Said Kamala Harris at the Democratic Party candidates' debate last night. She was pushing back Michael Bennet, who'd said that her health-care plan would eliminate employer-based insurance and cost an amount of money equal to 70% of what government collects in taxes. She goes on to say that employer-based private insurance that follows all the new rules can continue and people will have a choice between "a private Medicare plan" and "a public Medicare plan."
I don't want to attempt to compare the various health-care plans (and I don't believe that electing a particular candidate will result in our getting their plan any more than electing Trump got us a border wall (and Mexico will pay for it!)).
I just want to talk about the rhetoric "Republican talking point." It wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was Joe Biden: "This is not a Republican talking point." And Julian Castro: "Open borders is a right-wing talking point."
And (to go back to the Tuesday night debate), Elizabeth Warren said it twice: "We should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other...." And "What you want to do instead is find the Republican talking point of a made-up piece of some other part and say, Oh, we don't really have to do anything."
There was Bernie Sanders: "And, Jake, your question is a Republican talking point."
Marianne Williamson used the phrase, but warily: "And I do have concern about what the Republicans would say. And that's not just a Republican talking point."
It's such a cliché already that its usefulness may already be gone, but let me do my part to try to kill it. I assume — and I am a moderate voter in Wisconsin, capable of going for either party's candidate — that the Republicans' talking points are their best arguments on all the various issues. A Democratic Party candidate, to be any good, better demonstrate skill at countering these arguments, these talking points!
It's especially bad to use the line against the debate moderator, as Bernie did — "Jake, your question is a Republican talking point." It sounds as though he's implying that Jake Tapper should go easy on him and not challenge him with the very arguments he'll have to deal with if he's the Democratic Party candidate.
And it's terrible to use the phrase as a way to refuse to deal with a problem with your position. Julian Castro said "open borders is a right-wing talking point, and frankly I'm disappointed that some folks, including some folks on this stage, have taken the bait." His whole argument was Shut up, you sound like a Republican. And he wasn't even talking to the other candidates. He was talking to one of the moderators (Don Lemon), who had quoted President Obama's homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson. Your immigration policy sounds like open borders! If it's not open borders, you'd better explain why!
And look at that Kamala Harris quote I put in the title: "We cannot keep with the Republican talking points on this. You got to stop." You've got the slang "We cannot keep with" and the (intentionally?) bad grammar "You got to stop." Is that supposed to be sassy and cute? To me, it sounds tired and unprepared. Or worse... it sounds like you know your policy is bad and vulnerable to attack but you're going to bull forward with it anyway. It's the best you got... the best you've got.
"Republican talking point" is a Democratic talking point.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३३ टिप्पण्या:
“Shut up!” He explained.
"Republican talking point" replaces "white privilege" and / or "racist" as a dodge to whatever question is asked because too many Dem candidates lack "diversity"
I don't know how an individual has "diversity" unless they suffer multiple personality disorder, but that is my "patriarchy" at work.
It’s an excellent take Ann. They’ve been wielding Republican talking point in the manner of other weapons- racist, sexist. It means because shut up.
They intend to use it on Republicans in the general, too. That just a Republican talking point, Donald.
"Republican talking point" is a Democratic talking point.
What Democrats mean is that the GOP is now the reality-based party. Except that we always were.
We should have a conversation about republican talking points.
That’s all they have on this issue.
They are ALL for open borders.
“That’s not who we are!” they say when making immigrants follow the law.
Every poll tells the American people do NOT want open borders.
Once again-they know better than the people they profess to want to lead.
In reality they want to tell us what’s “best” for us.
You could probably pass a course in QM these days by claiming that the four postulates are really just “talking points” from dead white men. It’s intentional. If people can’t think, they are easy prey.
Clerk. "Sir, you have to pay for those groceries."
Me. "Oh, that's just a Republican Talking Point."
Quite right professor. They attempt to dismiss the issue with the cliche rather than advance an argument in favor of their position. That may be effective with democrat primary voters but it won't be effective in the general election. I suppose it is true that they all hold the same position on these "Republican Talking Point" issues and so dismissing them out of hand rather than engaging makes sense at this stage.
This is merely an expression of the state of the general culture.
You cannot have a proper argument anymore, because group dynamics on one side does not permit it. It is not acceptable to even speak with someone on the other side.
Its not just those people on stage.
What Democrats mean is that the GOP is now the reality-based party. Except that we always were.
Yes and a few of those on stage know it. A couple, not Bernie or Lizzie, know they will have to get back to reality for the general election.
“What does that have to do with 'Orange Man Bad’?"
“know they will have to get back to reality for the general election.”
Except that Romney’s “Etch a Sketch” is a thing of the past with the web.
Republican talking points
America is a great country
People want to come here
Free Speech!
Democracy
Life!
Liberty!
the Pursuit of Happiness
“What Democrats mean is that the GOP is now the reality-based party. Except that we always were.”
And that’s the inference that a lot of LIVs are going to make. It’s like Progs referencing Trump every time they open their yaps. Here, listen to me argue that water isn’t wet.
I was discussing the meaning of the word debate/debater with my wife last night as the CNN talking heads were speaking effusively about how Warren, Harris, and Booker are such great debaters. But they aren't! They are not only poor debaters, they might be the worst debaters of all the candidates. Their arguments are emotional fluff, and they can't respond coherently to criticism.
But this is apparently what most people on the left today think is debating -- just accuse your opponents of being bad people for having a different opinion, and act as if this is self-evident. If it's not self-evident to you, then you're one of the bad people and we will shame you until you get in line.
This is not a narrow matter of Democratic primary voters.
What you note is a tiny, rather amusing symptom, a downstream consequence of what Allan Bloom described in "The Closing of the American Mind".
Bernie just admitting CNN and the Democrats are all on the same side. Who are we still kidding at this point?
I've said this before. Every candidate should need to answer: Name an issue where the mainstream Republican view is better than your party's view, and explain.
Any candidate who can't answer that should be disqualified as nothing but a cheerleader and a parrot.
Trump could answer that question (in reverse). Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard could answer it. Any others?
You've missed the target: The Republican Talking Points are that Democrats' policies are horrible.
The greatest thing about taking away everyone’s private insurance and giving free government health care to half of Latin America is that it’s both a Republican and a Democratic talking point.
This weakened output comes from the Dems never having to address reality in the institutions they dominate. They seem to believe if they all agree not to address reality it ceases to be relevant.
Apparently math and the concept of finite resources are both Republican talking points.
Clearly, Republican Talking Point is Demo-Marxist code for Counter Revolutionary. And if Republicans wonder, the penalty for that is a horrible and extra cruel death.
The GOP mind-share is huge.
Thanks, Trump.
Fax your republican talking points to JO-330330. Or call us at BR-549
The enemy of Democrats isn't Republicans. The enemy of Democrats is math.
What you have to worry about is the army of Winston Smiths at Google and other tech and media giants eventually excising "Republican talking points" from the language itself soon enough.
Althouse may be right, these Democrats are a bit early to rely on that.
But Trump to them is a vestige, a last gasp, and most of these Democrats are positioning themselves for 2024 anyway.
Hunter is correct.
Granted that proper, reason-based, argumentation has never been a very good way to persuade people.
People make big fun of Trump's lousy syntax, but "you got to stop?"
I guess Kamala wasn't down with the grammar police.
The implication is that Republicans are illegitimate. It is deplorables writ large. It is attainder.
"Republican talking point" is an apotropaic incantation.
Kamala be keepin' it real an' shit.
That is how leftists talk among themselves.
I have seen and heard it for years in my line of work. I felt like the Donald Sutherland character in Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Granted that proper, reason-based, argumentation has never been a very good way to persuade people.
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired"
Jonathan Swift
The enemy of Democrats isn't Republicans. The enemy of Democrats is math.
And physics and human nature.
As so often, I see I agree with buwaya.
I can’t wait to see the nominee try it in a debate with Trump. Even I can see the killing rejoinder: “No, it’s a Republican argument. And you can’t answer it.”
They fit George Wallace's description of liberals (1968 Memphis, I was there) as "Pointy-headed swaydo-intellectuals who can't park a bicycle straight!"
Narr
Too young to vote that year
Between that, and EVERYONE on the right is RACIST, the Democrats are going to LOSE bigly.
"I'm a moderate/independent/have no party" is a Democrat talking point.
"But the Republican candidate invariably loses you" is a Republican talking point.
Granted that proper, reason-based, argumentation has never been a very good way to persuade people.
In fact it is a good way to persuade people. It doesn't get many to actually change their minds but neither does anything else except money. The goal is to persuade people who have not yet formed opinions.
Stop making SENSE!!!!
Lets see how cliche I can be: If you have the facts or the law you pound those things. Neither, you pound something else...It’s clear to me pivoting to a squishy middle is not in the cards for lefties this time, and they aren’t interested in appealing to rationality or intelligence because they need a majority...we’ll they need a majority spread out in the right places, so they learned. So you try to pull out those non voting minorities and newly minted illegal immigrant voting blocs, them hope the lawyers can hold back the dam, making Gore vs Bush look like a gracious concession.
I don’t count out the possibility it works...
"Jake, your question is a Republican talking point."
Who does he think the nominee is going to have to run against? Being able to have a counter argument to "Republican talking points" seems a good thing to test in a primary debate.
By conversation, they mean conversion, and their own faith is unwavering. Deviations from the one true faith are heretical.....I watched a good chunk of the first debate, but who can do that two nights in a row. That's like watching an Adam Sandler double feature. Wake me when DeBlasio drop out.
If the Dems want to win they need to deal with GOP talking points.
Only one who impressed me was Tulsi Gabbard. She had great poise and was clear and coherent when she spoke. She also went after Harris in a very effective way. I think Trump would have the most problems with her in a debate. Anderson Cooper seemed initmated by her in a post debate interview.
Hilarious when they all get rolling with a talking point about talking points. Scripted much?
These D-candidates are creepy mini-me Stalinists.
"Republican talking point" is a Democratic talking point.
———————————————
Ha. Good one.
Also, it reminds of Democratic talking point 10 yrs ago when they were trying to sell Obamacare. Something like: “But we got the idea for the plan straight from the Republicans—the Heritage Foundation or something. How can you say no?!!!”
It’s an effective talking point in a primary.
Perhaps journalists should start treating these candidates like Trump and just calling them liars. They can’t do that to Harris. She’s a minority.
But call Bernie a liar.
"His whole argument was Shut up, you sound like a Republican."
Can't debate an issue where you are wrong? simply tell everyone to "shut up."
The left are ace at this.
All of the D's want open borders. R talking point? no. Reality.
This is Trump sucking all the air out of the tent. He has completely defined the battle space from his Twitter account. Everywhere they look they see Republican talking points. I'm impressed. What a magnificent bastard!!!
It was Republican talking points that defended Brett Kavanaugh from charges that he was a teenage rape gang leader. These people are trying to manipulate fair minded Democrats like Althouse (and my wife).
Danny Khaneman and Amos Tversky described the "anchoring and adjustment" effect wherein you anchor an argument with an extreme point and then adjust back by notches. The extremism of the Democrats is for precisely that purpose.
This is why Donald J Trump is the President of the United States. He is not a politician and he knows how to sell. Sell a position, an attitude, a product or service, a concept. He knows how to address objections, and find common ground.
Commenters here that have worked sales for a lively hood, know you cannot dodge a direct question, and pointing out existing flaws is a loser. Saying "I have a solution" causes the listener to go defensive. You recite facts the listener already agrees with, build toward a simple suggestion, don't claim it's a cure all, move steadily, logically forward, with a second small suggestion.
My point is. Redirecting to something else you have no influence on, causes the listener to shut down. That's leads to salesmen starving. They learn, or starve.
Here we are, with President Trump.
(I don't get every sale, but I work hard not to sabotage myself)
'Marianne Williamson not sure what she's doing up here with all these crazy people.'
Don't worry, it's just a Babylon Bee headline. ;)
I am willing to listen to a good argument about a National Health Care system. I've lived in countries where there is either NHS (UK) or a national backstop (Hong Kong) and I see some real benefits to it. I also see some real downsides.
But the fakest, worst argument is that it will be less expensive or save money, or that it will stop people from hearing "no" when it comes to procedures. Are we really just going to wave all that away with "Republican Talking Points!!!"?
Mike K: Thanks for the nice quote from one of the greats:
"’Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.’
Jonathan Swift”
Surely somewhere in the land another Swift is active, taking notes, preparing an updated “Gulliver’s Travels”? The situation begs for it.
I can only evaluate the performances, not the arguments and ideas put forth. And they all seem pretty bad.
As far as I'm concerned, the arguments made and the ideas presented in these debates may as well be about what's the best color. I know full well that none of their ideas are workable or realistic. And I can explain why I believe all their ideas are unrealistic and how they would be destructive if implemented.
But these arguments aren't targeting me, I'm not the audience for them. As such it's difficult for me to evaluate the ideas themselves in relation to each other beyond just saying "Well, this one might be less destructive than that one I guess".
It's hard for me to put myself in the headspace of someone who thinks these ideas are anything but fantasies. It's hard for me to understand how a liberal thinks. For example: Do they really try to analyze what's being put forth on it's own merits? Or is that irrelevant and it's all about the demeanor or other aspects of the person putting forth the idea?
I understand that when it comes to the candidates themselves, liberals seem to put a great deal of weight on things that I feel are irrelevant, like skin color, gender, and a person's sexual preferences. They feel that a person's experience as someone who has been repressed makes them better able to deal with the problems of others who have been repressed. I'm not convinced that's always the case. If it were, it seems to me that all these cities that have had minority mayors for decades might be in better shape.
“You put people in prison for marijuana, using fake evidence. You laughed when asked about your own marijuana use.”
“You got to stop these Republican talking points.”
In all the talk about Medicare for All, did Tapper or Lemon even once mention the VA?
Did anyone notice Jay Inslee??
The Seattle Times has a report that in the first debate he only spoke for 5 minutes, but last night he was able to speak for 11 minutes. So, he's really getting his message out there, but no one noticed.
"Commenters here that have worked sales for a lively hood, know you cannot dodge a direct question, and pointing out existing flaws is a loser. Saying "I have a solution" causes the listener to go defensive."
Good point Iowan2. My wife spent her life in sales and is constantly pointing out Trump's techniques and marketing strategies. And presidential elections have become entirely about the marketing.
"any more than electing Trump got us a border wall"
Fine, but the WSJ reports this morning that $6B will get us another 100 miles. Better than nothing. As is his overall policy: he wants the border to be a border, and is trying to limit the invasion. The Dems want the opposite.
So, Althouse, which side are you on?
Mike K: Thanks for the nice quote from one of the greats:
"’Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.’
Like most slogans, it sounds nice but it's not true.
I think the comments about sales are right on. Democrats have mostly come from government jobs of one sort or another. Few have any experience in private sectors where you make a sale or you don't get paid.
They are more familiar with DMV methods.
The idea that economic imbeciles an state-rich hypocrites like Bernie would figure out a free health care system for all.
Laughable.
Like most slogans, it sounds nice but it's not true.
So you have been successful in reasoning people out of opinions they did not reach by reason ?
I usually avoid you because of your hostility but could not let that go by, Do you know the source ?
"What's the other side saying today? what's their talking point?" - that's a campaign manager's point of view. Real people ask whose talking points represent their own opinions.
Democrats, Bureaucrats, Plain Rats
Make Your City Rat Heaven
"It was 10:46 p.m. when Joe Biden finished his closing statement Wednesday night. At 10:50 p.m. the former Vice President was at the edge of the stage with his arm around the Rev. Al Sharpton, the professional demagogue who with his hoaxes and hatemongering has stirred up more racial discord in America than anyone.
And Biden is the “centrist” candidate.
Government dependency, the cause of so much misery, is the air that politicians of the left breathe. Ever-increasing government control is their perennial objective, promising it will solve big problems (often of government making). But it never does.
Democrats talk about “endless wars,” but the problems of poverty and crime President Trump showcased in his explosive tweets about Baltimore must never be solved, so that the left’s war against them never ends.
Despite strides against racism and against lack of economic opportunities for the underclass that were unimaginable in the 1960s, the Democrats running for president in 2020 are more intent on expanding government and worming it into Americans’ lives than some of the most power-hungry tyrants of the past, doing so purportedly to combat the phantom of “systemic racism.”
And so, actual solutions must never be given voice. Which is why during the last two nights we witnessed the bizarre new phenomenon of the Democrats again and again accusing each other of borrowing “Republican talking points” — apparently the worst sin that can be committed."
No Republican Talking Points!’ Is The New Democrat Talking Point
The Democrats liked what they did with Obamacare. They were happy and proud of it. And now it's like it doesn't exist- or it was simply a law that required coverage of pre-existing conditions. Yet we are supposed to just let them re-do healthcare again without them having to reflect on what they did, and its causes and effects?
You know what a synonym for "talking point" is? Argument.
I'm amused at how the candidates and the Democratic Left seem most profoundly motivated by disgust, which is supposed to be an emotional marker for conservative opinions. Gillibrand and her Clorox is just the latest iteration.
My wife does not follow politics and did not even know who Harris is. Watching the debate, she did not like Harris' way of speaking.
She liked Tulsi, not for content, for style. Because they all said basically the same thing.
Ehh, it's an authenticity contest. They're all convinced they can bribe voters with health coverage, one way or other.
It's the Personal Stories that I hate. They're bad enough in magazine think pieces. Who can follow these sob stories in the heat of a debate? And are they true?
Stupid approach.
I've had enough of this shit. I'm done talking about it. I'm voting for Trump and every Republican on the ballot. That is all.
Michael K said...
So you have been successful in reasoning people out of opinions they did not reach by reason ?
I first heard of this concept last week reading Stefan Molyneux. The way he phrased it was very succinct, and kind of a light bulb moment for me.
I usually avoid you because of your hostility
Tell it, brother! But this time was different, huh?
I usually skip your posts (I responded to someone else) because of your dishonesty and hostility; as usual, you open with insults - because no argument - and then pretend someone else started it - because dishonest.
but could not let that go by, Do you know the source ?
He was trying to get people to fall for his superstitions, so reason was not involved in the first place, which just makes the "saying" (yes, it's not really slogan) doubly silly. "Never say never twice in one saying" is a better saying.
I usually skip your posts (I responded to someone else) because of your dishonesty and hostility;
The hostility is all on your side young lady but go ahead.
Iowan2 explains it just right. I've been selling, successfully, for nearly 35 years. I'd like to have a sales org full of people like you.
Saying stop with the "Republican Talking Points" is, in effect, calling the question and questioner an idiot. Good luck winning votes that way.
The way he phrased it was very succinct, and kind of a light bulb moment for me.
DO you actually believe that nobody ever garners information or a learns a method which causes them to change their mind about something they had "taken on faith" or hadn't thought much about previously? I sure don't.
The bell tolls for thee but not for thou:
https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2019/07/31/its-all-about-climate-change-man/?fbclid=IwAR3Q-mWy2pajUgnicUshnslQQXl3DI8J_JJFvak5f0semsR4eo1p3XViLoQ
The hostility is all on your side young lady but go ahead.
Thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty so clearly.
The Democrats have guts, and will talk back to the media. The Republicans - except for Trump - won't. The R's hire the liberal MSM to moderate their debates and ask about Left-wing topics and they just accept it. Except for Trump.
Its too bad Bernie can't win the nomination.
This "Lets have a conversation" crap has annoyed me for years. What the hell does it even mean? Stop with euphemisms. Speak clearly - say what you mean and mean what you say.
electing Trump got us a border wall (and Mexico will pay for it!)).
Is getting us....Mexico isn’t paying for the wall, but they are paying for their army whose on their side of the border.
And we r getting another segment now that the judge ruled.
Trump will wipe out the media's trained monkeys aka Dem Clown Car
The democrats can only exist because they have a media shielding them 24/7 from every day reality and scrutiny on how any of this nonsense like the Nude Green Deal would work or unconstitutionally confiscating "profits" from the pharmaceutical industry. Whoever manages to navigate this shitshow to become the democratic nominee doesn't get to pretend they didn't mean any of this nonsense next year. They can't withstand just benign pushback from CNN without wilting.
You know what a synonym for "talking point" is? Argument.
That's true. But the term "talking point" has the feel of something made up and artificial. Someone saying "That's just a talking point" is a way of being dismissive without actually having to deal with the content of the argument being made. It's a rhetorical trick that's been used a great deal by both sides, but tends to be used by the left much more than the right. That along with simply accussing someone of being a racist and/or a homophobe and/or a xenophobe and/or a misogynist is an avoidance tactic that appeals to emotionality.
It's the most basic of rhetorical trick of the practiced politician. When you can't make an effective counterargument, the best option is to dismiss the argument with a simple phrase and then attack your interlocutor.
Please explain one single conservative position held by "Moderate" Joe Biden on domestic issues.
He's only a moderate in people's minds. He's always been a 100% liberal, and he's running to the left as fast as he can. Is he in favor of a wall or border security? No, he's always been opposed. He'll spend $400 Billion on climate change. He'll expand Obamacare. He'll give everyone Amnesty. He's NOT enforce immigration laws. He'll let crooks out of prison. He'll give us free college. He's for reparations. He'll do whatever the Globalists and the left want him to do.
BTW, notice that no one talked much about taxing the rich or renegotiating NAFTA/TPP or income equality. Just Free everything.
This "Lets have a conversation" crap has annoyed me for years. What the hell does it even mean?
By all means. We are $20 trillion in debt. Social Security will be broke soon. Medicare will be broke soon. America doesn’t have enough money for America and you want us to add hundreds of millions more and pay for their healthcare.
Was math hard for you?
You’re an idiot.
Lot of odd comments:
Yang: We can't solve climate change. We need to head for higher ground
Booker: Marijuana Justice. We are butchering our values. From are from shithole countries and some are from worthy countries.
The Dem candidates are quite conscious of the game they are playing — go left in the primaries, then moderate in the general. The frontrunners don’t want to say things now that they will have to flip-flop on later if nominated. That is, they don’t want to have to respond to Republican talking points until the general election. They expect the press to cooperate with them in retaining that flexibility. The non-frontrunners are more concerned with differentiating themselves in order to break into the top tier in the short term, and they can do that without danger of flip-flopping by articulating “moderate” positions. From a front runner to an also-runner, “We cannot keep with” = “you’re spoiling our game.”
rcocean said...
This "Lets have a conversation" crap has annoyed me for years. What the hell does it even mean?
I think they have visions of Toxic Whiteness panels at academic conventions. To me it translates "everyone should pretend to agree with our nonsense as if their future incomes depended on it. Which they should."
rcocean said...
This "Lets have a conversation" crap has annoyed me for years. What the hell does it even mean? Stop with euphemisms. Speak clearly - say what you mean and mean what you say.
*****************
We all saw last week that starting a conversation, as Trump did regarding Baltimore, just leads to hysterical charges of raaaaaccccciiiisssssmmmmm.
IOW if you actually do start a conversation, the Left's response is "shut up".
Wait - that was actually the real debate?
I had assumed I was watching an obviously misleading video from a satire website.
I am Laslo.
I don't think that the Democrats and the MSM (one and the same) understand how stupid and robotic they sound when they ALL have the very same talking points.
It is obvious that no one is thinking for themselves and like good little robots they get their marching orders--talking points--and repeat repeat repeat.
They sound stupid and unthinking.
Seeing Red said...
This "Lets have a conversation" crap has annoyed me for years. What the hell does it even mean?
By all means. We are $20 trillion in debt. Social Security will be broke soon. Medicare will be broke soon. America doesn’t have enough money for America and you want us to add hundreds of millions more and pay for their healthcare.
Was math hard for you?
You’re an idiot.
-------
Not even math. Basic arithmetic, which is apparently a right-wing talking point and should be de-platformed.
The truth is, Republicans don’t have “talking points,” at least not coordinated ones. This is totally a Democrat tactic as has been proven time and again by Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh and meme-makers on the Right. (The proof is a montage of the day’s news with Dems all repeating the same word.)
Republicans would do well to do a little coordinating but for Dems to use this argument is beyond projection. It’s insane.
maybe best to stick w the republican talking points after all
MSNBC Host Delivers Bad News For Democrats After Debate – Most Americans Disagree With Them
https://americanlookout.com/msnbc-host-delivers-bad-news-for-democrats-after-debate-most-americans-disagree-with-them-video/
I'll take "Shut-upisms" for $1000.00, Alex.
yes, maybe the Babylon Bee should string together all the gems
into one "deceptively/selectively edited" video of the debates,
for the dopes at Snopes
The Democrats liked what they did with Obamacare
It was designed to screw things up for enough people that single-payer would look good and become law.
Ann Althouse said...
It's such a cliché already that its usefulness may already be gone, but let me do my part to try to kill it. I assume — and I am a moderate voter in Wisconsin, capable of going for either party's candidate
I love how everyone thinks they themselves are the real moderates.
They win we are all in chains.
Any Dem who uses a Republican talking point is LITERALLY TRUMP.
Tulsi Gabbard used republican talking points to end Kamala's candidacy last night.
Kamala's response was as brutal a failure as Perry's debate flop in 2012.
Not even math. Basic arithmetic, which is apparently a right-wing talking point and should be de-platformed.
And I was a product of New Math!
I’m crying because I don’t get it and my parents were laughing at the stupidity of New Math.
InSTILL HATE word problems to this day. I don’t care about the trains.
My BFF’s children are 7ish years older than mine. I was complaining about her math using the terms and she told me her school called it this....they can’t even agree on what to call that process.
So "Republican talking point" is the new "racism" and "hate speech"?
You might be a “moderate voter” in your bubble, but you’re not a moderate voter. You yourself posted you took the test and you were 76%??? Liberal.
"We all saw last week that starting a conversation, as Trump did regarding Baltimore, just leads to hysterical charges of raaaaaccccciiiisssssmmmmm."
I propose a variation on Godwin's law, which said: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Sebastian's law says: "As an argument with a progressive grows longer, the probability of charges of racism approaches 1."
"They win we are all in chains." Learn to love the whip, serf! Liberty is sooooo overrated anyway. Just ask the State-fellators who post here.
You’re right! A Republican talking point IS a democratIC talking point.
If you want to talk DemocRAT talking points, that’s different. Or not. OPM!
Ever been to Tractor Supply? They have those little tubs with about ten baby chiks in each one? That’s what these debates remind me of.
As a chicken hawk, I notice these things.
“I love how everyone thinks they themselves are the real moderates.”
It’s a defense mechanism to see oneself in the best possible light. They like to see themselves as unique, even though in reality they are anything but. Some people are very good at this and by repeating it, they think they can convince anyone who might be interested. When push comes to shove the “moderate” will have to vote for the candidate on the right, or the left in order for their vote to matter.
Roger Simon just wrote the epitaph for the Democrats for this election cycle:
Ronald Reagan famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."
Now it's left the rest of us.
Francisco D said...
It was Republican talking points that defended Brett Kavanaugh from charges that he was a teenage rape gang leader. These people are trying to manipulate fair minded Democrats like Althouse (and my wife).
Danny Khaneman and Amos Tversky described the "anchoring and adjustment" effect wherein you anchor an argument with an extreme point and then adjust back by notches. The extremism of the Democrats is for precisely that purpose."
Except when they are asked what size turd is acceptable in the milk tank.
Baby chicks have to be protected unitl they get their feathers, you know.
When you have no well-considered, defended & honed in [real] debate Principles, you can be infinitely flexible and tailor your rhetoric to follow the ever-swinging weather vane of perceived electoral advantage. And because in Dem-world, history (including political utterances) started only yesterday, self-contradiction does not exist, so there's no shame in committing it.
On the other hand, [real] conservatives will always find it terribly hard to win a campaign on a platform that says: I'm going to take away all/most of your government freebies; it's time for y'all to assume more personal responsibility for your life's pathways; make good choices because we're going to allow you to suffer the natural consequences of your bad ones; learn to manage your money more wisely; get a job, you're done sucking at the government teat: your free ride is over; etc.
Promises of presents are always more seductive to short-term thinkers than those of take-aways. Which is why we are where we are.
I feel like most if these people have probably never truly talked with Republicans to learn their points. I think the data backs me up there that right wing it conservative people better understand left wing opinion and argument than the reverse. It is a dismissal not an argument. It worked against Romney with Russia if you recall.
@ Seeing Red — actually 76% liberal (assuming that’s accurate) sounds pretty damn moderate to me, especially considering the standard of ideological purity now demanded by most on the left. I believe Ann when she says she’s “capable of going for either party’s candidate,” and that’s an OK definition of “moderate” by me. It doesn’t mean dead-center.
Fine, but the WSJ reports this morning that $6B will get us another 100 miles.
By my math, that works out to $11,363.64 per foot. That's insanely overpriced.
Facts and logic are patriarchal white privileged Republican talking points. I can accept that, and thank you, but I didn't come up with them myself. I was just born to use them and take credit for the results. You are welcome to do the same. In fact, I recommend it, but if you prefer, by all means use something else for you own life, but please don't call me later for a hand out. Actually, can I ask that we just pretend we never met.
"I'm capable of going for either party’s candidate..."
OK, which Democrat?
“To watch that thing on television, as I did, to see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Reagan tells Nixon, who erupts in laughter.
Jeff you think that's overpriced wait until you figure in the money spent fighting over it. Still its the law.
Also is it? For four feet that's about paying one 40k salary a year. 11k per feet is sticker shock but how much does similar walls cost? Don't compare. It to some wire mesh either. Apples to apples.
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired."
--Jonathan Swift
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
--Upton Sinclair
The debates aren't really debates. They are more campaign ops and verbal dodge ball. A debate would be asking them their position on an issue, pro or con. EX: Are you for or against a single payer health care system? Then follow up with some of the details of how it would work. Then you could allow some cross examination by the candidates.
All the name calling against Trump and the emoting about conditions at the border, as if that's Trump's fault, was really boring. And of course, nothing about how they would improve the situation (except sending more money to corrupt countries in Central America.) Booker maintained a smile and didn't go all hysterical and crazy eyed this time so he got high marks. I wish they'd all be less hysterical, and less yelling, too. Harris employing ebonics -- where did she learn that, in college? Isn't that cultural appropriation? It's not like she grew up in the hood. I'm not saying she shouldn't do it or Booker shouldn't make inside jokes using slang about Kool-aide but it does seem like a low level approach. How is it uplifting? For me it's more divisive pandering.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair
That makes more sense.
Swift was actually talking about the ineffectiveness of proselytizing, which he incorrectly called "reasoning", the effect of which is easily shown to be the opposite of what he claimed in regards to the same subject:
"The estimates suggest that, all else equal, one extra year of schooling leads to a 4 percentage-point increase in the likelihood that an individual reports having no religious affiliation at all; a reasonably large effect."
"Fine, but the WSJ reports this morning that $6B will get us another 100 miles.”
it cost $500 billion in 2008 dollars to build the interstate highway system. Total length 40,000 miles.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Oddly, the above quote, his most famous, does not appear in de Tocqueville’s Wikipedia article. Go figure. Next Snopes is going to claim he never said it. Siri certainly doesn’t know about it, getting her info from Wikipedia.
You can’t say “ You got to stop” without having two backup girls saying “come on now” after each stanza.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा