Although, I would point out that we don't KNOW it's an incorrect conclusion because A> we weren't there and Paula's judgement would be biased and 2> Paula never responded to your clarification request in comment #81...

:D

Michale

Fair enough...

Michale

you're right that to mimic or to mock usually mean making fun of someone, but paula already said that the tone of the woman's imitation was to clarify what she meant, not to make fun.

you're correct that political hypocrisy exists on all sides; you just happened to jump to the (logically sound but) incorrect conclusion about one particular woman, based on paula's choice of words.

JL

With all due respect to Dr Leonard McCoy, another word for "mimicing" is "mocking"...

And when you are mocking someone, you are making fun of them...

As I said above (TWICE :D ) it's a small point.

But it does illustrate the biggest problem that the Left Wingery has...

Hypocrisy... This DO-AS-I-SAY-NOT-AS-I-DO, HOLIER-THAN-THOU attitude...

It really bugs me..

The Left condemns religious people for their hypocrisy of their religion vis a vis treatment of gay peope.. And rightly so...

But maybe the Left needs to take a look in the mirror as well...

That's all I am saying...

Michale

@paula,

that's a bit ambiguous. did she mimic him to demonstrate his anti-disabled comment, then afterward make a disgusted expression? that's what it sounds like you're saying. it could also be read to mean that the faces she was making were mimicking. i had a feeling you meant the former, but i can understand how someone would read the latter.

JL

:D

I still say that saying something like that is inherently contradictory... :D

Your mileage may vary....

Michale

"Let's agree to disagree"
-Boris The Animal, MEN IN BLACK 3

:D

Michale

It's different. :D

In the case of the Zimmerman shooting, the cause for the action was what differentiated the action between shooting someone and murdering someone. In that case, the cause for the shooting was preserving one's life.

In the case of this old lady, there was no cause to mimic/mock Trump... If, as she claims, it's wrong to make fun of someone, then it's wrong to make fun of someone. Period.. She refutes her own case by turning around and taking the EXACT same action that she condemns Trump for..

It would be as if I said to someone, "You know, you really shouldn't call people names. It's not nice, you frakin' idiot moron.."

Doesn't the latter kinda refute the former??

Having said that, yes I would agree that there is a DEGREE difference between making fun of someone because you hate them and making fun of someone because of a disability..

But ONLY a difference in degree... It's not a COMPLETE difference..

Michale

No, not IMITATING Trump's mannerisms..

MIMICKING Trump's mannerisms.. MOCKING Trump's mannerisms...

And, from the description Paula gave, that is what this lady was doing..

As I said to Paula, it's small point that simply illustrates the small-mindedness of those who claim to be above that sort of thing...

It's like when the Left Wingery complains that Trump calls people names then turns around and calls Trump names...

It's like when the Left Wingery complains about the violence of Trump supporters then remains silent when Left Wingery supporters tear up a state convention and issue death threats..

If one complains about something, one better not get caught DOING the exact same thing..

Wouldn't you agree???

Michale

You said she was mimicking Trump...

But it's a small point..

I just used it to point out the small-minded-ness of those who have a holier than thou attitude..

Michale

She was "making a face" like people make faces when they bite into something bitter or smell something nasty -- she was reacting.

Sorry, Michale, but I am calling you on this one. You cannot say that there is no difference in the two situations simply because the action committed was the same. You want to us to believe that you see no difference in mocking a person for having a physical handicap and a person imitating Trumps' mannerisms.

Yet, you are able to differentiate shooting and murdering someone from shooting someone in self-defense, despite the action committed being the same. You and I agree that George Zimmerman did not deserve to be sent to prison for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because it was Zimmerman defending his own life. But following your logic regarding making fun of someone, you should be arguing that Zimmerman deserves to be in prison.

no, as far as i know he has no disability, physical or mental. there are many people of average intelligence in the world; it's nothing to be ashamed of.

That raises a good point...We DON'T KNOW if Trump or Clinton or Sanders has any physical or mental disability that should preclude them holding the office of the Presidency. Our police officers face a far more stringent vetting process to determine if they deserve the opportunity to attempt to become a police officer by attending the police academy. They will have every aspect of their lives investigated, they must pass thorough psychiatric and psychological exams, and lastly they must be able to pass a polygraph exam that focuses on their honesty and motivation for wanting to hold that position of authority.

If we are so careful and thorough in vetting those who wish to serve and protect our communities, why would we do any less when it comes to those seeking the most powerful position in the world?

Making fun of someone is making fun of someone.. It doesn't matter if it's a disabled person or no...

no, mocking someone for their disability is worse. but what's more relevant is whether the person being mocked is the victim or the perp.

if alan punches bob in the face, and then cameron punches alan in the face to protect bob, alan punching bob was aggression, while cameron punching alan was defense. one is an unprovoked injustice, the other is a proportionate response to said injustice. if we couldn't make that distinction then there'd be no difference between the cops and the perps, between israel and the PA.

Besides, according to ya'all Donald Trump is mentally disabled, right??

no, as far as i know he has no disability, physical or mental. there are many people of average intelligence in the world; it's nothing to be ashamed of.

JL

irrespective of which individual is imitating or being imitated, making fun of the disabled and deriding someone for making fun of the disabled are two different things. i guess that's not the way it reads to you,

Making fun of someone is making fun of someone.. It doesn't matter if it's a disabled person or no...

Besides, according to ya'all Donald Trump is mentally disabled, right??

So, that lady was making fun of a, in ya'all's opinion, a disabled person...

Of course, ya'all could just admit what is blatantly obvious..

It's TRUMP... So it's OK to make fun of him... :D

but we can ask paula about the tone of the encounter.

The tone is not relevant...

Liz,

Well, Michale, we'll see who makes fun of him when he is president.

Yes, we will indeed...

And I am sure the people making fun of him will be the EXACT same people that whined and cried when people made fun of Hussein Obama... :D

Michale

irrespective of which individual is imitating or being imitated, making fun of the disabled and deriding someone for making fun of the disabled are two different things. i guess that's not the way it reads to you, but we can ask paula about the tone of the encounter.

JL

And no one finds this the least bit hypocritical?? :D

Oh of course.. It's Trump...

So that makes it OK.... :D

Gotcha

Michale

Interesting...

This lady slammed Trump for making fun of someone and then turned around and made fun of someone....

And no one finds this the least bit hypocritical?? :D

Michale

Very well done..

Michale

But this time around she got 250,000 LESS votes than she did in 2008...

Things don't bode well for Hillary...

Michale

-CW

:-)

-CW

-CW

-CW

-CW

Bernie with a commanding lead, so far.

-CW

less than 1%...

-CW

-CW

Good point, my predictions are strictly based off of my gut.

So while Eugene is a college town it is also in the more rural conservative belt, so I kind of have a feeling that it could go for HRC. If one follows the trend lines from states that have liberal mail in balloting rules they have tended to break towards HRC. Since Oregon has gone "Full Monty" I am not sure that the trend lines would apply.

Then again my judgement could be clouded by the the consumption of multiple refreshing Anchor Steam California Lagers (it is warm enough in our neck of the woods to make it a beer that sneaks up on you...).

Eugene's a big university town, I bet it goes for Bernie. Hillary might pick up a bunch of eastern counties, though.

-CW

Maybe it was named during the height of the whiskey rebellion to signal "nothing here" move along.

I'm just sayin'...

:-)

-CW

OR results in a half-hour...

-CW

-CW

On to Oregon!

-CW

With Louisville stubbornly stuck at 78% one has to wonder if some sort of ballot counting drama is unfolding...ala New York.

Still, 95% in and Bernie's still up...

-CW

I'd like to sincerely apologize for hijacking your comment thread. I had no idea this one was going to be this exciting!

Mea culpa!

:-)

-CW

-CW

[28]neilm: thanks!

Good point. Or a recount, even.

-CW

Still only 78% in from Louisville, though...

-CW

I think how that one breaks is how the state breaks. but eve then i still think that we will have to wait for the absentee ballots for a definitive winner.

:-)

-CW

-CW

If things don't change soon, it's looking like she might have squeaked this one out.

-CW

Bernie's got a heavy lift to catch up, at this point. Still lots of Louisville votes to come in...

-CW

78% of Louisville precincts in, but only 8% of Lexington. Watch for those late-breaking urban returns...

-CW

-CW

WashPost has graphic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-primaries/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_0517-us-dems-table%3Aelections-2016%2Fstate-single

15,800 votes for "uncommitted" -- maybe KY has other issues/people on the ballot, and these are voters who didn't vote for either candidate? Or write-ins? I dunno.

-CW

-CW

But not by much...

-CW

This has got to be the closest race of the whole season, so far... 260,000 votes for both of them, and they're only 3 apart!

-CW

Up by 300 votes. This one's shaping up to be a nail-biter!

-CW

Good point. I just noticed Lexington has only reported 10%. Hillary might have a late-breaking edge in the urban vote. We'll see...

-CW

I guess the question to ask is will the major urban centers have enough population to overcome the rural areas...

Chicago all over again?

-CW

-CW

goode trickle [11] -

"I kid! I kid!"
-Triumph

Got a YUUUUGE laugh out of that nickname, there. Heh.

:-)

-CW

I hope you have some great closing thoughts in part 2.

On to the race...It looks like a real nail biter, at 36% Clinton pulls back into the lead.

Just for recreational schadenfreude, i think i have a winner for nicknames, "trumpf the insult politics dog"...

-CW

-CW

This one could go back and forth all night, folks!

-CW

-CW

However, a technical note of caution:

I think eastern KY polls closed an hour before western KY. So if Bernie's center of support is in the east, he's going to have to rack up a BIG lead, since the west will be trailing in the counting all night long by an hour.

Just a thought... remember Illinois, when late votes came in from Chicago...

-CW

-CW

-CW

OK, sorry for the massive delay, but I've approved several new commenters on Friday's article (most with Trump name suggestions).

I'll be commenting here on tonight's KY and OR returns, just FYI

Going back now to answer comments from the last several days, again, sorry for the delay.

Also: THANKS again to Paula for all the hard work!

:-)

-CW