Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectYou are the one ignoring context. Can you not see that?
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13306367&mesg_id=13312126
13312126, You are the one ignoring context. Can you not see that?
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Feb-06-19 01:12 PM
>when numerous people here said "Bannon likes her? Oh hell no,
>I'm done."

Again, its the WHY he liked her.


>
>That ain't nuanced my guy.
>
>>its not just that bannon said tulsis name. he said her name
>>because he actually supports her (she was up for a position
>in
>>the trump administration).


Again, its that they wanted to talk to HER. Its the common ground they had with her.


>
>What are you basing that on? The fact that they she met with
>Trump to discuss foreign policy? I feel like I'm having '08
>flashbacks when the right was lambasting Obama for saying he'd
>speak with enemies and/or perceived enemies to have a
>dialogue. Tulsi meeting with Trump to persuade him to not go
>to war with Iran/Syria does not mean that she was up for a
>cabinet position.
>
>>i dont know if youre being intentionally elusive here or if
>>you really think things can be reduced down to 'he said both
>>of their names'.
>
>I just want people to be consistent in their outrage.

You know you have become the most inconsistent person now, though, right? You're all over the map trying to defend her.


Bannon
>agrees with nothing about Tulsi's progressive platform except
>perhaps non-interventionist foreign policy and her view that
>refugees should be vetted (which I disagree with because
>refugees are already vetted w/ extensive thoroughness).

BOOM a touch of truth. I'm like a proud dad right now.

Right. Her "America First" -sounding rhetoric appeals to him. Her rhetoric on refugees, Mulsims, etc appeals to him.

See the difference?


>
>Not sure what people are asking here. Since David Duke is
>against intervention in Syria to help Israel - should Tulsi
>adopt the opposite view of him to appease the critics? What
>if Bannon says: "I like her environmental policy" - should she
>then say "oh we can't have that! let's change our
>environmental policy."

What if...we talked about what they actually like about her, rather than hypothetical situations?

For instance, what if we question what white supremacists/white nationalists see in her actual views...to the point of praising those views and endorsing her?

And what if...Tulsi fans such as yourself could say..."I like her, but I can see why progressives would be turned off by her rhetoric on Muslims, refugees, Syria, Putin, etc"?


>
>This is a silly game of holding people guilty by association -
>but in this sense it's not even association because she's
>outright rebuking their support (just like AOC is).
>
>We're better than these cheap attacks and smears.
>
>-->

They aren't cheap attacks and they aren't smears.


They are things that happened, things she said, views she holds, people who have endorsed her, and people she follows on Twitter.


Discussing them does not = smears.