Racism And Kamala Harris

[Elixir]

“Trump is bad enough that you shouldn't have to exaggerate and make things up.”

Mea Culpa, he’s not REALLY an apricot.
Other than that, it’s damn near impossible to exaggerate the malevolence of that damaged piece of shit.

 

[Copernicus]

Technically, Trump said he might be a dictator for one day, and in context it was pretty obviously humorous. It has been repeated ad nauseum that Trump has declared outright that he would become a dictator from day one, and that characterization has been adopted as gospel truth.

Can you cite anything he's said that contradicts the "gospel truth"?

Still waiting.

I think you're using the argument from incredulity fallacy. You don't believe Trump would really do it so it must not be true. You're basically asking us to not believe our eyes and ears.

No, I'm not asking you to not believe your eyes and ears. I'm asking you not to swallow what interpreters tell you whole sale.

You're asking me to give you cited sources that contradict something Trump didn't say. I don't know how you expect that to happen, but hey, as soon as I find that I'll also give you the absolute incontrovertible proof that there is no teapot orbiting mercury.

Trump is bad enough that you shouldn't have to exaggerate and make things up. You shouldn't have to mischaracterize and take things out of context, and pretend they mean something different.

When all of the argumentation that you here relies on amplifying and repeating a hyperbolized mischaracterization... don't you think you should exercise just a tiny bit of skepticism?

I *know* why I dislike Trump. I *know* what characteristics I find undesirable in a politician. None of it relies on the much-repeated "existential threat to democracy" rhetoric. And I dislike him intensely and don't want him as president while also simultaneously recognizing the propagandized messaging for what it is.

I *know* what I dislike about Harris, and none of that relies on hyperbolic narratives either. And I can dislike her positions while simultaneously acknowledging the manipulation going on by her opponents.

It is also true that we cannot prove that Trump is NOT a fascist, but there is a fairly recent new word in English--sanewashing--that describes a practice in the journalistic media or ignoring or downplaying Donald Trump's bombastic demagoguery as if he were delivering normal policy speeches. I think that you are engaging in some of that here by dismissing his language as more hyperbole than real. As if the man really winking at us all with his "joking" remarks about being a dictator on day one, using the justice department to go after his enemies, imposing draconian tariffs on foreign imports, using the military on American soil to go after the "enemy within", and so on. You just aren't listening, because you cannot believe that he would really do what he says he would do. More recent headlines have started to pull back from the sanewashing:

Trump's 'enemy from within' threat spurs critics' alarm about his authoritarian shift​

Trump's top general calls former president "fascist" and "dangerous" threat​

Trump vows to ‘end all sanctuary cities’; Harris says ex-president calling himself ‘father of IVF’ is bizarre – US elections live​

 

[Elixir]

Why listen to people who worked for or with Trump? You KNOW they all harbor deep resentments over being left out of the festivities like on 1/6. And his family all hates him for being successful. Otherwise they’d all still be heaping praise upon the apricot.

No, you should listen to faux-moderate trumpapologists who likely never knew a thing about him until 2016. They can explain to you how the other side is just as bad.

 

[Politesse]

Technically, Trump said he might be a dictator for one day, and in context it was pretty obviously humorous. It has been repeated ad nauseum that Trump has declared outright that he would become a dictator from day one, and that characterization has been adopted as gospel truth.

Can you cite anything he's said that contradicts the "gospel truth"?

Still waiting.

I think you're using the argument from incredulity fallacy. You don't believe Trump would really do it so it must not be true. You're basically asking us to not believe our eyes and ears.

No, I'm not asking you to not believe your eyes and ears. I'm asking you not to swallow what interpreters tell you whole sale.

You're asking me to give you cited sources that contradict something Trump didn't say. I don't know how you expect that to happen, but hey, as soon as I find that I'll also give you the absolute incontrovertible proof that there is no teapot orbiting mercury.

Trump is bad enough that you shouldn't have to exaggerate and make things up. You shouldn't have to mischaracterize and take things out of context, and pretend they mean something different.

When all of the argumentation that you here relies on amplifying and repeating a hyperbolized mischaracterization... don't you think you should exercise just a tiny bit of skepticism?

I *know* why I dislike Trump. I *know* what characteristics I find undesirable in a politician. None of it relies on the much-repeated "existential threat to democracy" rhetoric. And I dislike him intensely and don't want him as president while also simultaneously recognizing the propagandized messaging for what it is.

I *know* what I dislike about Harris, and none of that relies on hyperbolic narratives either. And I can dislike her positions while simultaneously acknowledging the manipulation going on by her opponents.

It is also true that we cannot prove that Trump is NOT a fascist, but there is a fairly recent new word in English--sanewashing--that describes a practice in the journalistic media or ignoring or downplaying Donald Trump's bombastic demagoguery as if he were delivering normal policy speeches. I think that you are engaging in some of that here by dismissing his language as more hyperbole than real. As if the man really winking at us all with his "joking" remarks about being a dictator on day one, using the justice department to go after his enemies, imposing draconian tariffs on foreign imports, using the military on American soil to go after the "enemy within", and so on. You just aren't listening, because you cannot believe that he would really do what he says he would do. More recent headlines have started to pull back from the sanewashing:

Trump's 'enemy from within' threat spurs critics' alarm about his authoritarian shift​

Trump's top general calls former president "fascist" and "dangerous" threat​

Trump vows to ‘end all sanctuary cities’; Harris says ex-president calling himself ‘father of IVF’ is bizarre – US elections live​

Sanewashing? There is nothing sane in "joking" about killing your political enemies on live television. Well-adjusted, rational people would not do that. Certainly no other presidential candidate ever did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Technically, Trump said he might be a dictator for one day, and in context it was pretty obviously humorous. It has been repeated ad nauseum that Trump has declared outright that he would become a dictator from day one, and that characterization has been adopted as gospel truth.

Can you cite anything he's said that contradicts the "gospel truth"?

Still waiting.

I think you're using the argument from incredulity fallacy. You don't believe Trump would really do it so it must not be true. You're basically asking us to not believe our eyes and ears.

No, I'm not asking you to not believe your eyes and ears. I'm asking you not to swallow what interpreters tell you whole sale.

You're asking me to give you cited sources that contradict something Trump didn't say. I don't know how you expect that to happen, but hey, as soon as I find that I'll also give you the absolute incontrovertible proof that there is no teapot orbiting mercury.

Trump is bad enough that you shouldn't have to exaggerate and make things up. You shouldn't have to mischaracterize and take things out of context, and pretend they mean something different.

When all of the argumentation that you here relies on amplifying and repeating a hyperbolized mischaracterization... don't you think you should exercise just a tiny bit of skepticism?

I *know* why I dislike Trump. I *know* what characteristics I find undesirable in a politician. None of it relies on the much-repeated "existential threat to democracy" rhetoric. And I dislike him intensely and don't want him as president while also simultaneously recognizing the propagandized messaging for what it is.

I *know* what I dislike about Harris, and none of that relies on hyperbolic narratives either. And I can dislike her positions while simultaneously acknowledging the manipulation going on by her opponents.

It is also true that we cannot prove that Trump is NOT a fascist...

He tried to steal the election in 2020. Let me rephrase that. Remember when in 2020, Trump repeatedly made claims of election fraud in public, but never took them to court? And then when he communicated directly with the GOP heads in Legislatures in multiple states in an attempt to take EVs away from Biden. And when he was caught on a recording trying to strong arm the Georgia Secretary of State into "finding" votes. And when that all failed, he and his team came up with the idea of a riot, while conspiring with over half the elected GOP members in the US House to throw out electoral votes over no actual specific claims of fraud. And when that failed, he put a target on the Vice President!

All that happened... while he was President! But we need to be fair to him and not overstate somethings. Fascist? He is a fucking traitor!

A: What has al Qaeda ever done against the US on US soil?
B: Umm... 9/11.
A: *rolls eyes* Besides that.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Sebastion Gorka called KH "colored" and a DEI hire on NewsMax.

The Reichwing needs to get their story straight. First, they say she was hired because of diversity, then they say she was hired by sexxing her way to the top, but then they also claim she was secretly an evil genius socialist who was in charge behind the scenes instead of Biden. They're running around like chickens with their heads cut off or maybe monkeys flinging poop, waiting for a narrative to catch on.

They are throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sebastion Gorka called KH "colored" and a DEI hire on NewsMax.

The Reichwing needs to get their story straight. First, they say she was hired because of diversity, then they say she was hired by sexxing her way to the top, but then they also claim she was secretly an evil genius socialist who was in charge behind the scenes instead of Biden. They're running around like chickens with their heads cut off or maybe monkeys flinging poop, waiting for a narrative to catch on.

They are throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

They know their supporters can hold multiple contradictory thoughts in their heads at once. Otherwise they couldn’t be Trump supporters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sebastion Gorka called KH "colored" and a DEI hire on NewsMax.

The Reichwing needs to get their story straight. First, they say she was hired because of diversity, then they say she was hired by sexxing her way to the top, but then they also claim she was secretly an evil genius socialist who was in charge behind the scenes instead of Biden. They're running around like chickens with their heads cut off or maybe monkeys flinging poop, waiting for a narrative to catch on.

They are throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

They know their supporters can hold multiple contradictory thoughts in their heads at once. Otherwise they couldn’t be Trump supporters.

Huh? Hold thoughts? No, they hold soundbites, they don't connect them into true thoughts.

 

[Swammerdami]

Since trolling is against the rules, we must assume Mr. Dancer's musings are sincere. I suggest he seek professional help.

Meanwhile let's clear up some loose-ends:

Why is your word not there?

Too many libberpublicans complained.
They’re pretty much snowflakes.
Tough titty.

I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Yes, but is "cromulent" itself cromulent?
bilby's own link just gives me the opportunity to "Manage cookies" before finally complaining that I don't have a subscription!
(Do you have a subscription, bilby?)

My go-to pronounciation dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/media/english/us_pron_ogg/r/cro/cromu/cromulent.ogg ) has nothing better to offer than

404. Page not found.​

The requested URL was not found on the server. That's all we know.

(If that's really ALL they know, why do they feel qualified to publish a dictionary?)

...

Missing​

adjective
uk /ˈmɪs.ɪŋ/ us /ˈmɪs.ɪŋ/

B1
Something that is missing cannot be found because it is not where it should be:

The burglars have been arrested but the jewellery is still missing.

When did you realize that the money was missing from your account?

Then I tried en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cromulent . From there I was just a click away from

temulent (comparative more temulent, superlative most temulent)

which may summarize the entire thread.

You just made that up.
At least libberpublican’s meaning arises directly from onomatopoeia.

I'll guess the onomatopoeia of "libberpublican" is hilarious, but You (by whom I mean Elixir -- the editor here gets easily confused in nested quotes) may wish to explain that to Me, the humor-impaired.

Libberpublican is a portmanteau.

Onomatopoeia means "an un-housetrained puppy", because it's a word that means exactly what it sounds like.

More concisely, even if it were true that the Democratic Party were generally more racist, to conclude that any individual Democrat is a racist is a sweeping generalization fallacy.

You;'re not wrong... but I'll also point out that the tendency to accurately identify a fallacy when it's used by one group, while failing to identify the exact same fallacy when used by a different group is itself a fallacy.

To paraphrase either an ancient Hindu legend, or a nincompoop at a philosophy lecture, "(In this thread) It's fallacies all the way down."

 

[Elixir]

Onomatopoeia means "an un-housetrained puppy", because it's a word that means exactly what it sounds like.

Is it any coincidence that the above definition applies so very well to libberpublicans?