Bowling Green Massacre

Dave Rogers said:
The post was perfectly clear to me; the BBC do not support the Trump administration's claim that terrorist attacks have been under-reported in the media, and demonstrated this lack of support by linking to their coverage of all (except, I think, one) of the attacks listed that actually happened, and pointing out the nonexistence of the ones that were simply made up. If you read the first link in Planigale's post, it's clear what it is: a very thorough and rigorous debunking of the Trump administration's claim.

Don't look too hard for enemies. It causes friendly fire incidents.

Dave
Click to expand...
I get it, the problem was grammar.


SG said:
White House List Contradicts Trump Claim That Terror Attacks Go Unreported
Click to expand...
That was highlighted. Followed by this:
Planigale said:
Well the BBC do not support this.
Click to expand...

Grammatically, "this" in Planigale's post refers to the sentence, "White House List Contradicts Trump Claim" meaning the BBC contradicts the fact the White House list contradicts Trump's claim.

It would help if people communicated properly.
 
Stacko said:
It didn't last.
Click to expand...

A'isha said:
Oh, well. :mad:
Click to expand...

While I'd like her to be off the air because she's just a liar, there's a large difference in the role they refused her for - as an Admin substitute for Pence - and an interview with Tapper where the subject is going to be Kellyanne Conway.

What the New Right has achieved in the past year is to move the right/left divide further towards the center. As little as a year ago, MSNBC was the devil network. CNN was instrumental in creating the Orange Turdblossom.
 
Meadmaker said:
If you were to describe Guy Fawkes as the person behind the parliament massacre, would you be being imprecise, or would you be lying?...
Click to expand...

I would say that if you were not actually lying, you were so woefully imprecise, ignorant and unprepared as to disqualify you from commenting on it.

I would expect anyone commenting on Guy Fawkes to have some basic knowledge of what happened there, and otherwise to say "I don't know" rather than making stuff up. And a person not so informed would have to be pretty stupid to think others are equally uninformed, and dishonest to try to get away with it. I am not entirely sure why you are so insistent on trying to save Conway's bacon here, but it seems to amount to a choice between dishonesty trimmed with stupidity and stupidity trimmed with dishonesty.
 
bruto said:
I would say that if you were not actually lying, you were so woefully imprecise, ignorant and unprepared as to disqualify you from commenting on it.

I would expect anyone commenting on Guy Fawkes to have some basic knowledge of what happened there, and otherwise to say "I don't know" rather than making stuff up. And a person not so informed would have to be pretty stupid to think others are equally uninformed, and dishonest to try to get away with it. I am not entirely sure why you are so insistent on trying to save Conway's bacon here, but it seems to amount to a choice between dishonesty trimmed with stupidity and stupidity trimmed with dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Because it's a bulletin board, and once you take a position, it is important to defend it to the death, in the face of all evidence.

But seriously, to the extent that any of this conversation matters, what is the point? We hate Donald Trump, right? We want his public support to dry up as quickly as possible, so that congressional allies abandon him, fearing defeat in the next election, or they are actually defeated. Above all, we want to at least get rid of him after a single term. Right? With me so far?

Now comes the Conway statement. How is it received, and how is the reaction to the statement received. Of course, partisans will be partisans. Trump haters will say it's proof of lying, duplicity, etc. Trump lovers will say that it was a simple mistake or some other inconsequential statement. None of those people on either side will be persuaded to change their votes in 2018, or to make a congresscritter fearful they might.

So let's take an average undecided voter. Maybe he voted for Trump, but really just against Hillary. We want him to vote for a Democrat in 2018, or at least to question his vote of 2016. How will he react to the hubbub?

Well, he's going to read a headline that says she invented a massacre. If he reads no further, I guess that's a win for our side. He thinks they are making stuff up. On the other hand, if he reads further and finds that there was no massacre, but there were two terrorists who killed Americans and planned to kill more, what's his reaction then? I think his reaction is, "Donald Trump is trying to stop scum like that from coming into the country, and all the Democrats can do is whine that she said something about a massacre, when what they meant was that they had prevented a massacre. Those Democrats are idiots."

That's the way I see it, anyway. I don't know. I don't do marketing, so maybe it plays better than I think it does.
 
Meadmaker said:
<snip.

So let's take an average undecided voter. Maybe he voted for Trump, but really just against Hillary. We want him to vote for a Democrat in 2018, or at least to question his vote of 2016. How will he react to the hubbub?

Well, he's going to read a headline that says she invented a massacre. If he reads no further, I guess that's a win for our side. He thinks they are making stuff up. On the other hand, if he reads further and finds that there was no massacre, but there were two terrorists who killed Americans and planned to kill more, what's his reaction then? I think his reaction is, "Donald Trump is trying to stop scum like that from coming into the country, and all the Democrats can do is whine that she said something about a massacre, when what they meant was that they had prevented a massacre. Those Democrats are idiots."

That's the way I see it, anyway. I don't know. I don't do marketing, so maybe it plays better than I think it does.
Click to expand...


In other words there's nothing to be done but "lie back and think of the Queen."?
 
quadraginta said:
In other words there's nothing to be done but "lie back and think of the Queen."?
Click to expand...

You win four internet points and a bagel with cream cheese.


This seems to be the advice from a lot of people. You'd kinda suspect that they're not really quite so liberal as they are pretending to be. I think this is the ugly stepsister of "Don't call his racist followers racists; it'll only help him" and I suspect the motives of anyone who tries to demotivate people from fighting back.

The right is thinking they've got another "Occupy" when the "forces" were of forty different beliefs and wanted to pull the demonstrations in forty different directions. I think, to borrow a word from Dubya, they're misunderestimating the motivation that Trump's blatant ugliness is creating. A lot of people didn't heed my "The End is Nigh" warnings and stayed home rather than support a flawed candidate, so we wind up not only with the flawed candidate but the person who is more flaw than candidate... plus, the bonus of a GOP House, GOP Senate and GOP Supreme Court. "Well, they won! Let's just give 'em a chance; we don't know if they'll really implement all those draconian threats they've been making for the last ten years".

Nonsense. Resist! Call 'em out. Make fun of 'em. Yell at 'em. Educate your friends, family and acquaintances. And in the spirit of Joe Hill, most of all Get Organized.

Now if it turns out that this mobilization mindset means that the liberals and moderates help elect a more progressive Democratic Party, I'll be happy. But I was promoting contentment with liberals and progressives helping to elect a more conservative corporatist Democratic Party. Those who didn't were cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
In other words there's nothing to be done but "lie back and think of the Queen."?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's it at all. I think what is to be done is to not get distracted by sideshows of no consequence. The statement was made in defense of Trump's policy. Is the policy good or bad? If people like the policy, all this quibbling about who killed who is just not going to matter.

Attack the policy on its merits, or lack of same.

To put it differently, we know that politicians spin. That's what they do. We know tht they stretch the truth. They exaggerate. They cherry pick facts. They do all these things, sometimes in small ways, sometimes outrageously. When you catch a politician spouting falsehoods as a way to justify policy, what should you do? What I would recommend is to note that they were spinning those lies in order to justify their actions. At that point, ask yourself whether, if people knew the truth, would they support the poltician's policy?

In this particular case, if people knew the truth about "the Bowling Green Massacre", it would probably be a win for Trump. So don't go there. Talk about that little Iranian girl who needed heart surgery. That's a winning issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
In this particular case, if people knew the truth about "the Bowling Green Massacre", it would probably be a win for Trump. So don't go there. Talk about that little Iranian girl who needed heart surgery. That's a winning issue.
Click to expand...

How is it that your "truth" can be so very different from everyone else? For instance, you say they killed a bunch of "Americans", but you are the only one making that claim. Can you substantiate that? From what I've seen, they may have fought against soldiers invading their country, but there is no claim of killing anyone. You say they planned to kill more Americans, but the actual records only claim that the FBI talked them into sending money, not killing anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom