Did AOC Truly fear "GOP lawmakers would lead rioters to her"

[Insein 10,884]

On 2/6/2021 at 7:54 PM, The Dude said:

Agreed. This is the tactic a great deal of the right is weened on through Fox, Rush, Bongino, and the like.  It’s intentionally deceptive 

This tactic is not exclusive to the right or the left. It's used all the time by the elites. Divide and conquer.

[jon_mx 9,127]

On 2/6/2021 at 7:54 PM, The Dude said:

Agreed. This is the tactic a great deal of the right is weened on through Fox, Rush, Bongino, and the like.  It’s intentionally deceptive 

It is funny that you only notice it when the right does it because it is a common tactic of the left too.

[The Dude 1,029]

6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

It is funny that you only notice it when the right does it because it is a common tactic of the left too.

Please tell me which major shows on the left do this like Carlson-hannity-ingraham.  I only notice it on the right as its part of their agenda.

Its not close

[BladeRunner 2,735]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

Please tell me which major shows on the left do this like Carlson-hannity-ingraham.  I only notice it on the right as its part of their agenda.

Its not close

Okay, this has to be a joke, right?  You're being obtuse just to be funny, correct?

[jon_mx 9,127]

28 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Okay, this has to be a joke, right?  You're being obtuse just to be funny, correct?

Some people are oblivious when a network matches their bias.  

[The Dude 1,029]

48 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Okay, this has to be a joke, right?  You're being obtuse just to be funny, correct?

No joke.  Take the challenge or move on.

we’re talking about a major “left” talking head that talks about the “right” in broad strokes to demean - ala Fox primetime

[BladeRunner 2,735]

32 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No joke.  Take the challenge or move on.

we’re talking about a major “left” talking head that talks about the “right” in broad strokes to demean - ala Fox primetime

Rachel maddow, lawrence odonnel, don lemon, etc, etc.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, this was so easy a caveman could have done it.

Edited February 9 by BladeRunner

[dawgtrails 1,157]

I am quite pleased that there is nobody in my extended circle that watches any cable news shows like Maddow, Hannity, Carlson, Lemon, etc.

[Alex P Keaton 4,285]

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Some people are oblivious when a network matches their bias.  

Ummmm.  Yes.  Irony.

[The Dude 1,029]

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Rachel maddow, lawrence odonnel, don lemon, etc, etc.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, this was so easy a caveman could have done it.

Not even close.  You are just guessing.  

[BladeRunner 2,735]

5 hours ago, The Dude said:

Not even close.  You are just guessing.  

Wait, wut?  Really? 🙄

Explain to me why that's not even close?

Edited February 9 by BladeRunner

[jon_mx 9,127]

3 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Ummmm.  Yes.  Irony.

I see bias in most all sources.. it is not that hard. 

[The Dude 1,029]

10 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Wait, wut?  Really? 🙄

Explain to me why that's not even close?

You are right that these have bias but they do not fit the discussion.

Hannity routinely shows some quack or remote incident and then follows it up with something like “this is how the left thinks.”

Looking to sow fear through deceit.  That’s the spine through Fox primetime shows.

that doesn’t exist to the same magnitude in any of the shows you mentioned.  Not close.

we should have a hannity watch and mock party

[BladeRunner 2,735]

49 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You are right that these have bias but they do not fit the discussion.

Hannity routinely shows some quack or remote incident and then follows it up with something like “this is how the left thinks.”

Looking to sow fear through deceit.  That’s the spine through Fox primetime shows.

that doesn’t exist to the same magnitude in any of the shows you mentioned.  Not close.

we should have a hannity watch and mock party

OMG.  This is absurd.

You seriously telling me Maddow, Lemon and O'Donnel (just to name a few - there's a ton more) doesn't "fit the discussion"?  With all due respect, you are out of your mind if you think that.  A classic example of "your side does it but not mine" thinking.

Edited February 9 by BladeRunner

[squistion 12,632]

15 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

OMG.  This is absurd.

You seriously telling me Maddow, Lemon and O'Donnel (just to name a few - there's a ton more) doesn't "fit the discussion"?  With all due respect, you are out of your mind if you think that.  A classic example of "your side does it but not mine" thinking.

Maddow and O'Donnell don't talk about the “right” in broad strokes to demean, if they have criticism it is specific as to who on the right they are referring to (and if you ever watched those shows you would agree). 

Edited February 9 by squistion

[parasaurolophus 7,561]

10 minutes ago, squistion said:

Maddow and O'Donnell don't talk about the “right” in broad strokes to demean, if they have criticism it is specific as to who on the right they are referring to (and if you ever watched those shows you would agree). 

First they make the broad statement. Then they shrink it. 

They say things like the GOP is the party of violent extremism. Then they say a follow up like Marjorie taylor greene said xyz and is terrible. 

People then read that as see, she is being specific. She is only criticizing that crazy congresswoman! 

[tonydead 8,055]

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

OMG.  This is absurd.

You seriously telling me Maddow, Lemon and O'Donnel (just to name a few - there's a ton more) doesn't "fit the discussion"?  With all due respect, you are out of your mind if you think that.  A classic example of "your side does it but not mine" thinking.

I watched a few minutes of Hannity on Fox last night, and a few minutes of Cuomo on CNN last night.  Just for fun.

Hannity had senator Lindsey Graham on as a guest discussing impeachment.  He thinks it's unconstitutional.

Cuomo had some guy nobody ever heard of that wrote a book about impeachment discussing impeachment.  He thought Trump was still a threat to ruin democracy and destroy America.

 

[BladeRunner 2,735]

18 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I watched a few minutes of Hannity on Fox last night, and a few minutes of Cuomo on CNN last night.  Just for fun.

Hannity had senator Lindsey Graham on as a guest discussing impeachment.  He thinks it's unconstitutional.

Cuomo had some guy nobody ever heard of that wrote a book about impeachment discussing impeachment.  He thought Trump was still a threat to ruin democracy and destroy America.

 

yeah, his whole premise is simply absurd.  Not even sure why I'm wasting my time with it.

[FairWarning 1,064]

You’re a better man than me Tony, for watching both of them.

[The Dude 1,029]

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

OMG.  This is absurd.

You seriously telling me Maddow, Lemon and O'Donnel (just to name a few - there's a ton more) doesn't "fit the discussion"?  With all due respect, you are out of your mind if you think that.  A classic example of "your side does it but not mine" thinking.

I know you want to brand it as bias blindness - but it’s two different things.  

the ones you noted do not attempt to brand people by their party like the guys I mentioned

The Fox tactic is akin to prejudice - assuming everyone of a certain affiliation acts in the same way - which may be why it sells on Fox

[BladeRunner 2,735]

Just now, The Dude said:

I know you want to brand it as bias blindness - but it’s two different things.  

the ones you noted do not attempt to brand people by their party like the guys I mentioned

The Fox tactic is akin to prejudice - assuming everyone of a certain affiliation acts in the same way - which may be why it sells on Fox

B and S.

Again, your assertion that "your side does it but not mine" is laughable on it's face.  You're so blinded by partisan nonsense you can't see the forest for the trees.

Have a good day!

[The Dude 1,029]

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

yeah, his whole premise is simply absurd.  Not even sure why I'm wasting my time with it.

The distinction is clear if you are viewing both groups of speakers objectively

thats where your argument fails

i will try to stomach an hour of hannity lies soon and give some examples

[BladeRunner 2,735]

Just now, The Dude said:

The distinction is clear if you are viewing both groups of speakers objectively

thats where your argument fails

i will try to stomach an hour of hannity lies soon and give some examples

Except you're not viewing anything objectively. 

[The Dude 1,029]

Just now, BladeRunner said:

Except you're not viewing anything objectively. 

Let’s see if we can do a hannity watch party next week.  I think that would open some eyes - and maybe even mine

[Summer Wheat 916]

26 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I watched a few minutes of Hannity on Fox last night, and a few minutes of Cuomo on CNN last night.  Just for fun.

Hannity had senator Lindsey Graham on as a guest discussing impeachment.  He thinks it's unconstitutional.

Cuomo had some guy nobody ever heard of that wrote a book about impeachment discussing impeachment.  He thought Trump was still a threat to ruin democracy and destroy America.

 

Cuomo might be worse than Hannity now.   

[The Dude 1,029]

Also, hannity admits he puts people on without vetting them.  Logically, why would anyone do that.  Because it fits the agenda he is trying to push

[tonydead 8,055]

Just now, The Dude said:

Let’s see if we can do a hannity watch party next week.  I think that would open some eyes - and maybe even mine

Why are you acting like you know what you're talking about while simultaneously acting like you don't know what Hannity's show is like?  Can't imagine anyone taking you seriously, let alone taking you up on your imaginary watchathon. 

[John123 129]

35 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Also, hannity admits he puts people on without vetting them.  Logically, why would anyone do that.  Because it fits the agenda he is trying to push

Avennatti was on CNN and MSNBC  almost nightly before he was indicted.  Talk about not vetting.

[The Dude 1,029]

2 hours ago, tonydead said:

Why are you acting like you know what you're talking about while simultaneously acting like you don't know what Hannity's show is like?  Can't imagine anyone taking you seriously, let alone taking you up on your imaginary watchathon. 

I think there is a flaw in your logic.  Are you admitting he is over the top in anti-dem messaging?  Cause that was the crux of the conversation

[The Dude 1,029]

1 hour ago, John123 said:

Avennatti was on CNN and MSNBC  almost nightly before he was indicted.  Talk about not vetting.

Good response

[tonydead 8,055]

36 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I think there is a flaw in your logic.  Are you admitting he is over the top in anti-dem messaging?  Cause that was the crux of the conversation

Yes.   Then I switch the channel to CNN and Cuomo, and it was even worse from the left:

22 hours ago, The Dude said:

Please tell me which major shows on the left do this like Carlson-hannity-ingraham.  I only notice it on the right as its part of their agenda.

Its not close

Some of us aren't completely blind to one side, some of us apparently are.

[The Dude 1,029]

So you are in for the watch party.........

[dawgtrails 1,157]

Just stop watching cable news shows. It's pretty simple folks. They are all garbage, some more than others obviously. Read a newspaper, listen to NPR, follow some good folks on twitter, download a podcast. We all deserve better

[timschochet 35,015]

8 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

OMG.  This is absurd.

You seriously telling me Maddow, Lemon and O'Donnel (just to name a few - there's a ton more) doesn't "fit the discussion"?  With all due respect, you are out of your mind if you think that.  A classic example of "your side does it but not mine" thinking.

This is a rare occasion in which I agree with @BladeRunner. All three of the people you mention will quote one extreme conservative and then attempt to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush. I tend to like all 3 of these folks but it would be dishonest to pretend that they don’t do this, exactly like Hannity and Carlson do to liberals. 

[ekbeats 231]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:48 PM, The Dude said:

No joke.  Take the challenge or move on.

we’re talking about a major “left” talking head that talks about the “right” in broad strokes to demean - ala Fox primetime

MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow: All Republicans are “Violent Fascists”

Rachel Maddow Reveals What Republican Voters Really Want In Scathing Takedown

Rachel Maddow: GOP has become party of a 'fringe, violent, extremist criminal movement'

Rachel Maddow Says ‘Violent Insurrectionism’ Is Now The Core Of The Republican Party

In fairness, Maddow is better than most at focusing on the issue and not painting with broad strokes. But Don Lemon? He generalizes about as much as anyone.  I could post his examples but I don’t have the time.

Edited February 10 by ekbeats

[tonydead 8,055]

Let's compare headlines after one day of IMPEACHGATE:

FOX: Senate votes impeachment is constitutional. 

CNN: Trump unhappy with lawyers! (sources say)

lolz

 

Edited February 10 by tonydead

[The Dude 1,029]

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is a rare occasion in which I agree with @BladeRunner. All three of the people you mention will quote one extreme conservative and then attempt to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush. I tend to like all 3 of these folks but it would be dishonest to pretend that they don’t do this, exactly like Hannity and Carlson do to liberals. 

Not being dishonest - but open minded enough to say maybe I should take a second look

[timschochet 35,015]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not being dishonest - but open minded enough to say maybe I should take a second look

There’s an added problem here: for many years these liberal opinion shows offered the worst sort of stereotypes about conservatives: that they were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, unfeeling, authoritarian, militaristic (without actual military service), pro-fascist, etc etc. These stereotypes were almost always unfair and conservatives were rightly pissed off about them. 
Then the Republican Party chose as its leader a guy who openly embraced every one of these stereotypes!! And even now he remains the most important person in the GOP. This makes it a lot easier for the liberal opinion hosts, and a lot harder for conservatives to be angry about the stereotypes. 

[rockaction 26,204]

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

There’s an added problem here: for many years these liberal opinion shows offered the worst sort of stereotypes about conservatives: that they were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, unfeeling, authoritarian, militaristic (without actual military service), pro-fascist, etc etc. These stereotypes were almost always unfair and conservatives were rightly pissed off about them. 
Then the Republican Party chose as its leader a guy who openly embraced every one of these stereotypes!! And even now he remains the most important person in the GOP. This makes it a lot easier for the liberal opinion hosts, and a lot harder for conservatives to be angry about the stereotypes. 

This is very true. One of the worst things to happen to Republicans was to nominate and send a man to the presidency who was the embodiment of liberal smears against GOP members. Just when we were getting over it, along comes this happening to reaffirm, and in some cases, confirm, what people who were dyed-in-the-wool liberals thought about GOP members. The untold damage this has done to the GOP will reverberate among voters and its effects will last another thirty years. Republicans, long on the side of political majoritarianism when it comes to social issues (meaning that majorities acting through the legislature are something to consult when determining rights rather than through an individualistic/court lens) will have a hard time positing that it is political science rather than hate that motivates them with respect to this view

[DocHolliday 4,194]

9 hours ago, The Dude said:

Not being dishonest - but open minded enough to say maybe I should take a second look

You are a brave man.  Watching any of those right or left smear shows is a waste of time.  You may as well watch infomercials.  

[The Dude 1,029]

Where’s all the aoc hate today?  
 

she’s raising millions for tax and Ted is lying about his getaway

[BladeRunner 2,735]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Where’s all the aoc hate today?  
 

she’s raising millions for tax and Ted is lying about his getaway

And I bet you think she's doing this out of the kindness of her own heart too, don't you?   Very cute. 

But, in all reality, it's still a GOOD thing regardless of the motivations behind it.

Edited February 22 by BladeRunner

[IvanKaramazov 22,588]

If we establish a new norm whereby the preferred means of trolling the other side is to raise money for their constituents, that would be a good step in the right direction.

[The Dude 1,029]

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

And I bet you think she's doing this out of the kindness of her own heart too, don't you?   Very cute. 

But, in all reality, it's still a GOOD thing regardless of the motivations behind it.

Why not just say it rather than add a laughing emoji and taking a shot?  Set a higher bar for yourself.

and let me post your standard response and save you processing time ====>🤣

Edited February 22 by The Dude

[tommyGunZ 4,731]

On 2/9/2021 at 7:03 PM, timschochet said:

There’s an added problem here: for many years these liberal opinion shows offered the worst sort of stereotypes about conservatives: that they were racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, unfeeling, authoritarian, militaristic (without actual military service), pro-fascist, etc etc. These stereotypes were almost always unfair and conservatives were rightly pissed off about them. 
Then the Republican Party chose as its leader a guy who openly embraced every one of these stereotypes!! And even now he remains the most important person in the GOP. This makes it a lot easier for the liberal opinion hosts, and a lot harder for conservatives to be angry about the stereotypes. 

Perhaps the may of the accusations and descriptions were not as unfair and off base as you thought back then?

[Sabertooth 5,975]

On 2/22/2021 at 4:48 PM, BladeRunner said:

And I bet you think she's doing this out of the kindness of her own heart too, don't you?   Very cute. 

But, in all reality, it's still a GOOD thing regardless of the motivations behind it.

Exactly.  It does some good and is easy political loot to get.  Win win for all involved.  Especially those in need.  

[parasaurolophus 7,561]

So re:the panic button story...

What makes more sense here?

Sinister plot to single out Ayanna Pressley. Which for some reason was never carried out and they never even attempted to enter the building where Pressleys office is. 

Or.....

Pressley was in an office that was registered to Katie Hill and they removed the buttons(some time ago) because Katie Hill wasnt there anymore.

(Katie hill and Pressley swapped offices because Hill found out the former holder of that office was an idol of Ayanna Pressleys.)

Also the buttons arent "torn out" they are actually removed every time an office is scheduled to be turned over or even have new furniture so that they dont get set off accidentally. 

Edited March 2 by parasaurolophus

[Sabertooth 5,975]

On 3/2/2021 at 8:24 AM, parasaurolophus said:

So re:the panic button story...

What makes more sense here?

Sinister plot to single out Ayanna Pressley. Which for some reason was never carried out and they never even attempted to enter the building where Pressleys office is. 

Or.....

Pressley was in an office that was registered to Katie Hill and they removed the buttons(some time ago) because Katie Hill wasnt there anymore.

(Katie hill and Pressley swapped offices because Hill found out the former holder of that office was an idol of Ayanna Pressleys.)

Also the buttons arent "torn out" they are actually removed every time an office is scheduled to be turned over or even have new furniture so that they dont get set off accidentally. 

A