Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller Bun

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 12, 2019 18:55:19

the owner of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is very very angry

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 12, 2019 19:20:44

thephan wrote:
“A young man who’s got very little going for himself, except he’s got a great first name. … He challenged us,” Trump said at the Monday night rally, going on to falsely characterize the number of people in the audience. “So we have, let’s say, 35,000 people tonight. And he has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good.”

I am pretty sure that the max capacity of the arena Trump was in was 6,000. Nothing like being off by ~500%.

Here is part of a write-up by Cillizza (just in case, the quoted portion is our moron president; the italics are Cillizza's commentary):

"If you would say, as an example, that tonight 69,000 people signed up to be here -- now the arena holds 8,000. And thank you, fire department. They got in about 10,000."

This, from the El Paso Times, serves as a tidy fact check: "A Fire Department spokesman said 6,500 people were inside the venue and denied any special accommodations were made." The story also says that "thousands" of people were outside, but refrained from any official estimate. Crowd size is, of course, a dumb measure of, well, anything. But Trump cares deeply -- and exaggerates heavily -- about it.

"But if you want to really see something, go outside. Tens of thousands of people are watching screens outside. Tens of thousands."

Enrique Aguilar, a public information official with the El Paso fire department, said there might have been 10,000 total people at the Trump rally. That would mean about 6,500 inside and another 3,500 outside. Which is slightly short of "tens of thousands."

"A young man who's got very little going for himself, except he's got a great first name. He has -- he challenged us, so we have let's say 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good."

OK, so Trump likes the name "Beto." That's about all that's true in this line though. Law enforcement officials that the Dallas Morning News spoke to estimated that 7,500 people participated in the "March for Truth" that O'Rourke appeared at. Which is more than 300. By a lot.

by **swishnicholson** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 01:12:01

JFLNYC wrote:What is your antecedent for “that?”

I'm going to guess his "that" is Omar's actual tweet. I'm not a big fan of hers, and she's certainly still learning how to communicate. But pointing out that lobbying money influences political stances is not by nature anti-Semitic, simply because in this case it refers to Israel. She's certainly still learning that many people's knee-jerk response is to look for offense, and that others are guided by their innate prejudices to actually see it.

Maybe she is anti-Semitic. I certainly don't know enough about her to say. But the specific statement is not, and the immediate labeling of it as such as disheartening, as it will have a chilling effect on actual discussion of remedying what anyone would agree is the appalling, untenable status quo in the Middle East.

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 05:09:02

swishnicholson wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:What is your antecedent for “that?”

I'm going to guess his "that" is Omar's actual tweet. I'm not a big fan of hers, and she's certainly still learning how to communicate. But pointing out that lobbying money influences political stances is not by nature anti-Semitic, simply because in this case it refers to Israel. She's certainly still learning that many people's knee-jerk response is to look for offense, and that others are guided by their innate prejudices to actually see it.

Maybe she is anti-Semitic. I certainly don't know enough about her to say. But the specific statement is not, and the immediate labeling of it as such as disheartening, as it will have a chilling effect on actual discussion of remedying what anyone would agree is the appalling, untenable status quo in the Middle East.

And maybe she was guided by her innate prejudices to say it in the first place. It’s disingenuous to suggest she just happened to chose to inveigh against the evils of political contributions in US politics generally. She chose to criticize a group made up largely of Jews supporting the Jewish State. She’s not a Palestinian ambassador, she’s a Representative in the US Congress.

And, of course, it’s not the first time she’s chosen to criticize Jews. She’s previously opined that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, “phrasing that also recalled old canards about occult Jewish power,” in the words of yesterday’s NYT, “...the idea of Jews as global puppet masters, using their financial savvy to make the gentiles do their bidding.”

And, of course, Omar has apologized for her remarks. In doing so she is either being sincere and contrite or politically cynical. If she’s being sincere then she herself believes her words were wrong.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC. Lazily pulling anti-Semitic tropes from the playbook of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” doesn’t qualify. It has about the same intellectual integrity and decency as Trump’s comments on Mexicans when he started his campaign in 2016.

by **pacino** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 07:43:12

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC.

such as?

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 09:21:47

Gefilte fish, for one

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 09:29:32

pacino wrote:
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC.

such as?

We live in a world where Jews and Blacks are still gunned down in their places of worship by anti-semites and racists. Please don’t turn this into a juvenile game of gotcha. You’re better than that.

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 09:31:38

It is hilarious watching/listening to/reading the conservative media twisting themselves into pretzels to call the funding deal a win for Trump.

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 09:39:40

I cannot get this graphic to play nice and resize with BBCode or HTML, and I do not have the time to play much at the moment: https://cdn.howmuch.net/articles/jobs-c ... t-c75d.jpg

by **pacino** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 09:41:50

JFLNYC wrote:
pacino wrote:
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC.

such as?

We live in a world where Jews and Blacks are still gunned down in their places of worship by anti-semites and racists. Please don’t turn this into a juvenile game of gotcha. You’re better than that.

I'd like to know what legitimate criticisms there are.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:44:34

serious question, does apiac donate to campaigns?

if so, is it just *how* rep omar said what she tweeted? or can you not criticize jewish related groups in regards to money no matter?

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:49:26

It's a PAC, so yes, by definition it contributes money to candidates. That's the whole purpose of PACs. And while Mitch McConnell and Republicans generally (and for that matter many Democrats too) will deny it, the reason, in fact the only reason to do so is to influence policy, that is, to buy politicians.

by **JUburton** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:52:42

CalvinBall wrote:serious question, does apiac donate to campaigns?

if so, is it just *how* rep omar said what she tweeted? or can you not criticize jewish related groups in regards to money no matter?

she isn't wrong (in principle) but when talking about jews and money maybe say it just a littttttttttttle better than 'its all about the benjamins'.

that said, she wouldn't be getting so much shit if she was a normal white dude democrat and not a muslim woman.

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:53:01

CalvinBall wrote:serious question, does apiac donate to campaigns?

if so, is it just *how* rep omar said what she tweeted? or can you not criticize jewish related groups in regards to money no matter?

There have been a few articles on the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Note that the PAC in AIPAC is not a Political Action Committee. They do not give money directly to politician. they do lobby, and they do fund other organizations that have PACs, but the funds distributed by those organizations seems rather insignificant compared to players like the NRA.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:54:34

TenuredVulture wrote:It's a PAC, so yes, by definition it contributes money to candidates. That's the whole purpose of PACs. And while Mitch McConnell and Republicans generally (and for that matter many Democrats too) will deny it, the reason, in fact the only reason to do so is to influence policy, that is, to buy politicians.

Swing and a miss

by **pacino** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:55:16

pacino wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
pacino wrote:
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC.

such as?

We live in a world where Jews and Blacks are still gunned down in their places of worship by anti-semites and racists. Please don’t turn this into a juvenile game of gotcha. You’re better than that.

I'd like to know what legitimate criticisms there are.

by **pacino** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:56:26

here Calvinballs

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:56:45

Also pacino called them the most influential group from another country. It's a group of Jewish Americans who promote an American foreign policy supportive of Israel. Saying they're from another country isn't great.

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:59:04

It is a very legitimate question about Steve King. It is very hard to say that King is not what he is, and that his personal, historic positions have been dealt with adequately. For that matter, the loudest voice with the biggest microphone is as horrible to just about everyone but white folks in his base and Jewish folks (although he has certainly had his moments).

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:02:00

pacino wrote:
pacino wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
pacino wrote:
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel and AIPAC.

such as?

We live in a world where Jews and Blacks are still gunned down in their places of worship by anti-semites and racists. Please don’t turn this into a juvenile game of gotcha. You’re better than that.

I'd like to know what legitimate criticisms there are.

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/Submit
adjective
adjective: disingenuous
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Use in a sentence: “Sorry I dislike right-wing disingenuous crap, jfl.” Pacino, Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:19 pm.

Archived

Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller Bun

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller

Re: Politics: 2 All Beef Patties, Shutdown on a Bob Mueller