Nikki Haley seeks to clarify cause of Civil War comments as backlash mounts

[Hans Blaster]

That has been my whole point that not all slave owners beat their slaves and usually when they were they were beat by the formman not the owner.

They still kept people to forced labor and the foreman worked for them, so that's no excuse either. It was nothing more than a fig leaf to pretend what they did wasn't as awful as it really was.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, the current mayor of Dallas is a black former police officer. He's been a Democrat who also supports the police (to the ire of many local Democrats), but at the end of his second term (his mandatory final term) as mayor, he's recently switched parties.

That kinda shows you where things are at...any deviation from "party standards" means that a party switch is the "path of least resistance" because "at least the other side will like me for this one thing and that'll hold me over for a while"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Any politician worth his or her salt has a bagfull of openers that obviate the need to be blunt.
'That's a good question, and let me just say...'
'If by that you mean...'
'I think we can all agree...'
'Well, let me say first...'

This is Politics101.

You'd think that...but that's not the way it works in the real world.

Not sure if you're a south park fan, but remember that scene where Kyle wants to get that specific toy to fit in and his dad says 'no' and follows up with "don't go along with fads, you make a bigger statement by telling the world I'm an individual and I'm not going to go along with this!"

To which Kyle says "That's great dad, now let me tell you how things work in the real world...if I don't get this toy then all of the other kids are going to single me out and kick my ass"

And his Dad replies "hmmm...good point. Here's $20...actually here's $40, get one for your brother too"

That's basically the state of US politics at this point.

If Republicans are afraid to say "the civil war is about slavery -- full stop" and Democrats are afraid to say "I think having police is a good thing -- full stop", then we're already in "clown world"

 

[JSRG]

Obligatory Simpsons clip:

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then you now know why the question was asked. Was she going to answer honestly or 'tailor her rhetoric around not alienating...those people who are ignorant on certain subjects'.

Now we know.

That's absolutely why the question was asked...the same reason GOP senators asked Ketanji Brown Jackson "how do define Woman?"

It was intended to put the recipient in a no-win situation in which they have to choose between alienating some people from their own side, or giving the other side fodder to use against them.

It's not a hard formula to figure out...

I'd love to be a person called into a congressional hearing and get to ask those kinds of questions just to make them uncomfortable

"Senator Cruz, what do you see as the one true form of Christianity? Catholicism or Protestantism?" (and then watch him squirm trying to answer while trying to find a way to not alienate any voters)

"Congresswoman Cortez, what do you see as the redeeming qualities of capitalism?" (and then watch her squirm)

 

[Bradskii]

If Republicans are afraid to say "the civil war is about slavery -- full stop" and Democrats are afraid to say "I think having police is a good thing -- full stop", then we're already in "clown world"

Anyone who makes black and white statements like that is not mentally equipped to be a politician. In this real world or any clown world.

'The civil war was about slavery -- but if you want to talk about contemporary state rights then please ask a question regarding that'.

'I think having police is obviously a good thing. The vast majority of our police, men and women, serve with honour and distinction. They keep us safe. They deserve our thanks. They also deserve our support. And they also deserve that we should help them seek out the tiny minority that don't serve with honour'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That kinda shows you where things are at...any deviation from "party standards" means that a party switch is the "path of least resistance" because "at least the other side will like me for this one thing and that'll hold me over for a while"

But it really isn't. Since the Dallas mayor was term limited, whether he changed parties or not had no bearing on his ability to stay in office.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anyone who makes black and white statements like that is not mentally equipped to be a politician. In this real world or any clown world.

'The civil war was about slavery -- but if you want to talk about contemporary state rights then please ask a question regarding that'.

'I think having police is obviously a good thing. The vast majority of our police, men and women, serve with honour and distinction. They keep us safe. They deserve our thanks. They also deserve our support. And they also deserve that we should help them seek out the tiny minority that don't serve with honour'.

Again, that's obviously the rational answers to those questions...but "rational" left the room a while ago. That's not how US politics have worked for a while.

"Who's the biggest bulwark against the things I find most objectionable" is where our politics has been for the past decade.

 

[Bradskii]

"Senator Cruz, what do you see as the one true form of Christianity? Catholicism or Protestantism?" (and then watch him squirm trying to answer while trying to find a way to not alienate any voters)

'My beliefs are mine and mine alone. I am not in a position to dictate, nor would I want to dictate to others what they feel about their personal religious beliefs. But I believe in God and I pray to Him for guidance every day, as do most of my fellow Americans.'

"Congresswoman Cortez, what do you see as the redeeming qualities of capitalism?" (and then watch her squirm)

'The redeeming qualities? That assumes that capitalism is the best system that we could devise and we shouldn't contemplate the benefits of other economic systems. There are many failings within capitalism of which I am sure you are aware. If you have the time I'll sit with you and explain some of them to you.'

 

[Bradskii]

Again, that's obviously the rational answers to those questions...but "rational" left the room a while ago. That's not how US politics have worked for a while.

"Who's the biggest bulwark against the things I find most objectionable" is where our politics has been for the past decade.

Hey, you get the politicians you deserve. And you better find out how to deserve better. Quickly. You're in a death spiral at the moment.

 

[RDKirk]

That's absolutely why the question was asked...the same reason GOP senators asked Ketanji Brown Jackson "how do define Woman?"

Eh, she had nothing to worry about. If she'd given a "conservative" answer, Biden wasn't going to withdraw her nomination, and once on the bench she had no reason to care. So, I think her response was the honest, if that is the word, befuddlement we usually get from hyper-progressives with that question. They don't have a way to answer the question within their ideological restrictions.

 

[Bradskii]

Eh, she had nothing to worry about. If she'd given a "conservative" answer, Biden wasn't going to withdraw her nomination, and once on the bench she had no reason to care. So, I think her response was the honest, if that is the word, befuddlement we usually get from hyper-progressives with that question. They don't have a way to answer the question within their ideological restrictions.

I never got why it was considered a gotcha. 'A biological woman is...yadda yadda yadda'. Mention chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus and you're all good. Compare it with how people identify with their gender if you like and what's the problem?

 

[RDKirk]

I never got why it was considered a gotcha. 'A biological woman is...yadda yadda yadda'. Mention chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus and you're all good. Compare it with how people identify with their gender if you like and what's the problem?

I think a proper answer for a Supreme Court nominee would be something along the lines of, "My personal opinion is irrelevant. My judicial opinion would be a matter of whether any definition determined by your legislation is permissible under the Constitution."

 

[Bradskii]

I think a proper answer for a Supreme Court nominee would be something along the lines of, "My personal opinion is irrelevant. My judicial opinion would be a matter of whether any definition determined by your legislation is permissible under the Constitution."

Bingo! Now that would be impressive. And on point. Me like.

 

[Larniavc]

OK we can agree to disagree, but if you were going to compare incarceration to slavery then you need to realize that people often "stayed" for many of the same reasons.

Because they are institutionalised!!! Good grief man!

I think the if this thread has not convinced you that slavery= abhorrent nothing will. I’m finna put you on block.

 

[Larniavc]

If Republicans are afraid to say "the civil war is about slavery -- full stop" and Democrats are afraid to say "I think having police is a good thing -- full stop", then we're already in "clown world"

Those two things are different.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

That's absolutely why the question was asked...the same reason GOP senators asked Ketanji Brown Jackson "how do define Woman?"

It was intended to put the recipient in a no-win situation in which they have to choose between alienating some people from their own side, or giving the other side fodder to use against them.

It's not a hard formula to figure out...

I'd love to be a person called into a congressional hearing and get to ask those kinds of questions just to make them uncomfortable

"Senator Cruz, what do you see as the one true form of Christianity? Catholicism or Protestantism?" (and then watch him squirm trying to answer while trying to find a way to not alienate any voters)

"Congresswoman Cortez, what do you see as the redeeming qualities of capitalism?" (and then watch her squirm)

This is claiming that racists or the ignorant are on the side of Republicans. If I start stating that I’ll expect to see you back me up on it.

 

[durangodawood]

I think a proper answer for a Supreme Court nominee would be something along the lines of, "My personal opinion is irrelevant. My judicial opinion would be a matter of whether any definition determined by your legislation is permissible under the Constitution."

Good answer. But I dont know how the senator would respond to having their query called "irrelevant."

 

[durangodawood]

......"Congresswoman Cortez, what do you see as the redeeming qualities of capitalism?" (and then watch her squirm)

I dont think she'd have the slightest problem recognizing the great things we get from a capitalist economy. She also recognizes the systems huge blind spots. Thats my sense of her anyway.

 

[DaisyDay]

Hey, you get the politicians you deserve.

My goodness! What a lousy thing to say.