Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
the United States.

In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
the Uyghurs.

Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"

The complete exchange was:

Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?

Suarez: The what?

Hewitt: The Uyghurs.

Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?

Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
to get smart on that.”

Later in the interview this exchange took place:

Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
- a weeble?

Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
mayor.

Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.

Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
only as a last name.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 1:30:47 PM UTC-4, TonyCooper wrote:

> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
> the United States.
>
> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
> the Uyghurs.
>
> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>
> The complete exchange was:
>
>
> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>
> Suarez: The what?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>
> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>
> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
> to get smart on that.”
>
> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>
> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
> - a weeble?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
> mayor.
>
> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>
> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
> only as a last name.

Hugh Hewitt, a radio host, used to be a T**** apologist, appearing regularly
on NBC's *Meet the Press* discussion panels. He has now fully crossed
over to rightwing nutcase (and has not been on MtP in a very long time)
and was most likely trying to embarrass Suarez. Suarez unfortunately doesn't
have the experience to disarm the questioner the way Dubya did when someone
tried something similar in the 2000 campaign by asking him to identify some
rather obscure world leaders. Was it his own idea, or is he following T****'s
orders?

Hewitt probably doesn't know what an Uyghur is, either.

(The authentic pronunciation isn't wee-gur, but ooey-gur -- the U is a vowel,
the y is a consonant, making one syllable together.)

Oh, and Suarez has eyebrows the caricaturists will love, if he gets that far.

On 29/06/23 03:30, TonyCooper wrote:

> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently
> announced that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for
> President of the United States.
>
> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
> the Uyghurs.
>
> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>
> The complete exchange was:
>
>
> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>
> Suarez: The what?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>
> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>
> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve
> got to get smart on that.”
>
> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>
> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it
> called - a weeble?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
> mayor.
>
> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>
> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
> only as a last name.

You remind me of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, who used to be the Premier of
Queensland. Joh had a reputation for running roughshod over laws and the
constitution. In one famous incident, someone had launched a legal
action to stop the demolition of a heritage-listed building. The night
before the court case, Joh ordered in the wrecking ball at midnight, and
the building was effectively gone by the time the court sat. In other
cases, he micro-managed the police for clearly political purposes.

Here's part of an interview of Joh.

'What do you understand by the doctrine of separation of powers under
the Westminster system?'

'The Westminster system? The stock?'

'The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system.'

'No, I don't quite know what you're driving at. The document?'

'No, I'll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of the
separation of powers under the Westminster system?'

'I don't know which doctrine you refer to.'

'There's only one doctrine of the separation of powers.'

'I believe in it very strongly, and despite what you may say, I believe
that we do have a great responsibility to the people who elect us to
government. And that's to maintain their freedom and their rights, and I
did that - sought to do it - always.'

The really silly part is that he was asked again, a week or so later,
about "separation of powers", and he still didn't understand the term.
It hadn't occurred to him to look it up after a major embarrassment.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:27:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 29/06/23 03:30, TonyCooper wrote:
>
>> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently
>> announced that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for
>> President of the United States.
>>
>> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
>> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
>> the Uyghurs.
>>
>> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>>
>> The complete exchange was:
>>
>>
>> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>>
>> Suarez: The what?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>>
>> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>>
>> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve
>> got to get smart on that.”
>>
>> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>>
>> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it
>> called - a weeble?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
>> mayor.
>>
>> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>>
>> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
>> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
>> only as a last name.
>
>You remind me of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, who used to be the Premier of
>Queensland. Joh had a reputation for running roughshod over laws and the
>constitution. In one famous incident, someone had launched a legal
>action to stop the demolition of a heritage-listed building. The night
>before the court case, Joh ordered in the wrecking ball at midnight, and
>the building was effectively gone by the time the court sat. In other
>cases, he micro-managed the police for clearly political purposes.
>
>Here's part of an interview of Joh.
>
>'What do you understand by the doctrine of separation of powers under
>the Westminster system?'
>
>'The Westminster system? The stock?'
>
>'The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system.'
>
>'No, I don't quite know what you're driving at. The document?'
>
>'No, I'll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of the
>separation of powers under the Westminster system?'
>
>'I don't know which doctrine you refer to.'
>
>'There's only one doctrine of the separation of powers.'
>
>'I believe in it very strongly, and despite what you may say, I believe
>that we do have a great responsibility to the people who elect us to
>government. And that's to maintain their freedom and their rights, and I
>did that - sought to do it - always.'
>
>The really silly part is that he was asked again, a week or so later,
>about "separation of powers", and he still didn't understand the term.
>It hadn't occurred to him to look it up after a major embarrassment.

Do you really think that he did not understand "separation of powers"
as a technical term?

How could he discuss it without the even-larger embarrassment of
raising the controvery, that he didn't give a damn about the system?

It looks to me like faking ignorance was a rational choice.

Here in the US, we have Trump pretending that the Presidential
Papers Act justifies his illegal possession of secret documents.
It looks like a case of willful ignorance.

There were at least four lawyers who each carefully explained to
him, early and late, that he had no legal claim. Recently, a name
has come up of one fellow, a non-lawyer who heads a propaganda
firm called Justice Watch, who told him he could make the claim;
so, I suppose that he can say he did not invent the delusion. But
his adorers apparently accept his whining that he is being unfairly
prosecuted.

Rational choice, it seems, where the scant confusion generated
provides enough cover that most of his competitors for the next
party nomination won't say that he belongs in jail -- if not for
illegally having the documents, then for the long and strong lying
and other obstruction of investigation.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 29/06/23 14:36, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:27:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> You remind me of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, who used to be the
>> Premier of Queensland. Joh had a reputation for running roughshod
>> over laws and the constitution. In one famous incident, someone had
>> launched a legal action to stop the demolition of a heritage-listed
>> building. The night before the court case, Joh ordered in the
>> wrecking ball at midnight, and the building was effectively gone by
>> the time the court sat. In other cases, he micro-managed the police
>> for clearly political purposes.
>>
>> Here's part of an interview of Joh.
>>
>> 'What do you understand by the doctrine of separation of powers
>> under the Westminster system?'
>>
>> 'The Westminster system? The stock?'
>>
>> 'The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster
>> system.'
>>
>> 'No, I don't quite know what you're driving at. The document?'
>>
>> 'No, I'll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of
>> the separation of powers under the Westminster system?'
>>
>> 'I don't know which doctrine you refer to.'
>>
>> 'There's only one doctrine of the separation of powers.'
>>
>> 'I believe in it very strongly, and despite what you may say, I
>> believe that we do have a great responsibility to the people who
>> elect us to government. And that's to maintain their freedom and
>> their rights, and I did that - sought to do it - always.'
>>
>> The really silly part is that he was asked again, a week or so
>> later, about "separation of powers", and he still didn't understand
>> the term. It hadn't occurred to him to look it up after a major
>> embarrassment.
>
> Do you really think that he did not understand "separation of
> powers" as a technical term?
>
> How could he discuss it without the even-larger embarrassment of
> raising the controvery, that he didn't give a damn about the system?
>
> It looks to me like faking ignorance was a rational choice.

That's a possibility. In this case, though, I think it really was
uncaring ignorance. He stayed in power via a sort of gerrymander that
gave rural voters a bigger say than the cities. The educated big-city
people voted against him, but he didn't have to care about that because
the country people kept supporting him.

Here's another good example of ignorance in Australian politics. Pauline
Hanson, the founder of the Racist Party, was asked "Are you xenophobic?"
in an interview, and her response "Please explain" made it obvious that
she'd met a big word that she didn't understand. The consequences made
"Please explain" a joke phrase in this country.

> Here in the US, we have Trump pretending that the Presidential Papers
> Act justifies his illegal possession of secret documents. It looks
> like a case of willful ignorance.
>
> There were at least four lawyers who each carefully explained to him,
> early and late, that he had no legal claim. Recently, a name has
> come up of one fellow, a non-lawyer who heads a propaganda firm
> called Justice Watch, who told him he could make the claim; so, I
> suppose that he can say he did not invent the delusion. But his
> adorers apparently accept his whining that he is being unfairly
> prosecuted.
>
> Rational choice, it seems, where the scant confusion generated
> provides enough cover that most of his competitors for the next party
> nomination won't say that he belongs in jail -- if not for illegally
> having the documents, then for the long and strong lying and other
> obstruction of investigation.

Trump is a special case. He's built up a support base of people who are
prepared to believe him no matter how many lies he trots out. It's
unclear whether he's stupid, or crazy, or just manipulative; but that
doesn't matter, because he's polarised the electorate. Some people
detest him, some support him, and that will remain true no matter what
he does.

Unfortunately the forces against him are in disarray. The Republicans
know he's a liability, but they're scared of alienating his many
supporters. On the other side of politics, the Democrats are stuck with
a candidate who wasn't a good choice in the first place, and ohly won
because he wasn't Trump.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 28/06/2023 19:30, TonyCooper wrote:
> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
> the United States.
>
> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
> the Uyghurs.
>
> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>
> The complete exchange was:
>
>
> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>
> Suarez: The what?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>
> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>
> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
> to get smart on that.”
>
> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>
> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
> - a weeble?
>
> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
> mayor.
>
> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>
> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
> only as a last name.
>
>

Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?

Without wanting to support any wanabe presidential candidate, I cannot
think of any politician anywhere in the world who cannot be tripped by a
pre-prepared 'trap' question as that posed by Hewitt. It is a cheap
journalistic trick which takes no more than 10 minutes of googling
before an interview.

Le 29/06/2023 à 07:58, occam a écrit :
> On 28/06/2023 19:30, TonyCooper wrote:
>>
>> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
>> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
>> the United States.
>>
>> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
>> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
>> the Uyghurs.
>>
>> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>>
>> The complete exchange was:
>>
>>
>> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>>
>> Suarez: The what?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>>
>> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>>
>> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
>> to get smart on that.”
>>
>> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>>
>> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
>> - a weeble?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
>> mayor.
>>
>> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>>
>> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
>> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
>> only as a last name.
>
> Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?
>
> Without wanting to support any wanabe presidential candidate, I cannot
> think of any politician anywhere in the world who cannot be tripped by a
> pre-prepared 'trap' question as that posed by Hewitt. It is a cheap
> journalistic trick which takes no more than 10 minutes of googling
> before an interview.

I agree that people shouldn't be expected to know everything. All the
same, a professional politician who is running for the office of
President of the USA should be well acquainted with his subject, IMHO,
including the politics of other major countries, such as China.

I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
rather more, I think.

Hibou explained :
> Le 29/06/2023 à 07:58, occam a écrit :
>> On 28/06/2023 19:30, TonyCooper wrote:
>>>
>>> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
>>> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
>>> the United States.
>>>
>>> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
>>> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
>>> the Uyghurs.
>>>
>>> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>>>
>>> The complete exchange was:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>>>
>>> Suarez: The what?
>>>
>>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>>>
>>> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>>>
>>> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
>>> to get smart on that.”
>>>
>>> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>>>
>>> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
>>> - a weeble?
>>>
>>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
>>> mayor.
>>>
>>> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>>>
>>> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
>>> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
>>> only as a last name.
>>
>> Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?
>>
>> Without wanting to support any wanabe presidential candidate, I cannot
>> think of any politician anywhere in the world who cannot be tripped by a
>> pre-prepared 'trap' question as that posed by Hewitt. It is a cheap
>> journalistic trick which takes no more than 10 minutes of googling
>> before an interview.
>
> I agree that people shouldn't be expected to know everything. All the same, a
> professional politician who is running for the office of President of the USA
> should be well acquainted with his subject, IMHO, including the politics of
> other major countries, such as China.
>
> I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
> fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know rather
> more, I think.

I agree. We've actually tried that a couple times.

BTW, Warren Harding was elected basically because he /looked/ like a
president.

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

On 29/06/23 16:58, occam wrote:

> Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?

They are a political issue anywhere where points can be scored by
stirring up anti-Chinese feeling. It's hard to arouse sympathy for an
oppressed group, and a whole lot easier to make use of racist attitudes
towards the oppressors.

I don't doubt that Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs amounts to crimes
against humanity. Unfortunately this sort of oppression is happening all
around the world. If you campaign for fair treatment of the Uyghurs, you
are neglecting the similar mistreatment of the indigenous people of
Brazil, the Rohingyas in Myanmar, the Palestinians in the occupied West
Bank, several ethnic minorities in Africa, and so on, and on, and on.
There are so many such cases that you could burn yourself out worrying
about them all.

There is no easy solution for the problem. The one thing we can be sure
of, though, is that politicians will cynically take advantage of the
scandals, without offering any solution.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 29/06/2023 14:04, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 29/06/23 16:58, occam wrote:
>
>> Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?
>
> They are a political issue anywhere where points can be scored by
> stirring up anti-Chinese feeling. It's hard to arouse sympathy for an
> oppressed group, and a whole lot easier to make use of racist attitudes
> towards the oppressors.
>
> I don't doubt that Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs amounts to crimes
> against humanity. Unfortunately this sort of oppression is happening all
> around the world. If you campaign for fair treatment of the Uyghurs, you
> are neglecting the similar mistreatment of the indigenous people of
> Brazil, the Rohingyas in Myanmar, the Palestinians in the occupied West
> Bank, several ethnic minorities in Africa, and so on, and on, and on.
> There are so many such cases that you could burn yourself out worrying
> about them all.
>
> There is no easy solution for the problem. The one thing we can be sure
> of, though, is that politicians will cynically take advantage of the
> scandals, without offering any solution.
>

I accept all that.

However, with this particular politician and this particular journalist
you have to bear in mind that they don't know, nor care for any issues
beyond their own shadows. The journalist is being disingenuous by
pretending to care, while the politician is trying to cover his
ignorance by promising to find out.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 1:30:47 PM UTC-4, TonyCooper wrote:
>
> > Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
> > that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
> > the United States.
> >
> > In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
> > human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
> > the Uyghurs.
> >
> > Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
> >
> > The complete exchange was:
> >
> >
> > Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
> >
> > Suarez: The what?
> >
> > Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
> >
> > Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
> >
> > Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
> > to get smart on that.”
> >
> > Later in the interview this exchange took place:
> >
> > Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
> > - a weeble?
> >
> > Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
> > mayor.
> >
> > Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
> >
> > Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
> > prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
> > only as a last name.
> Hugh Hewitt, a radio host, used to be a T**** apologist, appearing regularly
> on NBC's *Meet the Press* discussion panels. He has now fully crossed
> over to rightwing nutcase (and has not been on MtP in a very long time)
> and was most likely trying to embarrass Suarez. Suarez unfortunately doesn't
> have the experience to disarm the questioner the way Dubya did when someone
> tried something similar in the 2000 campaign by asking him to identify some
> rather obscure world leaders.

Obscure? A nuclear war threatens Taiwan and mainland China and their leaders names are obscure?

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:58:02 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 28/06/2023 19:30, TonyCooper wrote:
>> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL). He has recently announced
>> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
>> the United States.
>>
>> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
>> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
>> the Uyghurs.
>>
>> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>>
>> The complete exchange was:
>>
>>
>> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>>
>> Suarez: The what?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>>
>> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>>
>> Hewitt: OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
>> to get smart on that.”
>>
>> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>>
>> Suarez: You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
>> - a weeble?
>>
>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
>> mayor.
>>
>> Suarez: Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>>
>> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
>> prounciation threw him off. Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
>> only as a last name.
>>
>>
>
>Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?
>
>Without wanting to support any wanabe presidential candidate, I cannot
>think of any politician anywhere in the world who cannot be tripped by a
>pre-prepared 'trap' question as that posed by Hewitt. It is a cheap
>journalistic trick which takes no more than 10 minutes of googling
>before an interview.

Suarez is not running for office in Florida. He's already the Mayor
of Miami.

What doesn't bode well for Suarez is his inability to duck, deflect,
and divert when presented with a "trap" question...an essential
ability for a politician aspiring to higher office.

A better reply would have been:

"Good question, Hugh, but some priorities have to be determined on
human rights issues. What I'm most concerned with at the moment are
issues that more directly affect hard-working Americans like Biden's
open door border policies that admit criminals from totalitarian
regimes like Cuba."

(Then, later, asking an aide "What the fuck's an ooger?)

The suggested reply doesn't indicate that Suarez doesn't have any idea
what a Uyghur is, contains a meaningless claim to having priorities,
and contains proper Republican buzzword phrases like "hard-working
Americans", "Biden's open door policies", and a reference to the
totalitarian regime in Cuba. The latter plays well to Suarez's base.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:36:54 AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Here in the US, we have Trump pretending that the Presidential
> Papers Act justifies his illegal possession of secret documents.
> It looks like a case of willful ignorance.

Have you heard the Smoking Gun tape? CNN isn't saying where they
got it -- likely from the journalists who were interviewing him, no?
He actually says that this is a secret document, and that he could
have declassified it while in office but can't now.

(A transcript was in the indictment, but now the audio has come out.)

The problem is that this took place in Bedminster, NJ, and the defense
could argue that the matter has to be tried in the jurisdiction where the
alleged offense occurred, so they can't (yet) charge the felony of disseminating
classified information to the uncleared.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:36:54?AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
>> Here in the US, we have Trump pretending that the Presidential
>> Papers Act justifies his illegal possession of secret documents.
>> It looks like a case of willful ignorance.
>
>Have you heard the Smoking Gun tape? CNN isn't saying where they
>got it -- likely from the journalists who were interviewing him, no?
>He actually says that this is a secret document, and that he could
>have declassified it while in office but can't now.
>
>(A transcript was in the indictment, but now the audio has come out.)

Right. I was behindtimes.

BUT the latest claim from Trump is that he did not have a
classified doument at the time and he was lying when he
said he did. The word used was 'bravado' -- which
Lawrence O'Donnell jumped on (MSNBC) last night.

We've sort-of been there before, when he discounted the
Good Morning America tape (grab their pussy, they won't
complain if you're rich) as locker-room exaggeration.

>
>The problem is that this took place in Bedminster, NJ, and the defense
>could argue that the matter has to be tried in the jurisdiction where the
>alleged offense occurred, so they can't (yet) charge the felony of disseminating
>classified information to the uncleared.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 29/06/2023 09:53, Hibou wrote:
> Le 29/06/2023 à 07:58, occam a écrit :
>> On 28/06/2023 19:30, TonyCooper wrote:
>>>
>>> Francis Suarez is the Mayor of Miami (FL).  He has recently announced
>>> that he's in the running to be the Republican nominee for President of
>>> the United States.
>>>
>>> In a interview on the radio by Hugh Hewitt, the subject turned to
>>> human rights abuses, and he was asked if his campaign would mention
>>> the Uyghurs.
>>>
>>> Puzzled, the mayor responded "What's a Uyghur?"
>>>
>>> The complete exchange was:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hewitt: Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?
>>>
>>> Suarez: The what?
>>>
>>> Hewitt: The Uyghurs.
>>>
>>> Suarez: What’s a Uyghur?
>>>
>>> Hewitt:  OK, we’ll come back to that. Let me, you won’t be, you’ve got
>>> to get smart on that.”
>>>
>>> Later in the interview this exchange took place:
>>>
>>> Suarez:  You gave me homework, Hugh. I’ll look at a — what’s it called
>>> - a weeble?
>>>
>>> Hewitt:  The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs,
>>> mayor.
>>>
>>> Suarez:  Uyghurs, I’m a good learner, a fast learner.
>>>
>>> Suarez later claimed that he knew about the Uyghurs, but Hewitt's
>>> prounciation threw him off.  Kinda like the excuse of finding Uyghur
>>> only as a last name.
>>
>> Are Uyghurs a big political issue in Miami?
>>
>> Without wanting to support any wanabe presidential candidate,  I cannot
>> think of any politician anywhere in the world who cannot be tripped by a
>> pre-prepared 'trap' question as that posed by Hewitt.  It is a cheap
>> journalistic trick which takes no more than 10 minutes of googling
>> before an interview.
>
> I agree that people shouldn't be expected to know everything. All the
> same, a professional politician who is running for the office of
> President of the USA should be well acquainted with his subject, IMHO,
> including the politics of other major countries, such as China.
>
> I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
> fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
> rather more, I think.
>
There's an (American) saying that "All politics is local".
Some seem to be confused by anything which isn't (very) local.

Maybe he secretly has a profound knowledge of the topic, but recognises
that his potential voters haven't a clue, and wouldn't ever vote for
some d@mned intellectual.

Le 29/06/2023 à 15:46, TonyCooper a écrit :
>
> What doesn't bode well for Suarez is his inability to duck, deflect,
> and divert when presented with a "trap" question...an essential
> ability for a politician aspiring to higher office.

I suspect you're right, and wish you weren't.

When someone says to me "I don't know", I think: "Good for you; that's
the intelligent and honest thing to say, rather than trying to bluff it
out." When I hear politicians being evasive on the radio, on the other
hand, I end up despising them, and wondering why they bother being
interviewed at all if that's the end result.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:32:19 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:36:54?AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >
> >> Here in the US, we have Trump pretending that the Presidential
> >> Papers Act justifies his illegal possession of secret documents.
> >> It looks like a case of willful ignorance.
> >
> >Have you heard the Smoking Gun tape? CNN isn't saying where they
> >got it -- likely from the journalists who were interviewing him, no?
> >He actually says that this is a secret document, and that he could
> >have declassified it while in office but can't now.
> >
> >(A transcript was in the indictment, but now the audio has come out.)
> Right. I was behindtimes.
>
> BUT the latest claim from Trump is that he did not have a
> classified doument at the time and he was lying when he
> said he did. The word used was 'bravado' -- which
> Lawrence O'Donnell jumped on (MSNBC) last night.
>
> We've sort-of been there before, when he discounted the
> Good Morning America tape (grab their pussy, they won't
> complain if you're rich) as locker-room exaggeration.

Yabbut this time they don't have a "Hillary's emails" shiny object to
distract the press with.

Speaking of which, no one on NPR mentioned with the end of the
Hunter Biden affair "Hunter's laptop," which was apparently the most
important object in the universe (or our universe) for months. Has
MSNBC clarified that? (I though O'Donnell was long gone.)

> >The problem is that this took place in Bedminster, NJ, and the defense
> >could argue that the matter has to be tried in the jurisdiction where the
> >alleged offense occurred, so they can't (yet) charge the felony of disseminating
> >classified information to the uncleared.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 5:41:18 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 29/06/2023 09:53, Hibou wrote:

> > I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
> > fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
> > rather more, I think.
> >
> There's an (American) saying that "All politics is local".

That was Tip O'Neill, Democratic Speaker of the House who got along
famously with fellow Irishman Reagan -- while never abandoning his
Massachusetts liberal credentials. His point was that you have to pay
attention to local concerns in order to get elected and reelected in the
first place.

Too-long-time Senator Alphonse d'Amato (R-NY) was known as Senator
Pothole for his attention to such matters, to the near exclusion of
everything else.

> Some seem to be confused by anything which isn't (very) local.

They probably have no idea who their Representative or Senators are.

> Maybe he secretly has a profound knowledge of the topic, but recognises
> that his potential voters haven't a clue, and wouldn't ever vote for
> some d@mned intellectual.

You Stefan, you!

On 30/06/2023 15:00, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 5:41:18 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 29/06/2023 09:53, Hibou wrote:
>
>>> I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
>>> fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
>>> rather more, I think.
>>>
>> There's an (American) saying that "All politics is local".
> Soneone who posts in other groups
> That was Tip O'Neill, Democratic Speaker of the House who got along
> famously with fellow Irishman Reagan -- while never abandoning his
> Massachusetts liberal credentials. His point was that you have to pay
> attention to local concerns in order to get elected and reelected in the
> first place.
>
> Too-long-time Senator Alphonse d'Amato (R-NY) was known as Senator
> Pothole for his attention to such matters, to the near exclusion of
> everything else.
>
>> Some seem to be confused by anything which isn't (very) local.
>
> They probably have no idea who their Representative or Senators are.
>
>> Maybe he secretly has a profound knowledge of the topic, but recognises
>> that his potential voters haven't a clue, and wouldn't ever vote for
>> some d@mned intellectual.
>
> You Stefan, you!

Spelling d@mned that way is just a foible I picked up along the way.
A chap who posts elsewhere, uses the pen name Sn!pe.

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 5:41:18 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 29/06/2023 09:53, Hibou wrote:
>
> > > I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
> > > fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
> > > rather more, I think.
> > >
> > There's an (American) saying that "All politics is local".
> That was Tip O'Neill, Democratic Speaker of the House who got along
> famously with fellow Irishman Reagan -- while never abandoning his
> Massachusetts liberal credentials. His point was that you have to pay
> attention to local concerns in order to get elected and reelected in the
> first place.
>
> Too-long-time Senator Alphonse d'Amato (R-NY) was known as Senator
> Pothole for his attention to such matters, to the near exclusion of
> everything else.
> > Some seem to be confused by anything which isn't (very) local.
> They probably have no idea who their Representative or Senators are.
> > Maybe he secretly has a profound knowledge of the topic, but recognises
> > that his potential voters haven't a clue, and wouldn't ever vote for
> > some d@mned intellectual.
> You Stefan, you!

Now. Now, then ... let's not condemn bravery. Please.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 20:22:11 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 30/06/2023 15:00, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 5:41:18 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2023 09:53, Hibou wrote:
> >
> >>> I've heard various things about the Uyghurs over the years, and I'm only
> >>> fitfully interested in politics. A prospective president should know
> >>> rather more, I think.
> >>>
> >> There's an (American) saying that "All politics is local".
> > Soneone who posts in other groups
> > That was Tip O'Neill, Democratic Speaker of the House who got along
> > famously with fellow Irishman Reagan -- while never abandoning his
> > Massachusetts liberal credentials. His point was that you have to pay
> > attention to local concerns in order to get elected and reelected in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Too-long-time Senator Alphonse d'Amato (R-NY) was known as Senator
> > Pothole for his attention to such matters, to the near exclusion of
> > everything else.
> >
> >> Some seem to be confused by anything which isn't (very) local.
> >
> > They probably have no idea who their Representative or Senators are.
> >
> >> Maybe he secretly has a profound knowledge of the topic, but recognises
> >> that his potential voters haven't a clue, and wouldn't ever vote for
> >> some d@mned intellectual.
> >
> > You Stefan, you!
>
> Spelling d@mned that way is just a foible I picked up along the way.
> A chap who posts elsewhere, uses the pen name Sn!pe.

He is a rude anagram of a nym.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
> BUT the latest claim from Trump is that he did not have a
> classified doument at the time and he was lying when he
> said he did. The word used was 'bravado' -- which
> Lawrence O'Donnell jumped on (MSNBC) last night.
>
> We've sort-of been there before, when he discounted the
> Good Morning America tape (grab their pussy, they won't
> complain if you're rich) as locker-room exaggeration.

I'd say that that's braggadocio rather than bravado?
Then again, I expect him to covfefe up lots of things like that.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:14:21 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:

>Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
>> BUT the latest claim from Trump is that he did not have a
>> classified doument at the time and he was lying when he
>> said he did. The word used was 'bravado' -- which
>> Lawrence O'Donnell jumped on (MSNBC) last night.
>>
>> We've sort-of been there before, when he discounted the
>> Good Morning America tape (grab their pussy, they won't
>> complain if you're rich) as locker-room exaggeration.
>
>I'd say that that's braggadocio rather than bravado?

Okay, Good Morning America tape was braggadocio.

Lying about the document was more braggadocio than
bravado, but I imagine he likes the overtones better
for the latter, even if it doesn't fit as well. These are
both bigger words than he generally uses.

>Then again, I expect him to covfefe up lots of things like that.
>

--
Rich Ulrich