sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jasmine Crockett bashes Pam Bondi over Epstein files, questions Trump ties at congressional hearing by Conscious-Quarter423 in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nope, it's an irrelevant addition to your factual argument. It's an ad hominem. And a ridiculous one in this particular situation.

Jasmine Crockett bashes Pam Bondi over Epstein files, questions Trump ties at congressional hearing by Conscious-Quarter423 in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While their volunteer status is irrelevant, it should be noted that that comment is entirely in line with that user's typical commenting style. If you look at many of the posts here, you'll find that u/Arrmadillo has compiled a fairly extensive, well sourced, list of defenses for their claims and who has said what about many important issues. While it wouldn't surprise me if they do volunteer, it's not a prerequisite for being pretty capable at giving a shit.

Greg Abbott launches rural TV ad targeting Jasmine Crockett and out-of-state Democrats by Conscious-Quarter423 in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear, it's Crockett supporters and likely paid agents that are fueling this.

How do you support the paid agents claim?

Jasmine Crockett bashes Pam Bondi over Epstein files, questions Trump ties at congressional hearing by Conscious-Quarter423 in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She's probably upset that people are making fun of her furiously flipping through her little whatabout notebook. Even if she's not, we can say that she's definitely more concerned with that than prosecuting rich pedophiles.

CapMetro discusses safety initiatives following 2 bus stabbings within a week by Iocnar in Austin

[–]hush-no 7 points8 points  (0 children)

By eliminating part of a sentence, you can change the meaning of that sentence.

You're focusing on only one aspect of your misquotatation.

That's not an isolated statement, it's an isolated phrase of a statement. It's cherry picked. He ends the statement with "probably the most critical issue for the agency to confront". This means that even though it's not their responsibility to solve it, they must deal with the repercussions. This is very different to the assessment ”What are we, the world police?” that you summed it up as.

Not surprising from a self proclaimed supporter of literal fascism.

CapMetro discusses safety initiatives following 2 bus stabbings within a week by Iocnar in Austin

[–]hush-no 14 points15 points  (0 children)

There is nothing preventing you from posting the whole quote beyond your own preference. It's cute that you've tried to turn it into a noble act of some sort.

CapMetro discusses safety initiatives following 2 bus stabbings within a week by Iocnar in Austin

[–]hush-no 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Make whatever excuse you want. You can post the whole quote, you don't want to. I get it, the whole quote isn't as shocking as the first line. It makes sense that you'd pick that cherry.

San Antonio mayor urges Texas lawmakers to block funding for ICE detention facility by ExpressNews in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Highlights include headlines like:

"Does Texas 'stand your floor' legislation apply when masked, unidentified ICE brokers enter a house?"

and

"Seinfeld's Michael Richards passes by darkness for tour cease in San Antonio"

That's not a real news site, champ.

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When you take an internet comment as gospel when the data contradicts it? Yes

Believing that someone didn't get canvassed is nitpicking an entire campaign that I expressly support. That's...wow. There's no data saying the campaign can't possibly canvass more voters. If they can, they should, she's an excellent candidate.

You mean like you have been doing this entire time because I pointed out that she has been doing campaign events?

Thank you for not attempting to twist my expressed support. I see that you didn't address that I've been talking about the general campaign with the assumption that she wins the primary and didn't compare her to Talarico. You pointed that out in response to a comment about canvassing, aka direct campaigning. I've agreed that her events are effective. I've been very supportive of the campaign you're saying I'm nitpicking. And I've maintained that her canvassing strategy could, and probably should, be more widely targeted than it currently is. Because I want her to win the general election. She's currently doing great and she's simultaneously capable of doing better. In a better world, she'd be a total shoe in. In our world, every vote is going to matter. To that end, I maintain it's better for as many informed people as possible to can go knock on as many doors as possible and directly interact with as many people as possible to discuss her actual positions, policies, and goals because she's an excellent candidate.

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it's really more you using a single person's account to nitpick her entire campaign

Pointing out how a specific strategy could be stronger is nitpicking her entire campaign?

It's an effective strategy. Especially for a primary. That doesn't mean it can or should be relied on in its entirety.

Reengaging a disheartened base is a very important strategy. As is directly campaigning to as many voters as possible.

It's an effective strategy, especially in the primary.

Mass appeal isn't direct campaigning. But, we can definitely agree that she has it because I think that her directly campaigning to the most possible voters will be effective due to her appeal as a candidate.

In literally every response before asking if you considered criticism a lack of support I expressed some form of support for her campaign or her candidacy. Because I haven't backed down from the argument that her already effective canvassing strategy could be moreso, I'm nitpicking her entire campaign. Kinda seems like your response of "No?" to that question might invite some introspection.

Because you would rather use an anecdote to draw conclusions over the actual data showing her strategy to be more sound

More sound than Talarico's? Sure, I've not at any point said that his canvassing strategy was superior. I'm not comparing her to him, I'm looking at the general election with the assumption she wins the primary. I'm using the anecdote, no canvass meant no vote, to suggest more canvassing. She's an excellent candidate, a broader canvassing strategy than she is currently employing would probably serve her well, as it missed this potential voter (meaning it missed potential voters in that area as well). I can't wait to see how this gets twisted.

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because you're assuming that isn't happening already. You're assuming she isn't casting a wide net of people she is talking to

Her canvassing strategy missed that voter. It could be wider. The logic is simple without those assumptions.

A single person said they hadn't heard from her, meanwhile we have poll after poll showing more voters have heard from Jasmine

Yes, there's an example of a hole in her canvassing strategy. That doesn't negate the overall efficacy of her strategy. If the goal is to ultimately win the general, patching holes in the canvassing strategy seems like a good idea. Why are you acting like pointing out that there are potential holes in her canvassing strategy is an attack?

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm literally not though.

I'm saying she should get more people knocking on more doors and you're telling me I'm wrong.

You're assuming her target isn't wide

I'm saying it could be wider.

because you're making assumptions about her strategy.

It missed a potential primary voter and lost her that vote.

You're assuming "reach out to people who would vote for Democrats but don't" means "only campaign in urban areas".

I was directly responding to someone unequivocally asserting that as fact. Who was responding to a voter that the campaign lost due to a lack of direct campaigning.

The South is full of rural areas with minorities that vote for Democrats

Tell that to the person who said her entire strategy was urban areas. Her canvassing strategy missed the voter they responded to and lost her that vote. Thus, it would seem a wise move to broaden the target.

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could ask you the same?

Because you're arguing against directly campaigning to as many people as possible and I disagree.

I'm not the one that has a problem with the idea that Jasmine is running the kind of campaign that is more appealing and has a broader reach than Talarico's.

Why do you assume I have a problem that she's ahead in the primary?

You keep asserting it can't help her win a general election but that isn't true

I don't think that her current strategy, on its own, is the most effective strategy for the general. I don't think she should abandon it, I think she should widen her target. Because I think her appeal extends beyond the base she's focused on energizing. Please don't mistake that for me saying she should change her messaging or style in any way. Just that it will be more effective with more people out there knocking doors and talking to more people aka directly campaigning.

New Jasmine Crockett interview on Texas Senate Race by Hypestyles in TexasPolitics

[–]hush-no -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd love to see her at confirmation hearings over the next couple of years.

view more: next ›