"Politico reported this week that Elise Stefanik is among the final eight candidates under consideration to be Donald Trump's vice president."
The final eight candidates or the final eight contestants? This reminds me of the days when Trump ran the Miss Universe pageant, which included Miss USA and Miss Teen USA. Get ready for your interview questions, final contestants.
Wonder if this is how we get rid of her finally. Everyone in Trump's inner circle has a shelf life, Elise included. It's generally a few years, but the closer one gets, the shorter it is. I too recall the 2016 idea of less partisanship and thought she might actually mean it. Fool me once.
The Stefanik quote is a good example to show that Stefanik has not changed one whit. In the quote you present she began with an ad hominem attack “unlike you,” presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed, “I want to work across the aisle…” She couched her supposed desire to end negative partisan attacks in a negative partisan attack. She hasn’t changed. She was never a bipartisan in actual fact. It was all a performance, and she was always negative.
Charles Evans Hughes vs Merrick Garland. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Senator McConnell purported that it was unprecedented to seat a SCOTUS justice during a presidential election year. I’m sure Stefanik repeated that sort of messaging. Historical fact, Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Supreme Court in the summer of 1916, just about this time of year, and was replaced on the court within about a month. But wait, there’s more! The reason Hughes left the Supreme Court was to be the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States. Strange that Republican McConnell should have overlooked that precedent.
The Republican rejection of the Garland nomination plainly showed that Republican leadership had rejected the foundational principles of this nation and instead embraced the idea of rule through power alone.
Obama nominated Garland precisely because he was seen as a consensus candidate that Republicans could embrace but that wasn’t good enough for them. Their hearts were full of a lust for raw power. Ironic that in their quest for a unitary executive they stymied the basic power of President Obama to nominate a qualified justice of his choice and have that justice seated.
Before Trump was even elected the seeds of January 6 were planted. Republicans had taken a step right up to the line of insurrection and there was no restraint in their caucus, no voices that gave pause to their intent to upend long precedent.
It is not just Trump who is a danger to our republic, it is the entire Republican Party as constituted today. Mitch McConnell proved that in 2016.
Mike, here comes what you refer to as nit-picking. “You write In the quote you present she began with an ad hominem attack “unlike you,” presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed,”
A debate is between two or people taking opposing views on a given concept. In Ad hominem, the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
In her statement "Unlike you, I want to actually work across the aisle to fix these programs," Stefanik responded. "This is what's wrong with Washington. This is what people are tired of is the negative partisan attacks and I hope to work across the aisle to solve these issues." Elise Is compering herself to Aaron Woof in an attempting to take the moral high ground. Without knowing the substance of the argument, it may be just two candidates trading barbs.
Ken, I am not arguing against any point within your column. My argument is, Mike’s interpretation of the “ad hominem fallacy” is not correct, based in part on Mike’s words of “presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed”
Let us say you and I were discussing the reason for the decline of printed newspapers. You present the argument that the decline in newspapers is due to newspapers being unable to generate revenue because of the World Wide Web. To which I reply, no its due to the biases of the newspapers, I would explain it to you but, you're too ignorant to understand. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when I say “your too ignorant to understand.” I am attacking you and your lack of knowledge, not your agreement.
I believe she is what she always was, it grew from a seed that no one saw.
The following link is the full debate of 2014 that your clip came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaprhwdoy_w&t=2006s . In 2014 when I watch the debate, I posted my observations to the Post-Star web site. If have the time watch the link, and should you feel like writing let me know what you see and hear or what you do not hear.
No, I don’t think you’re nitpicking which would indicate you found some petty veracity which is meaningless in the scheme of the greater discussion to latch hold of.
In this case it seems as if you are simply ignorant of the difference between an academic debate and a political debate. If you are sincerely ignorant I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of nitpicking.
Allow me to explain the difference. In an academic debate participants argue opposing sides of a question.
The purpose of a political debate is different, intended to enlighten an audience to the principles, platform, and character of the contestants to a particular office. There is no necessity to disagree on any point, and often candidates agree in general on many issues but may wish to differentiate their position even in agreement.
Stefanik’s ad hominem attack was precisely on the character and motive of Aaron Wolf. It was her purpose to paint him falsely as a person who had no interest in working across the aisle, intended to engage in negative partisan attacks, and was not interested in solving issues. In actual fact, Aaron Wolf exhibited the opposite in his candidacy.
Stefanik has always known the right thing to say to get the votes that she wants. I think the quote is indicative of nothing more than that whether it was in the past or now in the present. What stands out in my mind is the the difference in her message also indicates the change in the Republican party in such a short time period. I still don't believe she will be chosen as VP running mate but you can be sure he will put her some place close to him to reward her loyalty. That will get her out of NY. Her replacement will follow the playbook as they all do now. Let's hope we don't have to deal with any of that because it would be the least of our problems if trump wins.
As for Stefanik....I want her gone... I would celebrate!
However Stec is even worse because I don't believe he's as smart as Stefanik and he's DEFINITELY one of the good old boys who wants nothing to change here. He's her puppy dog. Ugh . Had it with fake *patriots*.
I’d like to think all of the Republicans so upset about Hunter Biden lying to get a handgun while addicted would be equally distraught over the placing of Ronny Jackson on House Intelligence. He ran a pill mill out of the WH and seems to have some serious substance abuse problems. To the extent that the Navy saw fit to demote him anyway.
Of course, Scott Perry is just a garden variety seditionist and conspiracy theorist. He was out pushing the Italian satellite nonsense that I’m sure made sense in some circles.
These are people you want handling classified intelligence. The things Republicans will do for Orange Jesus. 🫤
The 14 of us shared "OUR" not "are"
Prolly a felonious autocorrect!
That is certainly a possibility.
"Politico reported this week that Elise Stefanik is among the final eight candidates under consideration to be Donald Trump's vice president."
The final eight candidates or the final eight contestants? This reminds me of the days when Trump ran the Miss Universe pageant, which included Miss USA and Miss Teen USA. Get ready for your interview questions, final contestants.
I hope he doesn't have a bathing suit competition.
Wonder if this is how we get rid of her finally. Everyone in Trump's inner circle has a shelf life, Elise included. It's generally a few years, but the closer one gets, the shorter it is. I too recall the 2016 idea of less partisanship and thought she might actually mean it. Fool me once.
The bigger concern is do we get someone even worse. It seems possible.
If it's Stec it doesn't get much worse!
The Stefanik quote is a good example to show that Stefanik has not changed one whit. In the quote you present she began with an ad hominem attack “unlike you,” presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed, “I want to work across the aisle…” She couched her supposed desire to end negative partisan attacks in a negative partisan attack. She hasn’t changed. She was never a bipartisan in actual fact. It was all a performance, and she was always negative.
Charles Evans Hughes vs Merrick Garland. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Senator McConnell purported that it was unprecedented to seat a SCOTUS justice during a presidential election year. I’m sure Stefanik repeated that sort of messaging. Historical fact, Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Supreme Court in the summer of 1916, just about this time of year, and was replaced on the court within about a month. But wait, there’s more! The reason Hughes left the Supreme Court was to be the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States. Strange that Republican McConnell should have overlooked that precedent.
Oftentimes, accusations are confessions.
The Republican rejection of the Garland nomination plainly showed that Republican leadership had rejected the foundational principles of this nation and instead embraced the idea of rule through power alone.
Obama nominated Garland precisely because he was seen as a consensus candidate that Republicans could embrace but that wasn’t good enough for them. Their hearts were full of a lust for raw power. Ironic that in their quest for a unitary executive they stymied the basic power of President Obama to nominate a qualified justice of his choice and have that justice seated.
Before Trump was even elected the seeds of January 6 were planted. Republicans had taken a step right up to the line of insurrection and there was no restraint in their caucus, no voices that gave pause to their intent to upend long precedent.
It is not just Trump who is a danger to our republic, it is the entire Republican Party as constituted today. Mitch McConnell proved that in 2016.
Mike, here comes what you refer to as nit-picking. “You write In the quote you present she began with an ad hominem attack “unlike you,” presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed,”
A debate is between two or people taking opposing views on a given concept. In Ad hominem, the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
In her statement "Unlike you, I want to actually work across the aisle to fix these programs," Stefanik responded. "This is what's wrong with Washington. This is what people are tired of is the negative partisan attacks and I hope to work across the aisle to solve these issues." Elise Is compering herself to Aaron Woof in an attempting to take the moral high ground. Without knowing the substance of the argument, it may be just two candidates trading barbs.
Dont forget the point of the column was that Stefanic has become what she said she despised. thats what we all need to remember.
Ken, I am not arguing against any point within your column. My argument is, Mike’s interpretation of the “ad hominem fallacy” is not correct, based in part on Mike’s words of “presenting it as a concept Wolf opposed”
Let us say you and I were discussing the reason for the decline of printed newspapers. You present the argument that the decline in newspapers is due to newspapers being unable to generate revenue because of the World Wide Web. To which I reply, no its due to the biases of the newspapers, I would explain it to you but, you're too ignorant to understand. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when I say “your too ignorant to understand.” I am attacking you and your lack of knowledge, not your agreement.
I believe she is what she always was, it grew from a seed that no one saw.
The following link is the full debate of 2014 that your clip came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaprhwdoy_w&t=2006s . In 2014 when I watch the debate, I posted my observations to the Post-Star web site. If have the time watch the link, and should you feel like writing let me know what you see and hear or what you do not hear.
No, I don’t think you’re nitpicking which would indicate you found some petty veracity which is meaningless in the scheme of the greater discussion to latch hold of.
In this case it seems as if you are simply ignorant of the difference between an academic debate and a political debate. If you are sincerely ignorant I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of nitpicking.
Allow me to explain the difference. In an academic debate participants argue opposing sides of a question.
The purpose of a political debate is different, intended to enlighten an audience to the principles, platform, and character of the contestants to a particular office. There is no necessity to disagree on any point, and often candidates agree in general on many issues but may wish to differentiate their position even in agreement.
Stefanik’s ad hominem attack was precisely on the character and motive of Aaron Wolf. It was her purpose to paint him falsely as a person who had no interest in working across the aisle, intended to engage in negative partisan attacks, and was not interested in solving issues. In actual fact, Aaron Wolf exhibited the opposite in his candidacy.
I hope that clears a few things up for you.
Stefanik has always known the right thing to say to get the votes that she wants. I think the quote is indicative of nothing more than that whether it was in the past or now in the present. What stands out in my mind is the the difference in her message also indicates the change in the Republican party in such a short time period. I still don't believe she will be chosen as VP running mate but you can be sure he will put her some place close to him to reward her loyalty. That will get her out of NY. Her replacement will follow the playbook as they all do now. Let's hope we don't have to deal with any of that because it would be the least of our problems if trump wins.
Elise Stefanik, Kevin McCarthy, Kash Patel and others met with Trump on the Oval office on Jan. 4th.
I'm sure it was not to discuss the weather.
Wonder what they discussed?
I had not heard about that meeting before.
They will keep trying. Until we stop them; root them out. They are on far too deep.
“We are living in a universe really of willing slaves, which makes the concept of liberty and the concept of freedom so dangerous.” - James Baldwin
I'm going to do this tour! Looks like fun .
As for Stefanik....I want her gone... I would celebrate!
However Stec is even worse because I don't believe he's as smart as Stefanik and he's DEFINITELY one of the good old boys who wants nothing to change here. He's her puppy dog. Ugh . Had it with fake *patriots*.
I’d like to think all of the Republicans so upset about Hunter Biden lying to get a handgun while addicted would be equally distraught over the placing of Ronny Jackson on House Intelligence. He ran a pill mill out of the WH and seems to have some serious substance abuse problems. To the extent that the Navy saw fit to demote him anyway.
Of course, Scott Perry is just a garden variety seditionist and conspiracy theorist. He was out pushing the Italian satellite nonsense that I’m sure made sense in some circles.
These are people you want handling classified intelligence. The things Republicans will do for Orange Jesus. 🫤
Attendance at Saratoga on Friday was in excess of 27,000, FYI.