Ever notice how a Liberal claims to be accepting of everyone / everyone's differences.
But then, if you disagree with a Liberal you are suddenly marked as something along the lines of a racist or uncaring?
-
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Now you are suggesting that Hunter was doing corrupt things with foreign countries, receiving large sums of money, and that it had nothing to do with his father who was running policy on those countries as VP at the time. Completely disingenuous.
So you literally want Biden to be guilty because of his son’s actions. Fascinating.
Listen to yourself. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be calling out the questionable nature of the Republican president's son. Don't even lie.
At least be honest and tell us that you don't care, that he's on your side so it's okay, or however you really feel. That's infinitely better than lying to yourself and everyone else by pretending to have morals.
I’m not so stupid as to think that the corruption of Trump’s children should be blamed on him. Stop projecting your weird North Korean mentality on to me. Instead think about how in 6+ years how you have never found any decision Trump has made to be lacking and how that shows a distinct flaw in your critical faculty.
-
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
literal lol. it's genuinely adorable that you think this is true.
-
Guys... We are so far off topic Tom Hanks called to ask about volleyballs.
-
I don't get the controversy. Even the article linked in the OP points out that what he meant to say was Americans as a whole (that is, African-Americans included).
So a public figure chose his words poorly in front of a microphone. If you're going to make a thread every time that happens, please let me know so I can give the server more disk space.
-
Even the article linked in the OP points out that what he meant to say was Americans as a whole (that is, African-Americans included).
Even better. The WaPo article also points out that what McConnell said was true, at least on a technicality.
Presumably, McConnell meant that Black voters turn out at rates equivalent to Americans overall. In recent elections, that’s been true. Black turnout exceeded the national turnout rates in 2008 and 2012 before aligning with them in 2016 and 2020. Hispanic rates, by contrast, are well below the national rate while White turnout is above.
He also immediately follows up with statistics that refer to "Americans", which helps further disambiguate the statement.
The suggestion that McConnell meant for "Americans" to mean "the superior white race" reeks of desperation and/or surface-level reading (if you don't listen to anything McConnell says before or after the one sentence, and if you only pay attention to headlines and tweets, perhaps you might reasonably conclude that a big bad racism happened here).
-
Listen to yourself. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be calling out the questionable nature of the Republican president's son. Don't even lie.
At least be honest and tell us that you don't care, that he's on your side so it's okay, or however you really feel. That's infinitely better than lying to yourself and everyone else by pretending to have morals.
I’m not so stupid as to think that the corruption of Trump’s children should be blamed on him. Stop projecting your weird North Korean mentality on to me. Instead think about how in 6+ years how you have never found any decision Trump has made to be lacking and how that shows a distinct flaw in your critical faculty.
Yeah, I am sure if Trump's son was corruptly receiving millions of dollars from foreign countries while Trump was president, you would jump up and down and insist that Trump being president had nothing to do with it.
"Who cares who the 'big guy' is. If foreign countries want to give a president's son money they have that right!" - Rama Set assuredly
If Trump's son then transitioned his career to artist and was selling artwork for hundreds of thousands of dollars while Trump was president you also would have no problem with it. People just really want to give a new crack addict artist large amounts of money. ::)
You are just blatantly lying now.
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
literal lol. it's genuinely adorable that you think this is true.
Here's an economist saying it - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=383
https://www.foxbusiness.com/kudlow/kudlow-nancy-pelosi-trading
I'm extremely worried this evening over a 1% drop in the tech-heavy NASDAQ Index. Why this sudden concern? Because it may do great damage to Nancy Pelosi's almost perfect investment track record.
You may have read that one website has already nominated her as the 2021 Wall Street trader of the year. In fact, reading jacobinmag.com – which I'm told is a left-wing outfit – nonetheless, they have a fabulous story about Ms. Pelosi and her trading acumen.
The Gordon Gekko of the New York Stock Exchange. The oracle of Omaha is dead. Long live the Queen of Stocks. According to reports, she and her husband Paul Pelosi have traded over $50 million in assets over the past year with annualized returns at 69% as of October, according to an estimate from the Nancy Pelosi portfolio tracker.
That's higher than Buffett, George Soros, Cathy Wood, and other star investors. Apparently, the Pelosi portfolio beat the S&P 500 by 4.9 percent in 2019 and a big 14.3 percent gain in 2020, according to an outfit called FinePrint. Ms. Pelosi is becoming a cult figure among stock investors.
I'll wait for you to find an economist who says otherwise.
-
If Trump's son then transitioned his career to artist and was selling artwork for hundreds of thousands of dollars while Trump was president you also would have no problem with it. People just really want to give him large amounts of money for beautiful artwork. ::)
You only make money selling your artwork if someone is willing to buy it.
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
literal lol. it's genuinely adorable that you think this is true.
Here's an economist saying it - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=383
https://www.foxbusiness.com/kudlow/kudlow-nancy-pelosi-trading
I'm extremely worried this evening over a 1% drop in the tech-heavy NASDAQ Index. Why this sudden concern? Because it may do great damage to Nancy Pelosi's almost perfect investment track record.
You may have read that one website has already nominated her as the 2021 Wall Street trader of the year. In fact, reading jacobinmag.com – which I'm told is a left-wing outfit – nonetheless, they have a fabulous story about Ms. Pelosi and her trading acumen.
The Gordon Gekko of the New York Stock Exchange. The oracle of Omaha is dead. Long live the Queen of Stocks. According to reports, she and her husband Paul Pelosi have traded over $50 million in assets over the past year with annualized returns at 69% as of October, according to an estimate from the Nancy Pelosi portfolio tracker.
That's higher than Buffett, George Soros, Cathy Wood, and other star investors. Apparently, the Pelosi portfolio beat the S&P 500 by 4.9 percent in 2019 and a big 14.3 percent gain in 2020, according to an outfit called FinePrint. Ms. Pelosi is becoming a cult figure among stock investors.
I'll wait for you to find an economist who says otherwise.
Seems like best returns are a moving target, with the GOP currently in the lead...
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Houston) did pretty well for himself in 2021, financially speaking. According to a new report from Unusual Whales, Crenshaw’s trading netted the fifth-highest rate of return among members of Congress, narrowly edging out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A total of 35 members of Congress got returns greater than the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (SPY), essentially meaning they beat the market.
(https://blog.unusualwhales.com/content/images/2022/01/chart_dot_member_vs_SPY.png)
-
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
literal lol. it's genuinely adorable that you think this is true.
Here's an economist saying it - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=383
i was referring to your claim that the american left doesn't call her a corrupt, corporate rat-fuck stooge.
-
Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/joe-biden-poor-kids-bright-white-kids-newday-berman-vpx.cnn
Many people who make fun of Mitch McConnell for his comment are the same ones that voted for Biden. Probably under the reasoning that Biden obviously didn't mean it the way it sounded.
-
I’m not so stupid as to think that the corruption of Trump’s children should be blamed on him. Stop projecting your weird North Korean mentality on to me. Instead think about how in 6+ years how you have never found any decision Trump has made to be lacking and how that shows a distinct flaw in your critical faculty.
Yeah, I am sure if Trump's son was corruptly receiving millions of dollars from foreign countries while Trump was president, you would jump up and down and insist that Trump being president had nothing to do with it.
I wouldn’t. That’s idiotic.
"Who cares who the 'big guy' is. If foreign countries want to give a president's son money they have that right!" - Rama Set assuredly
If Trump's son then transitioned his career to artist and was selling artwork for hundreds of thousands of dollars while Trump was president you also would have no problem with it. People just really want to give a new crack addict artist large amounts of money. ::)
You are just blatantly lying now.
Awww. You’re so mad. Cute. Maybe one day you will actually talk to real Rama instead of the one living rent free in your head.
It’s funny because I actually can’t think of anyone who likes Biden. My brother in law thinks Nancy Pelosi is better than the GOP solely because she tries to pass bills more beneficial to society while she gets rich from her office.
Tom and boogeymen. Classic as peaches and cream.
-
Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/joe-biden-poor-kids-bright-white-kids-newday-berman-vpx.cnn
Many people who make fun of Mitch McConnell for his comment are the same ones that voted for Biden. Probably under the reasoning that Biden obviously didn't mean it the way it sounded.
Biden didn’t mean it because he is senile. He speaks like a clam opens its shell, by reflex alone. Like when he wandered off after being asked about student debt cancellation; he didn’t even realize he was doing a press conference.
I still prefer him to Trump.
-
Eh, he's an old white southern Republican. He's racist. It's really only a question of degree.
And it was a Freudian slip if the tongue if anything.
He is probably racist, sure. But to mentally distinguish between black people and "real" Americans isn't really what comes to mind when I think of racism against black people, unless we're talking about some super hardcore "black people are invaders from Africa!" white nationalist shit, which I doubt McConnell subscribes to. Now, if it were Hispanic people we were talking about, and in particular Puerto Ricans, then I might agree that this would be a case of saying the quiet part out loud, because it is very common among bigots to assume that Hispanics are illegal immigrants and that Puerto Ricans aren't real Americans. For example, people gave Kimberly Guilfoyle a lot of shit when she implied (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-ricans-push-back-kimberly-guilfoyle-s-first-generation-american-n1238042) that her Puerto Rican mother was an immigrant, because although she herself probably knew better, her words were very likely chosen to fit the conservative belief that Puerto Ricans don't count as Americans.
The Ukraine story Tom referred to is no more true now than it was back when Trump first clumsily tried to smear Biden over it. Hunter Biden was never in any legal jeopardy over an investigation into Burisma, as the period of time that the investigation concerned preceded (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV) his employment with the company. Viktor Shokin was fired because he was corrupt and ineffective, and this was the position of pretty much the entire international community at the time, not a personal whim of Biden. Hunter is absolutely a dumb failson who trades on his father's name, but he and his father were not partners in any kind of corruption scheme. That simply is not what happened, and any honest appraisal of the evidence we have will come to the same conclusion.
-
I’m not so stupid as to think that the corruption of Trump’s children should be blamed on him. Stop projecting your weird North Korean mentality on to me. Instead think about how in 6+ years how you have never found any decision Trump has made to be lacking and how that shows a distinct flaw in your critical faculty.
Yeah, I am sure if Trump's son was corruptly receiving millions of dollars from foreign countries while Trump was president, you would jump up and down and insist that Trump being president had nothing to do with it.
"Who cares who the 'big guy' is. If foreign countries want to give a president's son money they have that right!" - Rama Set assuredly
If Trump's son then transitioned his career to artist and was selling artwork for hundreds of thousands of dollars while Trump was president you also would have no problem with it. People just really want to give a new crack addict artist large amounts of money. ::)
You are just blatantly lying now.
Nancy Pelosi made millions while in Congress and makes better returns on stock trades than Warren Buffet. I don't see lefties calling her corrupt. The criticism for that comes from the right, not the left. The left generally ignores it.
literal lol. it's genuinely adorable that you think this is true.
Here's an economist saying it - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=383
https://www.foxbusiness.com/kudlow/kudlow-nancy-pelosi-trading
I'm extremely worried this evening over a 1% drop in the tech-heavy NASDAQ Index. Why this sudden concern? Because it may do great damage to Nancy Pelosi's almost perfect investment track record.
You may have read that one website has already nominated her as the 2021 Wall Street trader of the year. In fact, reading jacobinmag.com – which I'm told is a left-wing outfit – nonetheless, they have a fabulous story about Ms. Pelosi and her trading acumen.
The Gordon Gekko of the New York Stock Exchange. The oracle of Omaha is dead. Long live the Queen of Stocks. According to reports, she and her husband Paul Pelosi have traded over $50 million in assets over the past year with annualized returns at 69% as of October, according to an estimate from the Nancy Pelosi portfolio tracker.
That's higher than Buffett, George Soros, Cathy Wood, and other star investors. Apparently, the Pelosi portfolio beat the S&P 500 by 4.9 percent in 2019 and a big 14.3 percent gain in 2020, according to an outfit called FinePrint. Ms. Pelosi is becoming a cult figure among stock investors.
I'll wait for you to find an economist who says otherwise.
Here's a nice site.
https://housestockwatcher.com/summary_by_rep/Hon.%20Nancy%20Pelosi
That's her stats. Indeed, she owns or has sold over $55 million in stocks over some time period (its not really established how old the data is)
Looking through the others, its kinda a mixed bag. Some have only a few thousand dollars, others have double digit millions in stocks. A few have triple digits. And its pretty well spread between Dems and Republicans.