Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[hollodero]

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes she admitted she made a mistake in her wording; however, I'm not sure where you got that I concluded the left was "stupid" because of it. (Was that a blatant lie on your part?)

OK maybe you don't think that. Might be I mixed you up a little with some other guy taking your stance. I would call it a mistake in my wording. But, point taken. I backpadel on that one full steam.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Given I should have said restricted as opposed to banned, so perhaps he "extreme vetted"

Well, sure he restricted it alright. It's just plain wrong to say he banned movement when he did in no sense of the word ban movement. I would tell any left person the exact same thing in similar circumstances, this isn't a partisan stance. Nor is it a mere technicality to me. Words and differences do have meaning here.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course a "political opponent" would not have shut up about the hyperbole; however, they would not look at her comments with an open mind. An it begs the question: why are so many folks rushing to be a political opponent of an administration has been in office for about 1 week. 

I don't know. I know why I do. Because there are other possibilities than that Kellyanne just made a honest mistake. Because from another perspective it looks like part of a pattern of deliberate lies, and not only to flatter a vain president with petty alternative facts. But to agitate. Inventing a massacre to legitimize a move against certain let's say ethnicities looks like a - maybe failed, but still - state propaganda move. And that she added "it didn't get covered" as if an actual massacre was swept under the rug, simply implying that kind of media conspiracy (maybe she didn't do that), adds to the possible pattern I see. Which is an authoritarian one, which I consider threatening.

- Or she just blundered. I couldn't rule that out completely, I just highly doubt it. You might highly doubt the relevance of my take, too. But if you're open minded, I feel you have to admit that this take is not to be completely dismissed or marginalized as just a sleazy political attack. How people who actually honestly don't give a damn about the political opponent might reach the conclusion that there might be something more to it; how the threatening aspects I and others see, even if you do not agree, objectively are not a completely absurd take. That get less and less absurd by the day.

(02-03-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks making a deal out of what this lady said are just solidifying the point of the OP. She misspoke and then admitted she misspoke. 

I do have a hard time believing one would mistakenly use the word "massacre" for something that on no level resembles a massacre, in any case. But ok. If it were a singular incident I would be inclined to somehow agree. But it isn't.