GOP slouches into the crazy to be born as MAGA ~ GENERAL | Woodward says Comer lying in new book about Woodward statements on Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 624
  • Views: 18K
  • Politics 
4thgenheel said:
that he needs a cane shouldn't be criticized.

rouser lied - kamala literally still has her hand out for him to shake after he hands the bible to his wife.

he had every opportunity to shake her hand and refused, full stop.
Click to expand...
Fair point. It was a (very poor) attempt at a humorous double entendre. Post deleted.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Fair point. It was a (very poor) attempt at a humorous double entendre. Post deleted.
Click to expand...
don't beat yourself up, i know your intent wasn't evil or ableist.

i just think its important that we not lose sight of or minimize what happened here - mr. fischer threw a weird, gross toddler tantrum and refused to shake vice president kamala harris' hand.
 
Ramrouser said:
It's been clearly shown that Bruce Fischer was holding a Bible in his left hand while his right hand held a cane which was supporting him. Thus, no free hand to offer Kamala. Non story.
Click to expand...
No, he took his hand and put in his pocket rather then shaking. And believe the still photo of all four show his hand in his pocket.
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:
This is already covered in another thread (and the topic title here is baffling — bite him?), so will merge into the existing coverage.
Click to expand...
Why is it baffling? She told him when he wouldn't shake that she wouldn't bite.

BTW, what thread was this covered in so I can review the comments? The rules on this forum for starting new threads are a little baffling for a newbie like me. Don't mean to intrude on established traditions, but........when topics get hundreds of posts that go in many side directions, it can be hard to spot something that's already been covered.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Why is it baffling? She told him when he wouldn't shake that she wouldn't bite.

BTW, what thread was this covered in so I can review the comments? The rules on this forum for starting new threads are a little baffling for a newbie like me. Don't mean to intrude on established traditions, but........when topics get hundreds of posts that go in many side directions, it can be hard to spot something that's already been covered.
Click to expand...
It was covered in this thread, the one it was merged with. Not a slap on the hand or anything, just sort of a general preference. I do agree that it can be easy to miss something and try to merge like topics together, but again no malice or scolding intended, just trying to give a heads up for why.

We don't have a formal set of rules about this stuff, just an approach from discussions among the initial users who moved here, where we sort of largely (but far from unanimously) agreed to the general approach of trying to keep like topics in a single thread rather than have multiple threads with parallel discussions on the same thing.

But as more folks join, I agree it can be hard to find stuff in the omnibus threads -- I try to update the topics to give hints when new stories emerge, but can't be here all the time etc., so a bit ad hoc for sure.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Why is it baffling? She told him when he wouldn't shake that she wouldn't bite.

BTW, what thread was this covered in so I can review the comments? The rules on this forum for starting new threads are a little baffling for a newbie like me. Don't mean to intrude on established traditions, but........when topics get hundreds of posts that go in many side directions, it can be hard to spot something that's already been covered.
Click to expand...
PS, thanks for the explainer on the bite remark!
 
Why does this whole "shake gate" even matter? I recall when Trump visited the Royal Palace, Princess Anne pointedly refused to shake the President's hand and the left cheered her on! Many proclaimed the Princess was now their favorite Royal.
 
Ramrouser said:
Why does this whole "shake gate" even matter? I recall when Trump visited the Royal Palace, Princess Anne pointedly refused to shake the President's hand and the left cheered her on! Many proclaimed the Princess was now their favorite Royal.
Click to expand...
It is low class, and worthy if general rebuke, but in the grand scheme it doesn't matter otherwise. There are no expectations for basic decency or much of anything anymore.
 
Generally speaking, I agree that refusing to look someone in the eyes and shake their hand is rude and low class. Decency standards have fallen in recent years.
 
Ramrouser said:
Why does this whole "shake gate" even matter? I recall when Trump visited the Royal Palace, Princess Anne pointedly refused to shake the President's hand and the left cheered her on! Many proclaimed the Princess was now their favorite Royal.
Click to expand...
Well I was intent to ignore it since it happens as in your example. But I couldn't help but wonder what he has against her. So I did some digging and unearthed that he, as part of a select group of 136 folks has perhaps been fleecing the Federal Government for the last 50 years or so. Even further then that if you back to his prior relatives. So just guessing, I'd speculate he's holding her to a higher standard then for himself. So I would have said........"bite me."
 
StrangePackage said:
That's that passive voice again. Standards didn't fall on their own, and I think you understand that despite how hard you pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
I don't view the decline in standards in a political light. It's a much broader issue than just politics or certain politicians.
 
HeelingAg said:
When were standards the best?
Click to expand...
Ahh, the standard trap for conservatives. You want me to pick a time in the past, say the 1940s-1950s, so you can reply "well, it wasn't so great for black people and women."

I don't know when our standards were the "best." Let's just say our society's personal standards (the way we treat each other, interact, converse, dress, eat) have declined in the last 20 years. That's not to say everything in society has declined: some things have improved and others are simply different.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ahh, the standard trap for conservatives. You want me to pick a time in the past, say the 1940s-1950s, so you can reply "well, it wasn't so great for black people and women."

I don't know when our standards were the "best." Let's just say our society's personal standards (the way we treat each other, interact, converse, dress, eat) have declined in the last 20 years. That's not to say everything in society has declined: some things have improved and others are simply different.
Click to expand...
Mostly because you're not used to "them" talking back.

Btw, you forgot about the poor, working class, the Jews, the Hispanic, and the Catholic or do you not remember the discussion about JFK being controlled by the Pope. Yeah, your bubble was burst.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ahh, the standard trap for conservatives. You want me to pick a time in the past, say the 1940s-1950s, so you can reply "well, it wasn't so great for black people and women."

I don't know when our standards were the "best." Let's just say our society's personal standards (the way we treat each other, interact, converse, dress, eat) have declined in the last 20 years. That's not to say everything in society has declined: some things have improved and others are simply different.
Click to expand...
1. You’re not unreasonable to suspect a trap, bc I’m not exactly shy about having little respect for what I see as your consistently poorly supported political positions. So, fair.

2. One cannot expect to clearly understand someone else’s perspective on a subjective and inherently relative topic, eg social standards over time, without a comparison point. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top