Hi, Sue - I am puzzled about how to comment. Lately, before I die, I am trying to be a Christian in reality, which means loving everyone, despite their point of view. I'm 75, so I guess there's not much time and I've spent a lot of years in pain during the Trump years and my other three siblings are all strong Republicans. I read the …
Hi, Sue - I am puzzled about how to comment. Lately, before I die, I am trying to be a Christian in reality, which means loving everyone, despite their point of view. I'm 75, so I guess there's not much time and I've spent a lot of years in pain during the Trump years and my other three siblings are all strong Republicans. I read the Bulwark because it often presents a different way of thinking - not that I always agree. I can't die hating people. I just won't do it.
If you got something from reading it, then it probably means you're more naturally generous than I am. I don't feel I've been exposed to any great new perspective by reading that edition of Morning Shots.
First, the jumping off point for the aside about policing was a tweet from some unknown woman - why exactly is that worthy of a page on policing? Yes, progressives can jump to conclusions due to bias, as human beings do. But I question the sensitivity of the writer for bringing that up right after a racially motivated mass murder. There's a time and a place for everything - and one tweet by "Old Woman Seeking Justice" doesn't make it a good time to talk about it.
Second, did we really need a whole section on a story that has been debunked on links to Ukraine? Why do I need to read tabloid stories here? BTW, the reference to Azov? It's been the right, not the left, that has been talking about that for months now as a reason not support the Ukrainians - see Matt Gaetz. But because this one time, it's a leftist pushing similar stories, it gets repeated here. We should be trying to cut traffic to the twitter feeds of people that just want to sow dissent. They want these stories to be heard and they need to the clicks on their sites.
I don't think either of these stories helped me at all. All it did was make me disappointed.
You are very astute and more thoughtful than I am. And certainly more capable of writing coherently about it. I agree with much of your criticism. However, I am still here on a conservative site to gain some understanding of the viewpoint, not necessarily agreeing with it.
I actually very much enjoy reading their critiques of the Democratic party - as an example, I think Tim Miller's piece on how much Schumer is failing on the abortion issue out of the gate was fair. Their critiques on the D's failure to pass meaningful laws to protect fair and free elections. Even their critiques of the term "defund the police". Because even when I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view. Even parts of this particular post have merit if it were a standalone post and not right after a brutal racially motivated mass murder. But even as a standalone post, you'd have to balance it out by noting the same kind of foolishness on the right - like claiming all BLM rallies are riots - or denying that the police ever murder people.
Once again, well said. I agree with you on the critiques of the Democratic party - we have to become better at legislating. I wonder if the age of the Congressional leaders is sabotaging us in some way?
Hi, Sue - I am puzzled about how to comment. Lately, before I die, I am trying to be a Christian in reality, which means loving everyone, despite their point of view. I'm 75, so I guess there's not much time and I've spent a lot of years in pain during the Trump years and my other three siblings are all strong Republicans. I read the Bulwark because it often presents a different way of thinking - not that I always agree. I can't die hating people. I just won't do it.
If you got something from reading it, then it probably means you're more naturally generous than I am. I don't feel I've been exposed to any great new perspective by reading that edition of Morning Shots.
First, the jumping off point for the aside about policing was a tweet from some unknown woman - why exactly is that worthy of a page on policing? Yes, progressives can jump to conclusions due to bias, as human beings do. But I question the sensitivity of the writer for bringing that up right after a racially motivated mass murder. There's a time and a place for everything - and one tweet by "Old Woman Seeking Justice" doesn't make it a good time to talk about it.
Second, did we really need a whole section on a story that has been debunked on links to Ukraine? Why do I need to read tabloid stories here? BTW, the reference to Azov? It's been the right, not the left, that has been talking about that for months now as a reason not support the Ukrainians - see Matt Gaetz. But because this one time, it's a leftist pushing similar stories, it gets repeated here. We should be trying to cut traffic to the twitter feeds of people that just want to sow dissent. They want these stories to be heard and they need to the clicks on their sites.
I don't think either of these stories helped me at all. All it did was make me disappointed.
You are very astute and more thoughtful than I am. And certainly more capable of writing coherently about it. I agree with much of your criticism. However, I am still here on a conservative site to gain some understanding of the viewpoint, not necessarily agreeing with it.
I actually very much enjoy reading their critiques of the Democratic party - as an example, I think Tim Miller's piece on how much Schumer is failing on the abortion issue out of the gate was fair. Their critiques on the D's failure to pass meaningful laws to protect fair and free elections. Even their critiques of the term "defund the police". Because even when I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view. Even parts of this particular post have merit if it were a standalone post and not right after a brutal racially motivated mass murder. But even as a standalone post, you'd have to balance it out by noting the same kind of foolishness on the right - like claiming all BLM rallies are riots - or denying that the police ever murder people.
Once again, well said. I agree with you on the critiques of the Democratic party - we have to become better at legislating. I wonder if the age of the Congressional leaders is sabotaging us in some way?