Utterly shameful Republicans

[SLD]

Yet they're the party that says they want to support veterans? What a crock.

SLD

 

[laughing dog]

For those readers who are unfamiliar with Tammy Duckworth, she is a double amputee Iraqi war veteran ( Tammy_Duckworth).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For those readers who are unfamiliar with Tammy Duckworth, she is a double amputee Iraqi war veteran ( Tammy_Duckworth).

But she may have improperly fired two workers over a decade ago... therefore she hates the troops!

 

[Underseer]

Does anyone actually take conservolibertarians seriously when they use the phrase "support the troops"?

I mean other than their fellow fascists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anyone actually take conservolibertarians seriously when they use the phrase "support the troops"?

I mean other than their fellow fascists.

They love the troops! Remember Saxby Chambliss?

 

[SimpleDon]

Does anyone actually take conservolibertarians seriously when they use the phrase "support the troops"?

I mean other than their fellow fascists.

They love the troops! Remember Saxby Chambliss?

Yes, I do. He ran a dirty campaign against Senator Max Cleland calling him unpatriotic and a threat to the security of the nation. Max Cleland lost both legs and an arm to a hand grenade in Vietnam. Saxby Chambliss is a chicken hawk. Another in a long line of conservative patriots. Always willing to cheer on our troops, from a safe distance, of course.

 

[ronburgundy]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.
"Stand up for veterans" is common phrasing among those seeking to score points from military worship.

There are 99 things to attack the GOP for, and this ain't one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.
"Stand up for veterans" is common phrasing among those seeking to score points from military worship.

There are 99 things to attack the GOP for, and this ain't one.

Actually I think it is. There is a lawsuit that has taken quite a while to stay in the court regarding the firing of two employees while she was working with a Veteran organization. To the best of my knowledge the lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with hurting veterans or preventing veterans from getting benefits. To claim a soldier that lost her legs in service for her country is denying the needs of veterans is very crass, at best.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Does anyone actually take conservolibertarians seriously when they use the phrase "support the troops"?

I mean other than their fellow fascists.

You're angry that libertarians are anti-war and don't support you and your fellow Republicans in your desire to remake the world by killing poor brown people.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.
"Stand up for veterans" is common phrasing among those seeking to score points from military worship.

There are 99 things to attack the GOP for, and this ain't one.

"Too self-destructive?"

Have you not seen who is leading in the delegate count in the race for the GOP nomination for President?

 

[ronburgundy]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.
"Stand up for veterans" is common phrasing among those seeking to score points from military worship.

There are 99 things to attack the GOP for, and this ain't one.

"Too self-destructive?"

Have you not seen who is leading in the delegate count in the race for the GOP nomination for President?

Have you not seen that the GOP doesn't want Trump to be leading the delegate count and are going unsuccessful lengths to bring his campaign down?

It is implausible that the party of military worship would deliberately mock a vet for having lost her legs. It is more plausible that their blinding desire to attack a Democrat made someone overlooked that their common phrasing (there is an organization called "stand up for vets") took on another meaning when applied to wounded vet. Hell, the lackee who wrote it may not even have been aware she was an amputee.
Failure to understand the enemy is why Democrats generally suck at winning elections they should easily win.

Actually I think it is. There is a lawsuit that has taken quite a while to stay in the court regarding the firing of two employees while she was working with a Veteran organization. To the best of my knowledge the lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with hurting veterans or preventing veterans from getting benefits. To claim a soldier that lost her legs in service for her country is denying the needs of veterans is very crass, at best.

I agree with all of that, but none of it supports the silly notion that the GOP intentionally mocked her inability to literally stand up, due to the losing her legs in war. Their base may be full of morons, but their leadership is more evil than stupid, especially that stupid.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

"Too self-destructive?"

Have you not seen who is leading in the delegate count in the race for the GOP nomination for President?

Have you not seen that the GOP doesn't want Trump to be leading the delegate count and are going unsuccessful lengths to bring his campaign down?

Which GOP? Because the VOTING GOP is showing exactly what they want and the proof is shown by who is in the lead. And that doesn't even consider the endorsements that are coming in FOR Trump from elected officials and even former opponents.

It is implausible that the party of military worship would deliberately mock a vet for having lost her legs.

No it isn't. The same way a Fundy will condemn a man to hell because he is an atheist even though that same man just rescued a school bus full of children is the way a military worshiping party could say something as cruel and stupid as accusing a vet with no legs of not standing up for vets. If you don't pray at the right church, then you can't be right and deserve the disdain reserved for infidels.

It is more plausible that their blinding desire to attack a Democrat made someone overlooked that their common phrasing (there is an organization called "stand up for vets") took on another meaning when applied to wounded vet. Hell, the lackee who wrote it may not even have been aware she was an amputee.

Except, that was that "Lackee's" job to know. And anyone else representing the party.

BTW I love how the defense for this mess is "No, it's not a cruel statement, just grossly incompetent. Republicans aren't mean people just really reckless and stupid. VOTE FOR US!"

Failure to understand the enemy is why Democrats generally suck at winning elections they should easily win.

I'll ask Presidents McCain and Romney about that next time I run into them NOT in the White House.

Actually I think it is. There is a lawsuit that has taken quite a while to stay in the court regarding the firing of two employees while she was working with a Veteran organization. To the best of my knowledge the lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with hurting veterans or preventing veterans from getting benefits. To claim a soldier that lost her legs in service for her country is denying the needs of veterans is very crass, at best.

I agree with all of that, but none of it supports the silly notion that the GOP intentionally mocked her inability to literally stand up, due to the losing her legs in war. Their base may be full of morons, but their leadership is more evil than stupid, especially that stupid.

 

[ronburgundy]

Although not beneath the GOP ethically, its just too self-destructive to assume they used that phrasing to deliberately to mock her lack of legs.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

I think you are agreeing with me (and disagreeing with the OP) that this is an instance of incompetence and not a maliciously intentional attack on her disability.

As I am want to do, I will complicate matters by disagreeing that incompetence should always be the more plausible explanation. It is in this instance, because the outcome of the statement is so predictably harmful to the GOP that it makes no sense for them to have said it with malicious intent. But in general, the GOP leadership doesn't do the "wrong" thing merely because they don't understand how to do the right thing. IOW, if they thought that insulting her disability would help them win the election, they might have done it intentionally, but I don't think its plausible that they would think that.

 

[ronburgundy]

Have you not seen that the GOP doesn't want Trump to be leading the delegate count and are going unsuccessful lengths to bring his campaign down?

Which GOP? Because the VOTING GOP is showing exactly what they want and the proof is shown by who is in the lead. And that doesn't even consider the endorsements that are coming in FOR Trump from elected officials and even former opponents.

The GOP that made the statement, which was not the voting rank-and-file but the party officials.

It is implausible that the party of military worship would deliberately mock a vet for having lost her legs.

No it isn't. The same way a Fundy will condemn a man to hell because he is an atheist even though that same man just rescued a school bus full of children is the way a military worshiping party could say something as cruel and stupid as accusing a vet with no legs of not standing up for vets. If you don't pray at the right church, then you can't be right and deserve the disdain reserved for infidels.

Your ideological lenses are interfering with your reading comprehension. I explicitly said it wasn't inconsistent with their ethics. I said it was inconsistent with their self-interests because it was guaranteed to harm them even in the eyes of most GOP supporting vets and military supporters. The GOPs goal is to win elections, and they attack Dems in plenty of unethical ways, but in ways they think would plausibly aid not hinder that goal.

It is more plausible that their blinding desire to attack a Democrat made someone overlooked that their common phrasing (there is an organization called "stand up for vets") took on another meaning when applied to wounded vet. Hell, the lackee who wrote it may not even have been aware she was an amputee.

Except, that was that "Lackee's" job to know. And anyone else representing the party.

And your assumption is that no person ever does anything that violates what their "job" is? Besides, by definition, "lackeys'" jobs are to blindly do what they are told and not think for themselves. Odds are that this was posted by an unpaid intern whose job was to post standard GOP talking points and rhetoric against any GOP opponents. They took a standard talking point phrasing and mindlessly applied to Duckworth.

BTW I love how the defense for this mess is "No, it's not a cruel statement, just grossly incompetent. Republicans aren't mean people just really reckless and stupid. VOTE FOR US!"

I love how, per usual, you mindlessly ignore my words and construe them as the exact opposite of what I said. My first comment was that mocking her for her disability was not beneath their ethics (i.e., they are bad people), and my last statement in the post you just quoted was that the GOP leadership is evil.

Boy, you simply aren't capable of reasoning about factual questions without polluting it with ideological bias and activism. I am providing a plausible psychological explanation for the behavior, which contrary to rabid ideologues of all stripes is not the same as morally excusing it. Yes, the person fucked up, and they should know who they are attacking, but the low-level lackeys who's job is to spread anti-Dem propaganda on social media are not likely to notice that their canned rhetoric they are told to use is problematic in a particular instance. My explanation actually presumes that the GOP leadership is generally more cruel than stupid, but they use their cruelty to their advantage because to do otherwise is very stupid. In this situation, Saying something intentionally cruel about her disability would be far more self-destructively stupid than someone failing to notice that their canned rhetoric would appear anti-military and cruel in this case.

Failure to understand the enemy is why Democrats generally suck at winning elections they should easily win.

I'll ask Presidents McCain and Romney about that next time I run into them NOT in the White House.

Ask the 82 Dems who pathetically have lost their seats in Congress since Obama took office, despite all objective facts showing the GOP facilitated the worse economic collapse since the Depression and the Dem control in 2008 facilitated massive improvements to that economy.
Also, ask Gore how he didn't destroy George W in 2000, after serving as VP in an administration overseeing a economic boom, and ask Kerry how he lost in 2004 to one of histories most unliked Presidents during an unpopular illegal and failing war. Also, ask Obama how following one of the objectively worst GOP Administrations in history, he was only tied in the polls to McCain 6 weeks before the election and only won because of the TARP bailouts in October that was reviled by most Americans on the left and right.

In general, studies show that most Americans support the objective reality of Dem policies, and benefit more from Dem policies. IOW, a Dem party competent at elections would be dominating. Yet the Dems have failed to have control of the House for 18 of the last 22 years, and failed to have control of the Senate in 16 of the last 22 years.

Actually I think it is. There is a lawsuit that has taken quite a while to stay in the court regarding the firing of two employees while she was working with a Veteran organization. To the best of my knowledge the lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with hurting veterans or preventing veterans from getting benefits. To claim a soldier that lost her legs in service for her country is denying the needs of veterans is very crass, at best.

I agree with all of that, but none of it supports the silly notion that the GOP intentionally mocked her inability to literally stand up, due to the losing her legs in war. Their base may be full of morons, but their leadership is more evil than stupid, especially that stupid.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

I think you are agreeing with me (and disagreeing with the OP) that this is an instance of incompetence and not a maliciously intentional attack on her disability.

I'm saying that it's far more likely to be simply a very poor choice of words by somebody who didn't think it through all the way than it is an act of dickishness.

As I am want to do, I will complicate matters by disagreeing that incompetence should always be the more plausible explanation.

It isn't always. Just that one should not assume INTENTION to cause harm if stupidity is still possible.

An otherwise intelligent person is more likely to do something stupid than an otherwise ethical person is to do something cruel. At the same time, even a complete asshole may not be trying to be an asshole THIS time and it could still easily be a result of not really paying attention to what he was doing.

It is in this instance, because the outcome of the statement is so predictably harmful to the GOP that it makes no sense for them to have said it with malicious intent.

Ten years ago, I might have agreed with this. But after witnessing seven years of Obama Derangement Syndrome and the increasingly unhinged rhetoric from the Republicans whose hatred for Obama and his supporters is as infinite as the stars, this is exactly the sort of crass witticism I have come to expect from the American right wing.

But there's nothing in the tweet that directly implies it was mean-spirited or deliberate. It's not like it's a picture of Tammy Duckworth obviously in a wheelchair or something. So I can't assume the person who wrote it was an asshole; he COULD just ben an imbecile.

if they thought that insulting her disability would help them win the election, they might have done it intentionally, but I don't think its plausible that they would think that.

It's plausible that SOMEBODY thought that. That's basically the problem with twitter: those brainless comments you sometimes say and realize later that it sounded way less horrible in your head... twitter doesn't forget those. Everyone sees it, and before long everyone knows about it.